Implosion at CFI Canada because of accomodationism vs confrontationalism

Sapient's picture

A blog was written today on the implosion of CFI Canada.  As long as we keep having these accomodationist vs confrontationalist arguments we will continue to have implosions. Frankly, it disgusts me that we have done this. I felt the wrath of the accomodationists when I was known for being a confrontationalist. I probably will still have the perception of being one. Even though I am creating a feel good project that supports all atheists.  I think I am a blend of both.  I hope you are too.  

Being able to adjust your method depending on who you interact with is a strong suit.  And if someone sees you are confrontational, why must they label you as always confrontational?  It is also highly hypocritical to be an accomodationalist but be confrontational on the issue of confrontationalists.  It's time for us to elevate our game.  This division has gone on long enough.  We must think critically and with reason.

I have always supported the efforts of those who are excessively passive, and think they should support mine. We must embrace each other even when we don't completely agree. Part of the reason I started Atheism United was to show people how there can be a united front. I look forward to universally supporting both camps.  It's sad how I know the only way to make it work is to not rely on these groups to actually unite.  I will support them whether they support me or not.  And would you believe that there will actually be people who will kick this gift horse in the mouth?  For what?  Because I told someone Jesus was fake on twitter?  
 
Please people, ponder it... we must work together, share a planet together. We can't make such a big deal over tact and approach. Vocalize your disagreement so that your position is known, but you can't let it get to the point where you are shooting yourself in the foot.
 
And if we're really going to make these labels "accomodationist" and "confrontationalist" can we at least admit there are more groups than that?  If we do, we must include a class of people who are still so downtrodden by religion and brainwashed by it's followers that they refuse to speak up and would argue vehemently against someone who does.  Accomodationists aren't a problem... people who are scared to speak up are.  Those people need to sit back and allow everyone else to help humanity move forward, they need to go work on something else.  Maybe environmental clean up, helping the homeless, or relaxing at the pool would be a better activity for people who are so beat by religion that they argue everyone should be quiet.  I used to call that group "Chicken Shit Atheists" but you can come up with a politically correct 15 letter name if you'd like.
 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

What vs. What?

I have no idea why Larry (whom I know personally) cast this as Accommodationism vs. Confrontationism, since neither he nor the articles he links to actually discuss that polarity, and it's the first time I have heard that connection suggested. Ian Blackfield's post summarizes the concerns as I have heard them expressed: management issues at the Toronto office and Justin's involvement in Men's Rights Activism. (Full disclosure: as my "Homepage" indicates, I am a member of CFI Ottawa).

 

Brian37's picture

To quote a song that  pre

To quote a song that  pre dates me "I've looked at clouds from both sides now"

If we are to be consent with science, then it can never be either/or. Even entropy will never create a perpetual motion machine.

The truth is that humans, despite their differences are really more alike than they want to admit. We all want the basics. We all want food, shelter and a means of survival and the company of loved ones. Where we fuck each other over time after time is the dispute of HOW to do that, and confuse labels as being the important issue.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Cpt_pineapple's picture

For me, it's empirically

For me, it's empirically correct vs non-empirically correct regardless of whether they're confrontational or accomidist.

Personally, I think we should work more on the message, then worry about the delivery.

 

Quote:

 It is also highly hypocritical to be an accomodationalist but be confrontational on the issue of confrontationalists.

 

It's also hypocritical to be confrontationalist and demand accomodationalists accomodate you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sapient's picture

 No it isn't and saying

 No it isn't and saying that makes you sound much less intelligent than you really are. Your game is getting annoying, especially now that I know you're a liar.  I don't respect anything you say anymore.  It's through some crazy stroke of luck you're still posting here.  I promised to ban you if I found out you were lying in your drunk threads.  Stop tempting me.

Start thinking before you post your knee jerk negative reactions to everything I say.  I'm putting you on 3 day timeout because you wasted our time with a dishonest game on many a Friday nights with your fake drunk charades.  You can post again on Wednesday.

Here's the other post explaining the Pineapple timeout.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Lion IRC's picture

Confrontationalism versus argumentum ad baculum

Reasonable Faith did a piece a last year commenting on atheists who dont...        "play nice" noting that they dont actually need to play nice and that this is irrelevant to questions of logic and reason.

But I think there actually is an inference one can draw from the hypocrisy of people who feign shock and horror about child abuse by people hiding in the clergy and who then make comments about anally raping Justin Bieber with razor wire. I think that goes beyond "confrontation" and not... "playing nice".

I think there is a clear connection between meanness of some atheists and the paucity of reason in their so-called arguments.

