I agree with most of your last paragraph, namely that greedy and inhumane capitalism causes huge amounts of damage (arguably more so than religious ideologies), but that is not the discussion here. What, pray tell, is wrong (both morally and factually) with strongly denouncing Islam?

As for that appalling, intellectually dishonest hackjob of an article you link to (which of course uses the term "Islamophobia" non-ironically, displaying it's dishonesty from the get-go), PZ Myers expresses better than I would* how such atheist-bashing fails hard, with the bonus of putting Sam Harris in his place viz. "the war on terror" (Harris lost most of his credibility for me when he defended racial/religious profiling, and Dawkins when he took the wrong side in the feminism debate, but I digress).

If you really agree with the lines you quoted, you might want to read a history book or, you know, watch the news. I would snidely suggest you go live the life of a woman, atheist or homosexual (to name only a few) in a place ruled by religion if you still adhered to such a belief, but that would be meanness beyond even me.

*http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/04/03/both-wrong-both-right/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/04/12/why-should-anyone-have-to-read-your-goofy-holy-book/

PZ Myers has a great response to this criticism: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/29/john-logsdon-hits-the-big-time/

>> ^peggedbea:

i'm upvoting only for the discussion here.
i'm an atheist. but i'm not a passionate one.
i normally really like chris hedge's.
i normally really don't like sam harris, or pz myers for that matter. i used to really really dislike hitchen's (the whole pro-iraq war thing) but i find him more palletable now. i think hedge's nailed what exactly it is about those men that rubs me the wrong way, it's the haughtiness.

but... this clip is full of straw men. it's beneath hedge's. feels like an advertisement for his book. but instead of making me want to read it, it makes me want to throw it at him for trying to sell shit with straw men and inflammatory-ish-ness. he can do better.


@peggedbea I have to completely agree, I've seen some really excellent arguments and speeches made by Hedges, so I was a bit saddened to see the over-generalized arguments he makes in this advert. Reading the quotes @dystopianfuturetoday posted (and I've seen the debates) leads me to believe there are some elements of truth in Hedges argument, however the way he presents it completely misses out the detail, where important distinctions are made.

i'm upvoting only for the discussion here.

i'm an atheist. but i'm not a passionate one.
i normally really like chris hedge's.
i normally really don't like sam harris, or pz myers for that matter. i used to really really dislike hitchen's (the whole pro-iraq war thing) but i find him more palletable now. i think hedge's nailed what exactly it is about those men that rubs me the wrong way, it's the haughtiness.



but... this clip is full of straw men. it's beneath hedge's. feels like an advertisement for his book. but instead of making me want to read it, it makes me want to throw it at him for trying to sell shit with straw men and inflammatory-ish-ness. he can do better.

I don't know how good this man's positions are on other topics, but when it comes to atheism and anti-theism, he spouts such a load of ignorant nonsense it makes my brain hurt. I could rant on about strawman arguments, gross misrepresentation, etc etc, but PZ Myers says it all much better than I could:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/chris_hedges_wastes_everyones.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/what_the_f_is_wrong_with_chris.php

@SDGundamX (warning, long post, in 2 parts, w/tldr @end)

From the content of your reply I'm going to assume (or should I hope?) that you are playing the devil's advocate in your defense of religious belief/faith(addressed in 2nd comment below); correct me if I'm wrong. As for me, I readily admit that my defense of rudeness is presented in a spirit of controversy; I also prefer direct but insultless argumentation in these kinds of debates, but am not against the occasional use of painful - even insulting - truths.

On "Rudity"

Before answering on this subject, I think it is important to stress that the woman above is a comedian, something surely stated in her presentation at the show's beginning. I would defend her exclamation regardless, but the fact definitely makes it easier, since hyperbole, shock and insult are all tools of the comedian's/satirist's trade. You might say that she's not at a comedy show, to which I would answer that one need not be.

