Confrontation or Accommodation?

[Trooper]

Kick me down some opinions, please? How should atheists defend their position against humanists, who are calling atheists hypocritical, proselytizing fundamentalists?

Their views are very similar to Genie Scott’s, who says at the very end of this video, “If your goal is to increase the number of atheists then fine, cultivate your plant and watch it grow, but your plant doesn’t own the soil.” Shouldn't she be telling this to those “prolific re-seeders” and “invasive plants” that quickly take over our garden? :shrug:

Confrontation or Accommodation? Genie Scott

 

[James R]

I'm not sure how you're distinguishing between "atheists" and "humanists". Many atheists are humanists, and vice versa.

 

[Trooper]

I'm not sure how you're distinguishing between "atheists" and "humanists". Many atheists are humanists, and vice versa.

Epstein style!

A group of renowned Humanists, atheists and agnostics will gather at Harvard in April, to take on an unlikely opponent: atheist “fundamentalists.”

Among the millions of Americans who don’t believe God exists, there’s a split between people such as Greg Epstein, who holds the partially endowed post of humanist chaplain at Harvard University, and so-called “New Atheists.”
Epstein and other humanists feel their movement is on the verge of explosive growth, but are concerned it will be dragged down by what they see as the militancy of New Atheism.

The most pre-eminent New Atheists include best-selling authors Richard Dawkins, who has called the God of the Old Testament “a psychotic delinquent,” and Sam Harris, who foresees global catastrophe unless faith is renounced. They say religious belief is so harmful it must be defeated and replaced by science and reason.

Epstein calls them “atheist fundamentalists.” He sees them as rigid in their dogma, and as intolerant as some of the faith leaders with whom atheists share the most obvious differences.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/04/02/atheists-argue-about-ap-article/

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Kick me down some opinions, please? How should atheists defend their position against humanists, who are calling atheists hypocritical, proselytizing fundamentalists?

Many atheists are humanists. Remember, atheism isn't a philosophy. It's simply the non-acceptance of the claim "God exists". If someone is trying to position atheists as fundamentalists then I would simply ask that person "how?".

Their views are very similar to Genie Scott’s, who says at the very end of this video, “If your goal is to increase the number of atheists then fine, cultivate your plant and watch it grow, but your plant doesn’t own the soil.” Shouldn't she be telling this to those “prolific re-seeders” and “invasive plants” that quickly take over our garden? :shrug:

Confrontation or Accommodation? Genie Scott

I think Gene Scott mis-understands Atheism. It doesn't have a goal. It's not a montra, it's not a philosophy, it's a simple non-acceptance of a specific assertion. After looking at the article it looks like Gene Scott wants to gain atheists respect from theists through social relationships, but he is worried that popular atheists will undo those relationships through their constant presentation of evidence and reason.

In other words, Gene Scott want's atheists to have a value set of respect first->then truth rather than the reverse.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Kick me down some opinions, please? How should atheists defend their position against humanists, who are calling atheists hypocritical, proselytizing fundamentalists?

I just leave them alone because they have the right to believe in whatever they want to. By confronting anyone you are only becoming argumentative and that doesn't create a way to change others minds , only upset them.

 

[scheherazade]

“Trooper
Kick me down some opinions, please? How should atheists defend their position against humanists, who are calling atheists hypocritical, proselytizing fundamentalists? "

What's to defend, when you consider the question? If one wants a discussion, one can always ask the believer to explain why they believe, and be polite enough to listen to the response.

Afterwards, one can merely suggest that none of that has presented to oneself.

cosmictraveler
I just leave them alone because they have the right to believe in whatever they want to. By confronting anyone you are only becoming argumentative and that doesn't create a way to change others minds , only upset them.

I generally share this view with the exception of those religions who consider that those who are not members are expendable. Confrontation on this topic serves no purpose as belief is not a logical process. Countries where death is an honor according to religious belief would not be on my list for potential visiting. :bugeye:

 

[Yazata]

Kick me down some opinions, please? How should atheists defend their position against humanists, who are calling atheists hypocritical, proselytizing fundamentalists?

I agree with JamesR in questionng the 'humanist'/'atheist' distinction.

But yeah, it's true that some atheists do resemble hypocritical proselytizing fundamentalists. Not all atheists obviously, but a highly visible minority of them.

Their views are very similar to Genie Scott’s, who says at the very end of this video, “If your goal is to increase the number of atheists then fine, cultivate your plant and watch it grow, but your plant doesn’t own the soil.”

If somebody wants somebody else to agree with something, then the first person needs to bring the second person around to the point where that person wants to agree.

That implies that the best strategy is to be emotionally sympathetic and intellectually persuasive. Hostility and dismissiveness will just harden the other person against whatever it is that you want them to accept.

(That's the great failing of so much political rhetoric.)

 

[spidergoat]

Calling atheists fundamentalists is beyond retarded. Fundamentalism is rigid attachment to a faith position. Atheism isn't faith. The new atheists are just being intellectually honest about the incompatibility between a rational society and supernatural religions.

 

[wynn]

Kick me down some opinions, please? How should atheists defend their position against humanists, who are calling atheists hypocritical, proselytizing fundamentalists?

For one, calling people "hypocritical, proselytizing fundamentalists" is not a particularly humanist thing to do.

What's to defend, when you consider the question? If one wants a discussion, one can always ask the believer to explain why they believe, and be polite enough to listen to the response.

I think this is part of the bigger and more fundamental question, namely What should we do when we disagree?

(The epistemology of disagreement is a relatively new, but I think an important field of investigation.)

So I think all parties involved should, in advance, be in the clear what they want, and what they want from the exchange with others in particular.


As for what is there to defend: often, it is one's identity. A rather important item to defend.