Tal Bachman: "I'm not 'demonizing' anyone. I am reporting (accurately) the moral views of prominent people in the atheist camp."


My response:
If I combed through every 140 character statement you've made in the past 10 years, I would probably find a decent collection of things that I found ethically questionable. You are trying to cast certain people in as bad a light as possible by showing the worst of the worst sans context. That is demonization or an attempt anyway.

---
Tal Bachman: "And by the way, I am not a theist. I have NO idea what is happening up there. For all I know, atheism could be true."


My response:
You portray yourself as a neutral bystander, but I don't buy it. I think you clearly have an axe to grind given the quantity and target of these posts.

Whatever moral failings the four horsemen may have, you have allowed far greater ones in the world to pass by you without comment.

---
Tal Bachman: "By the way, I call your bluff on Dawkins. If you really agree with the views of his listed above (for which I posted references in my earlier thread), come out and say so. If you don't agree with them, join me in condemning them."


My response:
So, I'm either you with you or against you, eh?

As others have pointed out repeatedly, Dawkins isn't the atheist Pope. He isn't infallible (no one is), and I don't know any of my fellow atheists who thinks he is. Maybe you consider him to be infallible? I don't know.

Personally, I don't derive my ethical views from his Tweets. (By the way, where did I say I agreed with all the views you listed on the previous thread?)

Since you have failed to condemn many horrible thing in this world, I don't think you're in a position to insist that I make a special point to jump on board with your pet crusade.

Reason is a far more reliable ethical guide than either you or Dawkins. If either one of you makes an error, it is by reason that we will know it--not by appealing to tradition which you seem to be doing cryptically throughout these posts.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2014 08:47PM by archytas.

Is having an axe to grind necessarily a bad thing?

No. But, he might as well wear his agenda on his sleeve instead of pretending not to have one.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2014 12:39AM by archytas.

I disagree with Tal on a few things, but will state this...

I do not necessarily agree that he stated he was "neutral" I also think people that have been exploited by organization such as LDS Inc have a right and duty to warn others.

I think you need to improve your argument.

"I also think people that have been exploited by organization such as LDS Inc have a right and duty to warn others."

What does this have to do with my post?

archytas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I also think people that have been exploited by
> organization such as LDS Inc have a right and duty
> to warn others."
>
> What does this have to do with my post?

My point is that atheism is not a religion. It is a lack of religion, and should not be compared to a religion...or a business masquarading as a religion.

People that have been exploited by these organizations, like me...exploited by both Mormons and those who worship William Griffith Wilson..feel it is important to warn others.

You have not articulated a strong argument to your point.

"My point is that atheism is not a religion. It is a lack of religion, and should not be compared to a religion...or a business masquarading as a religion."

If anyone is arguing that atheism is a religion, it's not me. I'm not sure where you're getting this from.

The view you're describing sounds more like TB's (mis)perception of how atheism works. He seems to think that atheists get their ethical views from famous atheists who happen to have published books.

As an atheist, reason is my ethical guide (not charismatic leaders and not a selective set of embarrassing Tweets).



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2014 01:27AM by archytas.

Trying to lead atheists is like trying to herd cats. Atheists are freethinkers who often don't like following leaders and may even actively dislike leaders. There is no atheist pope. Atheists are so diverse, that it is almost like they have more differences than similarities.

So I think it does not make sense to be prejudiced against atheists in general just because of what several leaders of the New Atheist organization did. (Most atheists do not belong to this organization.)

It's hard for anyone to be completely neutral. Based on Tal's recent posts (because I haven't been here super long), I think he consistently does a pretty good job making unbiased arguments and keeping a tactful tone. I think his messages add value and are helpful at times. I don't get the impression he has a secret agenda; he seems genuine. But maybe that's just me.

Hmmm.

Could it be all right with you, archytas, to listen to Tal Bachman and observe that he appears to have a position while striving to be neutral?

And could it be in the further interest of harmonious discussion to not comment on your observation as a personal flaw?

I personally wish I could be neutral about some things and find my embarrassing or politically incorrect thoughts still keep popping up.

It's possibly human nature.


Kathleen Waters

The point of the oft-quoted line of Gandhi--"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ"--seems to be missed by the New Atheists speaking out publicly against religion. That is, people are inveterate compartmentalizers, not fully honest with themselves and not even aware of this. Thus, when a nominal Christian (i.e., a church member) beats his kid or reviles homosexuals, discriminates against women or spouts hatred, this is not seen as an egoic compartment insulated from his religion but a true sign of it. The miscreant is always a true follower and full representative of his religion's dogmas.