You ask for examples of rudeness/insult-laden arguments being productive. I would gesture very generally in the direction of those whose wavering minds were decided by the argumentation of the "New Atheists", some of whom are utterly disrespectful of faith and religious beliefs... 'insultingly so' I might add. Sure, they do not say outright "religious believers are idiots" (nor does Kate mind you), but say as much and worse about their beliefs. PZ Myers, one of the most foul-mouthed "New Atheists" on the web and irl (one example which even I found excessively harsh), has been encouraged by ex-believers to continue debating creationists (something he, like others, has renounced, because of the weight of the stupidity); because it works.

I don't think my personal anecdotal evidence counts for much, but since you asked (and since I'm rambling)... The process of my parents' deconversion from evangelical christianity, brought about by yours truly, contained copious amounts of insult, the quality and quantity of which would make the mild "idiot" comment above seem like a compliment in comparison. I'm not particularly proud of my teenage, anger-spurred vulgarity of that time, and were it to be redone I'd definitely tone it down, but I am proud of my relative success: one of my parents is now about as antitheist as I, and while I suspect the other of harbouring a remnant of faith in the supernatural, at least it is never brought up and no longer affects family life or decisions.

You might argue that my insulting descriptions of their dearly-held beliefs were not what convinced them, and you'd be partially right. There were plenty of actual arguments amongst the harsh words. But I was told later (by the parent I fully convinced) that my passionate (read "insulting") tirades against their beliefs is what got them to be questioned; it was the fact that a person they considered as not entirely unintelligent could voice such statements so bluntly that shook them from the comfort of their position of belief. I have also reacted with mocking contempt when facing friends and/or family tempted by other nonsense like conspiracy theories or homeopathy. After OBL's death, one of my close friends let slip that her soon-to-be husband was a 9/11 truther and that she found his stance convincing. I spoke my mind freely (as I do with friends), with words including "pathetic", "stupid" and "he's lost a lot of intellectual respect". Needless to say she was angered (especially since I'd never met the bloke yet), but it did not hinder her from accepting the follow-up argumentation. Had I been more diplomatic, she might have let my argumentation pass by ignored, in favour of an emotionally charged stance.

Yes, I realise the examples above do not concern public debate, but private discussion with people who already had a favourable opinion of me. I don't usually spend time in the company of people who dislike me (or vice-versa), nor do I make a habit of being blunt with people I don't know (okay, maybe a bit on the webs). I have been known to tell evangelical work colleagues that their belief that humankind is twice the offspring of incest is both ridiculous and disgusting, and yet they still speak to me (it helps that here in Europe such beliefs are held by a fringe). Dunno if it had any effect on their beliefs though (and really don't care).



tl;dr: it's a comedian's role to speak truths in uncomfortable ways; persuasion can still be efficient when insult is involved; I'm a contrary bitch with very few friends (but quality ones )
>> ^SDGundamX:
[...] since you believe there are times that being rude or insulting can be productive, I'd like to know if you have any examples (personal examples are fine) of that being the case. I'm just curious what brought you to that conclusion.

@xxovercastxx

Ah, the old accomodationist argument (I'm of the "PZ Myers school" of antitheist critique; his most recent piece on the subject).

I don't think there's a chance in hell that the people she's debating will ever be convinced to change their religious views. People that are watching, however, might be shocked out of their tradition-following torpor and realise just how idiotic faith is. Also, there's nothing macho about speaking the truth, even when it's spoken so bluntly. And it feels good to hear someone unabashedly say out loud what most of us think anyways.

For those of us who call that god "non-existent" , PZ Myers has a few words: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/thats_not_my_nation_mr_preside.php

^Hell, keep posting it-One-Stop shopping.>> ^Deano:

PZ Myers with a return beat-down!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/kurzweil_still_doesnt_
understa.php
[Should I keep posting these or are the interested readers just using reddit et al to keep abreast?]

PZ Myers with a return beat-down!

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/kurzweil_still_doesnt_understa.php

[Should I keep posting these or are the interested readers just using reddit et al to keep abreast?]