Intimidating your ideological opponent is NOT disconnected from purely rhetorical argument between different sides of the AvT debate.

When atheists dont "play nice" they are, more often than not, partaking in a brute logical fallacy...argumentum ad baculum

Agree with me or I will intimidate and abuse you.

Lion IRC's picture

Speaking of the ad baculum /

Speaking of the ad baculum / confrontationalism problem...

 

  • To avoid getting banned again, I now have to think more carefully about what I say,  (actually it’s more a question of how I say it,) when my ban gets lifted at rationalskepticism.org.  (Am I being inflammatory? Have I included the entire quote along with the small part of it to which I am responding? Is someone going to think I am deliberately misrepresenting them just because I misunderstood the meaning of what they said? Is it inflammatory because Lion IRC said it or would it be inflammatory no matter who said it? Are theists inherently more rude and inflammatory than atheists on the same forum? 
  •  
  • And that is a direct result of the fact that the ban/moderation in question has the potential ability to intimidate and project power
  •  
  • Whether or not they -  the moderations - were a function of some clearly defined, consistently applied, agreed set of posting rules is beside the point. I don’t think they were.  Most forums (fora) have some type of…we reserve/enjoy the right to “ban because we can” clause that is able to be used to camouflage unbridled emotion and anger.  
  •  
  • The fact remains, every future post I make over there is expected to be just that little bit more “gun shy”.
  •  
  • If you don’t want to get banned again you’ll need to be a little bit more “accomodationalist”.
  •  
  • And the net result would be yet another, ever-so-slight, tipping of the scales in favour of the wholly irrational echo chamber syndrome.
  •  
  • Look, Lion IRC agrees with me. He didn’t dispute what I said. He obviously knows I’m right. Look everyone. See how timid Lion IRC is. He must be starting to have doubts. Whatever happened to that Lion IRC dude who stopped coming here? Oh…I finally got the best of him and he gave up.  Probably ashamed to admit he’s slowly becoming an atheist.
  •  
  • But I will say what I want or I wont say anything at all. Because yielding to argumentum ad baculum is gutless.
  •  
  • And I’m not THAT type of Lion.
 

 

butterbattle's picture

Oh yeah, well it's also

Oh yeah, well it's also hypocritical to be accomodationalist and confront confrontationalists that demand accomodationalists to accommodate to them........lol

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

Kapkao's picture

Care for any "support"?

There are many labels used to describe atheists. They range from the awkward, to the juvenile, the enlightening, the insulting, and the minimally  profound. Nevertheless, they are at least out there. Regardless of the axioms you use to define yourself with, you will eventually be 'labelled'. How someone reacts to this is entirely up to them.

I react by self-labelling and self-stereotyping. I also label others if not stereotype them outright. It's "a time saver!", and it happens.

As it happens, the primary label/moniker I use to indentify myself presently is Kapkao. I am an ostentacious defender and hardliner regarding Kapkaoism. (notice the developing irony)

Some subsets of schools of thought that I have could be described as: atheist, freethinker, secularist, misanthorpe, friendly guy, royal asshole, illuminati human sacrificer, Head of CIA(!), shape-shifting reptilian(!!), involved in mind control projects ("oh hell no"!!!), Works with Aquino (...the FUCK????), takes generic-brand welbutrin, has frequent dry mouth, chews gum to reduce bad breath and to focus.

Runs out of gum sometimes. Kicks ass only occassionally.

I'm mostly full of shit, (vaguely) stupid, and nucking futs. More to the point; familiarity with certain people will make them seem to function in predictable, seemingly mechanical ways at times. If you find someone to be beneath you, you will at least want to degrade them as well. What better way than to stereotype? If there were a suggestion I would give to atheists the world over to ponder, it would be "What is the most popular stereotype of atheism you consider there to be? How do you contribute to or take away from that stereotype? (and) What are you willing to do to break that cycle?" NO, not "what I think others should do to break it". That almost never works without a basic sort of organizational ability.

Thinking outside the box, however, works great in 1st person. The funny thing is that I'm no more dehumanized now than I would have been a few minutes before posting this. Probably wouldn't be dehumanized if someone else besides me decides to 'stereotype' my post content, either. Laughing out loud

Food for thought.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Kapkao's picture

Lion IRC wrote:And I’m

Lion IRC wrote:
And I’m not THAT type of Lion.

Not even this kind of lion?

That's a crying shame, because... they make travel times easier. The fact that it's a troll means that it represents one of my toons, and having a troll on your account gives you a very tangible reason to roleplay an Online Troll, if you get my meaning.