If they don't allow that believers are inconsistent and often (unconsciously) hypocritical but instead insist that they are faithfully living their ideologies, should these spokespersons for the superiority of a science-backing atheism be allowed the sanctuary of compartmentalization that they deny to the theists? And to what degree? "He's a great athlete, so what if he abuses women, children, dogs...?" If on the other hand, we admit that they lack full integrity, and that's only human, we have trouble looking to atheism or science as grounds for moral philosophy. They aren't "living up to it" because it doesn't exist. This despite Harris's TED talk "Science can answer moral questions":
http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right

I'm sorry. What's the LDS doctrine regarding homosexuals?

What are you talking about Mr Foxe. You're just mad that some prominent, public atheists not only don't believe in God or gods, they also insist on calling out religion itself. Too bad. Religion better figure out what it is, that is, what it is that is good; and what it isn't, that is, what is bad; and jettison the bad; or it will be taken as an anachronistic, social ill that needs to be eradicated.

It is not enough for the religious to say, "Religion is good. Religion prompted Ghandi and King to their fights for civil rights!" Because it was religion also that prompted their antagonists to beat and imprison them. No one can doubt ISIS, al Queda, et al. are religious groups.

So the religious cannot say that a priest abusing an alter boy is just a bad actor, and it's not religions fault. Why is the man a priest? What does it mean to be a priest? Because he's a priest he's got the authority to control the alter boy. That's the point. This wasn't personal failings among adults and children. It was institutional. It's religious organization itself that set up the potential for abuse. One cannot win an argument against an Oxford Don by being obtuse and (no pun intended) butt-hurt.

Richard Fox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point of the oft-quoted line of Gandhi--"I
> like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
> Your Christians are so unlike your Christ"--seems
> to be missed by the New Atheists speaking out
> publicly against religion.

Actually, no it is not missed by this atheist. Gandhi said he likes the individual known as Christ, but does not like the collective (religion) Christians. Sounds like Gandhi did not like the Christian religion.

Gandhi was prone to sweeping generalizations.

My point still stand in regards to replying to Richard's claims about what Gandhi said.

I'm joking. Gandhi was doing what Tal doesn't like, judging an entire group of people based on their religion. I think.

Whomever was associated with Shermer, most notably Dawkins, was branded as such....Throwing the Skeptical Community under the bus wasn't much helpful....

Winning rhetorical points seems more important to him than weighing the evidence in an objective fashion.

But, he's found the One True Religion of Pragmatism(tm):
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1355678,1355678#msg-1355678

So, now he has to convert us all, and the facts will be damned in the process.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2014 09:55AM by archytas.

For Archytas,

I'm arriving late to this party, but don't understand your position on a few things. Will you clarify the following?

1. Are you saying that Tal's quotes are fabricated, and he's a liar?

2. Are you saying they're true, but taken out of context?

3. Are you saying the quotes are true, but somehow inconsequential?

4. Or are you saying Tal is just a really bad man because he said some bad things about someone who holds a position similar to yours?

Just wondering. . . So far, it appears you've honed some pretty good personal attacks on Tal, but I have not seen where you are able to reasonably discount what he actually wrote. If that's the case, you're just engaging on one long ad hominem attack, right?

In any reasonable discourse, if you only engage the "messenger" but offer no substantive response to the information delivered, you're just engaging in rhetorical masturbation. Ad hominem attacks feel really good, but do nothing to actually demonstrate a fallacy with the information delivered. It would be helpful if you are able to actually show details of any errors in his information.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


>
> In any reasonable discourse, if you only engage
> the "messenger" but offer no substantive response
> to the information delivered, you're just engaging
> in rhetorical masturbation. Ad hominem attacks
> feel really good...

Heh, "rhetorical masturbation" reminded me of the extremely weird ad hominem Harris recently launched against Greenwald as someone "blogging in his underpants, in Brazil with his ten dogs and his boyfriend." Seems jealous. Maybe it's time he comes out of the closet.

Doubtless, Harris acolytes will pretend he didn't say that, either.

Hi Tall Man,

I was going to let this thread die since it was lost in delivery, but you asked so here it goes.

On points 1 + 2 + 3, he hasn't fabricated any quotes as far as I know, but he has taken many things out of context. Tweets seem to be favored over blogposts or books as a source which should be a red flag.

