And thanks for jumping right in and making my point. Note that you say "limits of tact" in the same post as "what they believe is fucking awful" and "needless baggage." That's not exactly tactful. And, frankly, neither is Richard Dawkins, although it's considerably closer.
I think one of the problems with a lot of atheist rhetoric currently out there (at least the informal, SlashDiggDdit variety) is that it comes from the position that the arguments for atheism are not just persuasive, but so thoroughly, unquestionably correct that they can be used as common premises. This doesn't function too well in an argument on the validity of those premises.
In discussion with a religious (or even agnostic) person, this simply isn't true - the other person by definition hasn't, thus far, found atheism persuasive, and holds different beliefs that they find equally persuasive. Their premises may seem ridiculous and horrible to you, but I assure you, they look just as askance as yours. You may see your position as infinitely superior to theirs, and by pure logical reasoning, you may even be right - but it isn't going to win you the argument. Not even atheists actually argue from pure reason all the time - no human does - and humans who believe in religion will base their arguments, rational and not, from a perspective of that religion being correct, especially if pushed into a defensive stance by offensive behavior.
TL;DR version: it don't matter if you're right, if all your argument convinces the other person of is your own disagreeableness.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.
Date: 2011-03-15 06:15 am (UTC)From:I think one of the problems with a lot of atheist rhetoric currently out there (at least the informal, SlashDiggDdit variety) is that it comes from the position that the arguments for atheism are not just persuasive, but so thoroughly, unquestionably correct that they can be used as common premises. This doesn't function too well in an argument on the validity of those premises.
In discussion with a religious (or even agnostic) person, this simply isn't true - the other person by definition hasn't, thus far, found atheism persuasive, and holds different beliefs that they find equally persuasive. Their premises may seem ridiculous and horrible to you, but I assure you, they look just as askance as yours. You may see your position as infinitely superior to theirs, and by pure logical reasoning, you may even be right - but it isn't going to win you the argument. Not even atheists actually argue from pure reason all the time - no human does - and humans who believe in religion will base their arguments, rational and not, from a perspective of that religion being correct, especially if pushed into a defensive stance by offensive behavior.
TL;DR version: it don't matter if you're right, if all your argument convinces the other person of is your own disagreeableness.