[ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant

[JOSHUA JOB]

> Tonight, I finally watched the whole thing. It made me feel like I  
> was 18 years old again. An aggressive atheist. A guy who went to  
> classes wearing badges (US: buttons) saying things like "legalize  
> heroin", "taxation is theft", and "God is dead". It reminded me of  
> confidently -- nay, arrogantly -- telling the religious buffoons  
> what's what. And you know what? Every thing Condell says is  
> basically right.
Well, I don't where badges/buttons but I do speak my mind a good deal  
(a short conversation on anything related to politics/religion will  
make it quite clear where I stand). I imagine that my confidence in my  
own ideas can at times come across as arrogance. Often, even, it isn't  
merely an appearance, I often am arrogant consciously. I generally  
prefer arrogance (of a certain kind) to being wishy-washy in the realm  
of ideas, so perhaps that is one of the reasons I love Condell.

Older people (parents for example) often tell me I'll moderate as grow  
older. I sure hope not, that would be sorely disappointing. haha
> Yet, his attitude and approach, while refreshing, leaving me feeling  
> that his message is purely and pointlessly a preaching-to-the-choir  
> approach. Its value is completely one of entertainment. No, okay, it  
> may also kick some atheists in the ass and inspire them to do  
> something more active to combat the major problems that come with  
> religious thinking.
>
> While Condell's aggressive approach definitely has a degree of  
> wisdom (and a load of intellectual good sense), is it really  
> appropriate to, or useful for, or humanistic in, dealing with all  
> situations?
Depends on your aim. Other atheists/agnostics/non-religious folks I've  
talked to often criticize Dawkins for giving atheism a bad reputation,  
for being counter-productive, etc. I think he does an excellent job. I  
think really really religious people are sort of hopeless cases to an  
extent, and  I think Dawkins/Condell style atheists generally can  
serve the function of helping moderates and quasi-religious folks to  
re-examine their ideas. And the good kick in the pants of course.
> A Pat Condell-style atheist might tell simply tell my brother that  
> he is an idiot to believe this crap. I agreed to actually read this  
> book and -- unless it really is *monumentally* stupid -- I intend to  
> discuss it with my brother exploratively rather than explaining  
> abruptly to him why his decades-long religious beliefs are moronic.
>
> Am I a just a weak fool to do this? Is Condell's attitude and  
> approach always useful/appropriate/effective/wise?
>
> Max
Well, since he's your brother, I would be a bit more diplomatic. If I  
were in your position, I would have been having this sort of  
conversation for a long time with my brother, and so I doubt that he  
would ask me to read such a book. And, honestly, if he did, I would  
refuse (unless it seemed to be genuinely interesting on non-religious  
grounds; I am interested in the Left Behind novels, but for the evil  
dictator/tyranny part, not the God parts).

I actually had a similar situation with my ex-girlfriend who was  
pretty religious (in retrospect, big mistake, and I won't be repeating  
it). She asked me to watch "The Case for Christ" I think its called.  
It was terrible, and had massive flaws in logic and evidence. The  
journalist who made had his wife convert, which caused major marital  
and emotional strain, which to me is a much better explanation for his  
conversion than any "evidence-based" decision (the evidence wasn't  
good either, btw). I told her as much, and she kept trying, and  
eventually I said I would never believe in God, and certainly never  
one religion's version, because in order to do so I would have to be a  
completely different person from the core out. We broke up the next  
day. :p

My point in relating that story is that I have basically given up on  
the idea that I can convince hard-core religious people that they're  
wrong, and so while I might talk with them as an exercise in hilarity,  
I wouldn't put any weight on it at all. So while Condell/Dawkins style  
atheism might not be diplomatic or bring people who are quite  
religious over to "the dark side", I don't see that as a drawback  
really. I think the radicals often accomplish more than the moderates  
in these sorts of things.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com