Hostile Atheist.

mickeydevine

Christopher Hitchens is the first person I've heard describe himself as one, I'm sure he wasn't the first though. Do Atheists need to become hostile?. I can definately see his point when he talks about fanatical islamists. Most Atheists I know believe in live and let live in peace but some (islamists) feel we dont have a right to and would like nothing more than to cut our heads off with a rusty blade. He worries about Iran and Pakistan having access to nuclear weapons, I also agree and I'm not sure they can be trusted YET not to use them in the name of Jihad. So I was wondering do we say X,Y, and Z religions are bad whereas A,B and C religions are OK or do we have to be hostile to all? At the end of the day each religions goal is to be the one true faith, having used and possibly will use violence to that end.

sink

mickeydevine wrote: »

Christopher Hitchens is the first person I've heard describe himself as one, I'm sure he wasn't the first though. Do Atheists need to become hostile?. I can definately see his point when he talks about fanatical islamists. Most Atheists I know believe in live and let live in peace but some (islamists) feel we dont have a right to and would like nothing more than to cut our heads off with a rusty blade. He worries about Iran and Pakistan having access to nuclear weapons, I also agree and I'm not sure they can be trusted YET not to use them in the name of Jihad. So I was wondering do we say X,Y, and Z religions are bad whereas A,B and C religions are OK or do we have to be hostile to all? At the end of the day each religions goal is to be the one true faith, having used and possibly will use violence to that end.

I'm not 100% certain if the islamic religion didn't exist there wouldn't be a jihadist style movement in the same area. Instead of a religious pretext they could easily use race, nationalism or some other ideology as their motivation.

Zillah

I don't really care about the question of whether it is right or wrong to call ourselves hostile atheists. I simply don't think it'd be effective. In fact I'd consider it counter productive. Angry, hateful atheists are exactly the stereotypical opponent that evangelicals and muslims will use to inspire a fresh wave of anti-atheist beliefs.

My plan is to let relatively innocuous atheists like Dawkins and Harris fight the real battles, like evolution/creationism, while patiently biding my time waiting for education to overtake our archaic legacy.

Conveniently enough this plan gives me plenty of free time in which to not battle for the hearts and minds of the future of humanity.

sink wrote: »

I'm not 100% certain if the islamic religion didn't exist there wouldn't be a jihadist style movement in the same area. Instead of a religious pretext they could easily use race, nationalism or some other ideology as their motivation.

Well yes, there will always be violent people willing to harm others, but without religion I'd imagine there'd be a few thousand less young men and women willing to walk into a crowded market place and detonate the kilo of semtex strapped to their chest.

Valmont

Zillah, based on reading your posts here for the last year or so, I would have considered you a militant athiest. Am I way off the mark? I have no references unfortunately, just a general observation.

Goduznt Xzst

Zillah wrote: »

In fact I'd consider it counter productive.

Counter Productive to what?

Some Atheists don't want religious people to reject their God or "convert" to Atheism, as they accept they will never accomplish this, so keeping them happy is of a minor concern. They just want to remove organized religious influence from society by separating it from educational, governing and scientific institutions.

Further, I think this quote is relevant, its from the "militant atheist" thread, but I've seen it elsewhere also:

Militant Christians bomb abortion clinics.
Militant Muslims fly planes into buildings.
Militant atheists write books.

The use of words like Militant and Hostile evoke the wrong connotations imo. Replace "militant" with "vigorously active" and "hostile" with "acting in opposition" and you can see how they apply to Atheists.

If you see the Atheist's weapons of choice as reason and the written word then I would certainly view the writings of Dawkins, especially the God Delusion, as being hostile to the religious.

Zillah

Valmont wrote: »

Zillah, based on reading your posts here for the last year or so, I would have considered you a militant athiest. Am I way off the mark? I have no references unfortunately, just a general observation.

No it's a fairly fair observation. I'm quite hostile to religion, and I debate believers frequently online and in real life. I'd still not label myself as a "Hostile Atheist" though...maybe it'd be accurate under certain circumstances but it'd be far too open to misinterpretation and really starts the conversation off on an unhelpful tone.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Counter Productive to what?

Doing away with religion, disabusing people of their misconceptions about atheists, morality and the natural world etc. Telling Mary Smith, the wishy washy spiritualist pseudo Catholic who likes the idea that her mommy is in heaven that you're a Hostile Atheist who hates her beliefs and want to tear down the Vatican is unlikely to convert her to your world view.

The use of words like Militant and Hostile evoke the wrong connotations imo. Replace "militant" with "vigorously active" and "hostile" with "acting in opposition" and you can see how they apply to Atheists.

If you see the Atheist's weapons of choice as reason and the written word then I would certainly view the writings of Dawkins, especially the God Delusion, as being hostile to the religious.