I kinda rock at roleplaying at times, but suck at convincing people it's an act afterwards.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Kapkao's picture

dp.

dp.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Lion IRC wrote:Speaking of

Lion IRC wrote:

Speaking of the ad baculum / confrontationalism problem...

 

  • To avoid getting banned again, I now have to think more carefully about what I say,  (actually it’s more a question of how I say it,) when my ban gets lifted at rationalskepticism.org.  (Am I being inflammatory? Have I included the entire quote along with the small part of it to which I am responding? Is someone going to think I am deliberately misrepresenting them just because I misunderstood the meaning of what they said? Is it inflammatory because Lion IRC said it or would it be inflammatory no matter who said it? Are theists inherently more rude and inflammatory than atheists on the same forum? 
  •  
  • And that is a direct result of the fact that the ban/moderation in question has the potential ability to intimidate and project power
  •  
  • Whether or not they -  the moderations - were a function of some clearly defined, consistently applied, agreed set of posting rules is beside the point. I don’t think they were.  Most forums (fora) have some type of…we reserve/enjoy the right to “ban because we can” clause that is able to be used to camouflage unbridled emotion and anger.  
  •  
  • The fact remains, every future post I make over there is expected to be just that little bit more “gun shy”.
  •  
  • If you don’t want to get banned again you’ll need to be a little bit more “accomodationalist”.
  •  
  • And the net result would be yet another, ever-so-slight, tipping of the scales in favour of the wholly irrational echo chamber syndrome.
  •  
  • Look, Lion IRC agrees with me. He didn’t dispute what I said. He obviously knows I’m right. Look everyone. See how timid Lion IRC is. He must be starting to have doubts. Whatever happened to that Lion IRC dude who stopped coming here? Oh…I finally got the best of him and he gave up.  Probably ashamed to admit he’s slowly becoming an atheist.
  •  
  • But I will say what I want or I wont say anything at all. Because yielding to argumentum ad baculum is gutless.
  •  
  • And I’m not THAT type of Lion.
 

 

Unless the force is on your side?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Cpt_pineapple's picture

butterbattle wrote:Oh yeah,

butterbattle wrote:

Oh yeah, well it's also hypocritical to be accomodationalist and confront confrontationalists that demand accomodationalists to accommodate to them........lol

 

I`m not accomodationalist

 

 

 

Vastet's picture

That much is clear.

That much is clear.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Sapient's picture

butterbattle wrote:Oh yeah,

Quote:

it's hypocritical to be accomodationalist and confront confrontationalists 

Yup.

 

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I`m not accomodationalist

You're even weaker then accomodationists.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Cpt_pineapple's picture

Sapient wrote:Cpt_pineapple

Sapient wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I`m not accomodationalist

You're even weaker then accomodationists.

 

 

 

Just because I also confront atheists doesn't make me weak.

 

 

 

Sapient's picture

Cpt_pineapple wrote:Just

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Just because I also confront atheists doesn't make me weak.

Oh thanks strawman for the response.

You confront atheists, you argue that we shouldn't confront theists.  You are an accomodationist.  A weak one.

 You are part of the problem.  You hinder productivity.  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Cpt_pineapple's picture

Sapient wrote:Cpt_pineapple

Sapient wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Just because I also confront atheists doesn't make me weak.

Oh thanks strawman for the response.

You confront atheists, you argue that we shouldn't confront theists.  You are an accomodationist.  A weak one.

 You are part of the problem.  You hinder productivity.  

 

That's a strawman of me. I never said don't confront theists. I said that we shouldn't use irrational claims when we confront theists. I've said this several times.

I critisize religion and you know it. The only difference is that I don't use irrational bandwagon claims. Want examples?

http://cptpineapple.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/protest-the-pope/

http://cptpineapple.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/creation-science-techniques-prove-evolution/

http://cptpineapple.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/does-religion-make-you-good/

http://cptpineapple.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/religious-terrorism/

http://cptpineapple.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/the-mind-of-god/

 

 

 

Sapient's picture

 Wow, how confrontational

 Wow, how confrontational of you.  You wrote this about protesting the pope?

Quote:

For those that haven’t heard his hatines the pope made a recent trip to Britain, and he said the seculization was degrading our society.


If people want to improve the Catholic Church’s image, then perhaps they can a little less lenient on jackasses that make such stupid comments and decisions.


Of all my issues with the atheist movement, comments like the Pope’s makes me wonder.

That's it?  Weak.

You are a horrible judge of rationality.

 

There is a veiled heir of disparagement towards atheist activism with much of what you type.  You hinder progress.