Here are the lyrics for you sing-alongers out there:

Lyrics:

[Michael Shermer]
Science is the best tool ever devised
For understanding how the world works

[Jacob Bronowski]
Science is a very human form of knowledge
We are always at the brink of the known

[Carl Sagan]
Science is a collaborative enterprise
Spanning the generations
We remember those who prepared the way
Seeing for them also

[Neil deGrasse Tyson]
If you're scientifically literate,
The world looks very different to you
And that understanding empowers you

Refrain:
[Richard Dawkins]
There's real poetry in the real world
Science is the poetry of reality

[Sagan]
We can do science
And with it, we can improve our lives

[Jill Tarter]
The story of humans is the story of ideas
That shine light into dark corners

[Lawrence Krauss]
Scientists love mysteries
They love not knowing

[Richard Feynman]
I don't feel frightened by not knowing things
I think it's much more interesting

[Brian Greene]
There's a larger universal reality
of which we are all apart

[Stephen Hawking]
The further we probe into the universe
The more remarkable are the discoveries we make

[Carolyn Porco]
The quest for the truth, in and of itself,
Is a story that's filled with insights

(Refrain)

[Greene]
From our lonely point in the cosmos
We have through the power of thought
Been able to peer back to a brief moment
After the beginning of the universe

[PZ Myers]
I think that science changes the way your mind works
To think a little more deeply about things

[Dawkins]
Science replaces private predjudice
With publicly verifiable evidence

(Refrain)

Via PZ Myers, who offers up this little witticism:

"Somehow, I get the idea that Steven L. Anderson, the flaming anti-gay pastor, has these dreams in which he stands shoulder to shoulder with a long line of men, and they all unzip and flip out their penises and spray a mighty stream forth, together, with pride and joy…and he feels good about these dreams. Glory!"

>> ^cybrbeast:
I really like Bill Maher, but I hope he takes his time off to ponder his stance on real medicine and alternative medicine.
Michael Shermer from Skeptic's Magazine wrote an open letter on the subject to Bill Maher. I hope he listens.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,4465,An-O
pen-Letter-to-Bill-Maher-on-Vaccinations,Michael-Shermer


Hear, hear, Bill Maher is batshit crazy when it comes to vaccines and medicine, ranking right up there with the reality-deniers he makes fun of.

PZ Myers:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/bill_maher_still_doesnt_get_it.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/another_thing_that_annoyed_me.php

CNN just had this poll.PZ Myers mentioned it on his blog and it ended up something like:
33% Yes     67% No     With about 30K votes

That being said, he was raised as an anglican Christian, So he tends to stick with that when he challenges specific religious claims. What he mainly does speak against, however, is Gods, any and all gods, the abrahamic, hindu, norse or greek gods, or the more deistic god of the enlightenment, and most certainly the creationist God that people try combating science with.

Speaking of Creationist loonies, Heard the recent exchange between Ray "The banana Man" Comfort and Blogger and Biology Professor PZ Myers? Its hilarious.


Ray Comfort:"I simply expose atheistic evolution for the unscientific fairy tale that it is, and I do it with common logic. I ask questions about where the female came from for each species. Every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. Evolution has no explanation for the female for every species in creation,"

PZ Myers response:"I know Ray is rather stupid, but who knew he could be that stupid. This has been explained to him multiple times: evolution does explain this stuff trivially. Populations evolve, not individuals, and male and female elephants evolved from populations of pre-elephants that contained males and females. Species do not arise from single new mutant males that then have to find a corresponding mutant female – they arise by the diffusion of variation through a whole population, male and female."

Comfort counters...At what point of time in evolutionary history did the female evolve alongside the male? And why did she evolve? Then explain, if you would professor, why horses, giraffes, cattle, zebras, leopards, primates, antelopes, pigs, dogs, sheep, fish, goats, mice, squirrels, whales, chickens, dinosaurs, beavers, cats, human beings and rats also evolved with a female, at some point of time in evolutionary history.

At this appalling ignorance, most of us would just give up, But not PZ, instead he lashes out the most embarrasing (for Comfort) putdowns in the history of ass-whopping:
Elephantine errors from Ray Comfort