See, that's the thing, Hitchens is no Dawkins, or Harris or any of the other quite reasonable atheist thinkers we have today. The man truly hates religion, and approaches it with open disdain, disgust and outright aggression. Watch some of his Youtube stuff, even I find myself feeling uncomfortable watching him at times.

There's a huge difference between a Harris-like social concern and willingness to debate and a Hitchens-like fist-pounding killkillkill attitude.

Goduznt Xzst

Zillah wrote: »

Doing away with religion, disabusing people of their misconceptions about atheists, morality and the natural world etc.

Well yes, if you are making the assumption that Atheists want to convert people. As I said, some Atheists accept that the religious are beyond reason, for the majority, and that as long as we fear death and have an inflated sense of our own self worth then religions will exist to pander to these traits. A lot of Atheists accept that the notion of "Doing away with religion" is a pipe dream.

Zillah wrote: »

Telling Mary Smith, the wishy washy spiritualist pseudo Catholic who likes the idea that her mommy is in heaven that you're a Hostile Atheist who hates her beliefs and want to tear down the Vatican is unlikely to convert her to your world view.

hmm... why make that illustration, it's purposefully trying to be obtusely emotive and hyperbolic. Do you not think that this "Mary Smith" is equally as mortified when she passes by Dawkins book titled "The God Delusion"? You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

Zillah wrote: »

See, that's the thing, Hitchens is no Dawkins.

Really? Most people I know who've read the God Delusion said they got the feeling that Dawkins was writing with an underlying sense of anger. Really brought home by the chapter "Why Be So Hostile?"

I will admit that Hitchens tends to come across as more pretentious when speaking, but I do not doubt that the level of hostility that Hitchens and Dawkins have towards religion is equal.

Zillah

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Well yes, if you are making the assumption that Atheists want to convert people.

I'm making the assumption that Hitchens wants to convert people. That people like me want to convert people. That anyone to whom the possibility of identifying themselves as a "Hostile Atheist" is even considered would like to see a world without religion.

hmm... why make that illustration, it's purposefully trying to be obtusely emotive and hyperbolic. Do you not think that this "Mary Smith" is equally as mortified when she passes by Dawkins book titled "The God Delusion"? You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

I'd say Mary is far less mortified seeing the God Delusion than when she sees Hitchens assert that he demands the right to hate her beliefs and regard her personally with utter contempt.

Really? Most people I know who've read the God Delusion said they got the feeling that Dawkins was writing with an underlying sense of anger. Really brought home by the chapter "Why Be So Hostile?"

I will admit that Hitchens tends to come across as more pretentious when speaking, but I do not doubt that the level of hostility that Hitchens and Dawkins have towards religion is equal.

Well I disagree. From what I've seen Hitchens is in a whole different league of disgust and hatred than Dawkins. Dawkins thinks religion is silly and dangerous and would like it to go away. Hitchens just hates it. I don't think it's fair to equate them. But it's a minor quibble, let's not get bogged down in the finer points of the scale of hate.

sink

Zillah wrote: »

Well yes, there will always be violent people willing to harm others, but without religion I'd imagine there'd be a few thousand less young men and women willing to walk into a crowded market place and detonate the kilo of semtex strapped to their chest.

Nationalism could just as easily lead to similar, just look at the kamikaze of WWII. I don't believe that attacking religion in general is a way of combat Islamic extremists.

Zillah

Huh. The Kamikaze thing never really occured to me before. I've always thought that mass suicide attacks required a belief in an afterlife but I suppose not. What was the religious situation in Japan during the war? Did these Kamikaze pilots think the manner of death would get them up the Kharmic ladder...?

sink

Zillah wrote: »

Huh. The Kamikaze thing never really occured to me before. I've always thought that mass suicide attacks required a belief in an afterlife but I suppose not. What was the religious situation in Japan during the war? Did these Kamikaze pilots think the manner of death would get them up the Kharmic ladder...?

From my limited knowledge of the subject the kamikaze were motivated by an extreme sense of honour and duty. In death they were celebrated at religious shrines all over Japan and held in very high esteem especially by their immediate families. But as far as I know they did not believe in an afterlife such as in the Abrahamic religions.

sink

As an atheist I can actually see the appeal for the kamikaze pilots. I don't believe in an afterlife and as such I believe that what we do it this life is all that matters. If I was led to believe that my death would bring about a better world for my friends and family and that without my help they would be brutally murdered and enslaved I would probably consider it. Obviously this would require a serious amount of brainwashing, but is that brainwashing any different from religious brainwashing?

Rb

sink wrote: »

Obviously this would require a serious amount of brainwashing, but is that brainwashing any different from religious brainwashing?

I don't believe it is.

Goduznt Xzst

Zillah wrote: »

I'm making the assumption that Hitchens wants to convert people.

He doesn't though. Hitchens preaches to the converted (for lack of a better term :rolleyes:) His motives are more about strengthening the convictions of Atheists to the point that they will actively go out and protest religious influence on society. He doesn't care about converting people to Atheism, rather getting the people that are already Atheist to not be so apathetic towards religious influence and its damaging effects on society.