 

 

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Cpt_pineapple's picture

Sapient wrote: Wow, how

Sapient wrote:

 Wow, how confrontational of you.  You wrote this about protesting the pope?

Quote:

For those that haven’t heard his hatines the pope made a recent trip to Britain, and he said the seculization was degrading our society.


If people want to improve the Catholic Church’s image, then perhaps they can a little less lenient on jackasses that make such stupid comments and decisions.


Of all my issues with the atheist movement, comments like the Pope’s makes me wonder.

That's it?  Weak.

You are a horrible judge of rationality.

 

 

 

So it isn't rational to call the pope a jackass? What' irrational about it? I dealt with the pope's claims of whether religion makes you good in a different entry.

http://cptpineapple.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/does-religion-make-you-good/

 

 

Can you at least stop calling me an accomondationalist? Can you at least stop saying that I argue that we shouldn't critisize religion?

 

 

 

Sapient's picture

Cpt_pineapple wrote:So it

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

So it isn't rational to call the pope a jackass?What' irrational about it?

1. If I call the Pope a jackass, you will speak up that it's irrational.

2. When I said you were a bad judge of rationality it had nothing to do with you calling the Pope a jackass and everything to do with 5 years of experience with you.  I used to let you slide on your weak pathetic hindering bullshit.  

 

Quote:

I dealt with the pope's claims of whether religion makes you good in a different entry.

http://cptpineapple.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/does-religion-make-you-good/

That's not confrontationalism.

 

Quote:
Can you at least stop calling me an accomondationalist?

If you're not an accomodationist, you're weaker than one.

 

Quote:
Can you at least stop saying that I argue that we shouldn't critisize religion?

I don't recall saying that.  But it sounds like you.  

You don't get to write 3 sentences on your blog a year ago that nobody reads and have that wipe the slate clean from all the activism you've attempted to stifle on this sites pages over hundreds of posts through many years.

Of all the people we helped leave theism behind you're the one I wish we wouldn't have.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Cpt_pineapple's picture

What do you want me to do?

What do you want me to do? What will prove that I'm not the person you think I am?

 

 

 

Sapient's picture

 Usually actions speak

 Usually actions speak louder than words.  But in your case words speak louder than actions.  If you really feel you are not the person I think you are, then show me with your words over time.  In my estimation if you had let yourself use the full force of logic and rationality you should be much further along by now.  It took me a few days to abandon god after posting on an atheist forum, you held out for thousands of posts.  I no longer welcome your apathy.  

oh wait... just humor me... Do you think you are a confrontationalist?

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Cpt_pineapple's picture

Sapient wrote:Do you think

Sapient wrote:

Do you think you are a confrontationalist? 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

Cpt_pineapple's picture

Sapient wrote:In my

Sapient wrote:

In my estimation if you had let yourself use the full force of logic and rationality you should be much further along by now. 

 

On a side note, I took physics and math at university. I know logic and reasoning thank you very much. I took an entire full year course in logic and writing proofs.

 

I held on to theism not because of lack of logic or rationality, but rather to rationalition.

 

 

Sapient's picture

Cpt_pineapple wrote:Sapient

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Sapient wrote:

Do you think you are a confrontationalist? 

Yes.

Saddest, most baffling, and almost humorous thing I've heard in a while.

 

 

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

On a side note, I took physics and math at university. I know logic and reasoning thank you very much. I took an entire full year course in logic and writing proofs.

So.  You should know damn well that taking a course, maybe even getting 100% on it... does not mean you actually utilize logic and rationality... not well at least.  You don't.

 

Quote:
I held on to theism not because of lack of logic or rationality, but rather to rationalition.

Never heard that word, google and the dictionary don't seem to know it either.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Cpt_pineapple's picture

Sapient wrote:Saddest, most

Sapient wrote:

Saddest, most baffling, and almost humorous thing I've heard in a while.

 

If I recall correctly, your main complaint about is that I'm too confrontational of the atheist movement.

 

 

 

Sapient wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

On a side note, I took physics and math at university. I know logic and reasoning thank you very much. I took an entire full year course in logic and writing proofs.

So.  You should know damn well that taking a course, maybe even getting 100% on it... does not mean you actually utilize logic and rationality... not well at least.  You don't.

 

 

Find me a positive claim I've made that's irrational. You'll notice the majority of the time I am asking for evidence [and not getting it].

 

 

 

Sapient wrote:

Quote:
I held on to theism not because of lack of logic or rationality, but rather to rationalition.

Never heard that word, google and the dictionary don't seem to know it either.

 

 

 

It's my misspelling of rationalization.

