Posts
Joe & Mark do these now! My own post-mortem can wait.
-
*Here I offer two time-critical suggestions, below.*
*So skip past my blowhard prelude!*
Like everyone else on the Union/non-Putinist side, I was bollix...
4 days ago
2 comments:
Yes he does. I think the only drawback that Mr. Carrier has is that he is very clinical in his analysis. I have no problem with that myself, being Atheist. However, I can understand how some theists may take that as an affront to their beliefs. It may even reinforce any biases they hold about Atheists being heartless and cold. But this is a debate, emotion should be left at the door for any reasonable conversation to ensue. I have watched several of his debates and I think this was the one where he said that there was a high probability that early prophets were "schizotypal". In the Q&A at the end, several people were offended thinking he made a blanket statement about all believers. They did not pay much attention obviously. They also didn't know the difference between schizotypal personality disorder and schizophrenia.
Nathan, theists are often looking for reasons to be offended. We are, after all, attacking beliefs they've held - they've been taught - since infancy.
And because they cling to those beliefs for emotional reasons, it's also easy for them to see atheists as heartless and cold. (Of course, I see them as irrational and engaging in wishful-thinking, so we all have our expectations.)
And when it comes to the perception of atheists, the alternative to heartless and cold is probably angry, isn't it? If you show any passion at all, you're an 'angry atheist.'
I like Carrier's attitude, myself. It won't appeal to most theists, but nothing will appeal to most theists. At best, he might get them - some of them - to think.
Of course, I tend to like the 'angry atheists,' too. :) Diversity is good. No one argument, no one style, will work for everyone.
Thanks for the comment, Nathan.
Post a Comment