From a few quotes taken out of context, an entire post was made about how "The Selfish Gene" describes Dawkins's politics. This is incorrect. Whatever your views may be on the gene's eye view of evolution, that book is not about politics. This is just one example, but I am seeing a pattern of this sort of thing.

I also think a lot of confusion is being created by the s two-pronged attack against Dawkins and Harris. These are two different people, and they have different views. I don't agree with them on everything, and they don't agree with each other on everything. I still enjoy their work, and I have found agreement in some areas.

---

As for question 4, I'm here to talk about ideas. I'm not here to call people bad just because they disagree with me. I believe in the open exchange of ideas.

I think it strange that anyone would be asked to defend the opinion of another. I have a hard enough time defending my world view much less defending the world view of someone whom I might find insightful.

I'm reminded of the logical game of trying to decide as a society where to best spend your resources. Does society spend time and resources building up the youth or prolonging the life of the aged? Every time I've heard the discussion the answer is always, hmm, good question. I think that some of us... you know who you are (might be me)... get caught up in believing that there is a right answer.

For what it's worth I think Dawkins has a valid point that deserves some discussion. I also think that Dawkins sounded like a world class tool and the message got buried in the duechery of his ego.

Jacob,

I'm glad you brought up the idea of ethical dilemmas. I think a lot of Dawkins PR trouble comes from him basically "thinking outloud" on Twitter about ethical subjects that are too complicated for that medium.

I can only imagine someone trying to wade through the hypothetical you presented in a series of 140-character posts. There's no way to address the subject properly in that amount of space. And, yes, the person who attempts to "solve" it this way will end up sounding like a tool.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2014 09:31PM by archytas.

Archytas --

You sound as annoyed as Daniel Peterson when someone speaks ill of the Lord's anointed!

Don't mind me. The snerking sound is me obediently stifling my loud laughter.

No one is above criticism: not you or I or any of the Four Horsemen.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2014 09:31PM by archytas.

+ 1,000
None of them has written or said anything to convince me.
Archytas, I respect you a great deal as you understand science, how it's derived & what it isn't. Please try also to understand the difference between defending & proseletyzing.

What does Dan Peterson get annoyed when someone unilaterally hoists beliefs that he doesn't hold on him?

I see two people with different opinions, one person is stating an opinion the other is gifting an opinion on others. Which one are you laughing at?

I don't always agree with Tal Bachman -- in fact I rarely do, but anyone who criticizes him for never speaking out about other wrongs and injustices in the world -- outside of the current crop of outspoken atheists who are acting like asses -- including the wrongs of religions, specifically the wrongs of Mormonism -- is either woefully ignorant of Tal's work -- or completely unfair.

Period.

If you don't know Bachman's record, please uncover it. If you know it and you are ignoring it, so -- you too want to be an ass. Is it like -- a competition or something?

Do we get to judge the winner?

"anyone who criticizes him for never speaking out about other wrongs and injustices in the world"

I didn't say this.

There is a difference between speaking out against something and obsessively posting the same stuff over and over.

I doubt ether you or Tal could withstand the scrutiny Tal is subjecting others to.

Geesh, MJ -- your precious prophets Dawkins, Harris, et al deserve the same scrutiny as Pope Francis and Thomas Monson, to name only two on a long list. And for the same reasons. They seem to be deep into telling everyone how to live their lives and judging others.

If you honestly don't get the deep irony of your self-righteous umbrage -- oh wait! I'm talking to the irony-impaired MJ, the guy who thinks it is cool to discriminate against and judge gays -- if they also happen to be believers. If you can't get the irony in that, you are as tone deaf as -- well -- the cruel Christian right, to name but one entity.

They are not my prophets (such hyperbole is disgusting, offensive and fallacious, yet still expected from haters).

None of the new atheists claim the moral authority of speaking for GOD as leaders of religion.

People that claim such a high level of moral authority as speaking for or on behalf of GOD deserve much higher levels of scrutiny than a person speaking there own personal opinion.

But I will take your offensive response as an admission that you could not withstand the same level of scrutiny.

and your case must be pathetically weak if you have to resort to obnoxious offensive hyperbole like this: "Geesh, MJ -- your precious prophets Dawkins, Harris," you sound just like the anti-gay bigots I have been fighting for years. So how many personal attacks will you make? And you are critical of the atheists when your shit stinks as much or more?

And why is it you have to lie and claim that I view people as prophets when I do not? Lying for the lord?



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/2014 08:13AM by MJ.

They are not prophets by any stretch of imagination...
Scrutinized they are, probably every day of their life...