 

A VERY good book I suggest is Mistakes were made....but not by ME!

 

http://www.amazon.ca/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0151010986/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264206037&sr=1-2

 

It's on rationalization and how even smart and intelligent people can believe in silly things and stick to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sapient's picture

Cpt_pineapple wrote:If I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

If I recall correctly, your main complaint about is that I'm too confrontational of the atheist movement.

 

We define confrontationalist as someone confronting religion/creationism.  Are you re-defining it?  You're claiming you are confrontationalist because you are confrontational of the atheist movement?  And you're doing so knowing well that everyone else is defining it differently?

 

Sapient wrote:

 

Find me a positive claim I've made that's irrational.  You'll notice the majority of the time I am asking for evidence [and not getting it].

You don't have to make a positive claim to be irrational.  You insinuating it is irrational.  So an example of irrational behavior?  The two sentences I just quoted.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Cpt_pineapple's picture

My definition of

My definition of confrontationalist is somebody who confronts irrational claims. The difference is that mine is regardless of whether it's from a christian, atheist, muslim, or hindu, regarding religion, politics, science or anything else. That's the one I use. Until now, I thought that was the one you used.

 

 

I think my definition is a good thing and better than your definition. Mine confronts all irrational claims, regardless of whether they're from christianity or the atheist movement or anywhere else. That's what skepticism and confrontation is all about. That's what you're suppose to do.

 

I'm using the dictionary definition of confrontation

con·fron·ta·tion  (knfrn-tshn)

n.1. The act of confronting or the state of being confronted, especially a meeting face to face.2. a. A conflict involving armed forces: a nuclear confrontation.b. Discord or a clash of opinions and ideas: an age of ideological confrontation.3. A focused comparison: an essay that brought elements of biography, autobiography, and general European history into powerful, meaningful confrontation.  So a confrontationalist would support and practice confront peoplecon·front  (kn-frnt)v. con·front·ed, con·front·ing, con·frontsv.tr.1. To come face to face with, especially with defiance or hostility: I wish to confront my accuser in a court of law.2. To bring face to face with: The defendant was confronted with incontrovertible evidence of guilt.3. To come up against; encounter: confronted danger at every turn.   

 

That is, I'm not re-defining confrontation or anything like that.

 

 

Oh BTW, by your definition, confronting me about my definition isn't confrontationalism because my claims are neither religious or creationist.

 

 

 

Sapient's picture

 Jesus Christ you're a

 Jesus Christ you're a troll.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Lion IRC's picture

Just reading / coffee. But.....

Just reading / coffee. Smiling

But I cant resist making the observation that trolls are invariably only ever called that by people who disagree with the position taken by "the troll".  This seems true in all AvT forums (fora) no matter which side the "troll" is on.

 

Cpt_pineapple's picture

Are we using the same

Are we using the same definition or not?

 

The way you typed that implies that we should only confront religion to be a confrontationalist.  That's the way I read it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cpt_pineapple's picture

Lion IRC wrote:Just reading

Lion IRC wrote:

Just reading / coffee. Smiling

But I cant resist making the observation that trolls are invariably only ever called that by people who disagree with the position taken by "the troll".  This seems true in all AvT forums (fora) no matter which side the "troll" is on.

 

 

 

Why are you drinking coffee in the middle of the night?

 

 

 

Sapient's picture

WTF do you think we are

WTF do you think we are talking about here?  

An atheist group imploding because of the never ending debate between whether atheists should confront religion or if we should accomodate with religious people without confrontation.  

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Sapient wrote:WTF do you

Sapient wrote:

WTF do you think we are talking about here?  

An atheist group imploding because of the never ending debate between whether atheists should confront religion or if we should accomodate with religious people without confrontation.  

 

 

 

Forgive my lateness on this but is it the confronting itself that is at issue or is it a confrontational attitude?

I believe one can confront religion or anything else without being confrontational.

For me, it's the difference between an argument and a fight. I enjoy a good argument and can engage in one dispassionately. Fights can get personal and vicious quickly. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Vastet's picture

This is what gets me. Noone

This is what gets me. Noone on this planet can tell me with a straight face that there's no such thing as a confrontational theist. I find the suggestion that every time someone shoves a bible in my face or threatens my "soul", I should just bite my tongue and ignore them, insulting.

I NEVER start an argument on religion. I have never gone to a church or religious location/website and begun arguing that everyone there is a daydreamer. I don't introduce myself to people as an atheist. But the second someone starts talking to me about it I have carte blanche to say anything I want to. And NOONE can tell me otherwise without getting it ten times worse than the theist did, because they are at least ten times the stupid.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.