Also, Dawkins purposefully titled his book the God Delusion to be hostile. I mean it is a title that most strict Christians would view as blasphemy. His approach is a lot more sombre than Hitchens of late, but the point of a lot of his writings and tv shows is that organized religion is an evil that this world needs to be rid of.

nozzferrahhtoo

Mickey,

I think it all depends on what you mean by hostile. A lot of atheists, like people on ANY issue, become very vocal. A common reaction by the weak minded in ANY realm of discourse is to call the vocal person “Hostile”.

To me, when I hear this, I actually hear them saying “I have no good arguments to counter your position so instead I will attempt, quite badly as it happens, to attack your reasons for saying it”.

In essence I have NO time for this and I have no reason to expect I ever will.

Hostile to me is violence without words. Like the burning down of press offices for the crime of publishing a story with the admittedly badly named story of “Mohammad the idiot”. This was not a story about Islam, but a story about a kid who had that name. A bad choice of title but the reaction is what I would call hostile. Violent. Obscene.

The only thing “hostile” in common between the words of hitchens and the actions of these people really is the letters h o s t i l and e and our choice to apply them to the same thing. It is the attempt to apply the same word to two different things and trying to equate the two by proxy

But to talk for or against and idea with intelligence, rational discourse and passion…. You may call this hostile if you like but to me this is a mere opportunistic bastardisation of the vagaries of the English language in an effort to diminish an argument that the antagonist is powerless against.

As Sam Harris says “We should challenge bad ideas wherever we hear them”. IF this is hostile to you then so be it, but you have a lot to learn about the levels human hostility can reach.

On a lighter note more fun note however your post puts me in the mind of a car bumper sticker than has been making the rounds “Militant agnostic on board: I don’t know and YOU DON’T EITHER!!!”

mickeydevine

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Mickey,

I think it all depends on what you mean by hostile. A lot of atheists, like people on ANY issue, become very vocal. A common reaction by the weak minded in ANY realm of discourse is to call the vocal person “Hostile”.

To me, when I hear this, I actually hear them saying “I have no good arguments to counter your position so instead I will attempt, quite badly as it happens, to attack your reasons for saying it”.

In essence I have NO time for this and I have no reason to expect I ever will.

Hostile to me is violence without words. Like the burning down of press offices for the crime of publishing a story with the admittedly badly named story of “Mohammad the idiot”. This was not a story about Islam, but a story about a kid who had that name. A bad choice of title but the reaction is what I would call hostile. Violent. Obscene.

The only thing “hostile” in common between the words of hitchens and the actions of these people really is the letters h o s t i l and e and our choice to apply them to the same thing. It is the attempt to apply the same word to two different things and trying to equate the two by proxy

But to talk for or against and idea with intelligence, rational discourse and passion…. You may call this hostile if you like but to me this is a mere opportunistic bastardisation of the vagaries of the English language in an effort to diminish an argument that the antagonist is powerless against.

As Sam Harris says “We should challenge bad ideas wherever we hear them”. IF this is hostile to you then so be it, but you have a lot to learn about the levels human hostility can reach.

On a lighter note more fun note however your post puts me in the mind of a car bumper sticker than has been making the rounds “Militant agnostic on board: I don’t know and YOU DON’T EITHER!!!”

I'm not sure if you think I labeled Hitchens a "Hostile Atheist" cause I didn't, he labeled himself one and a poor choice of word I agree. I think he feels we should be as aggressive towards religion as religion is towards us and argue our side as strongly, which by the way I wouldn't have the inclination to do. I do believe that apathy towards those who wish us harm should only go so far and would be happy, as zillah pointed out, for us to sit back and watch the world "come around to itself". IF we are allowed to, which isn't a given. I also agree with Sam Harris and no I wouldn't consider it hostile to challenge bad ideas. For the record I also think his (Hitchens) term Anti-theist sends the wrong message also but I respect his combativeness.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hmmm no I addressed my post to not make any assumptions about what it was you were saying so I do not think that of you. In fact I tried to go through it and change all I could from the second person to the third

Maybe the failing is solely mine then and that failing is not being sure what you mean by hostile…. As from most of what you said just now it seems there is little difference between our positions.

The only thing I can say now is that I wish it were so that we could “watch the world "come around to itself"” in some kind of complacent fashion. I have tried to. I have tried not to be “that guy” who always pipes up against religion. I have found myself sitting with my girlfriend on many occasions biting my lips saying to myself "say nothing, this is not your fight".

I just cant do it though . It does not matter what area of discourse I enter into on a political, educational or social level. I am ALWAYS confronted with religiously based beliefs even when I think I am far away from them.

It seems to me, based on pure experience rather than theory, that the only way to be complacent to religion in this fashion is to be complacent about EVERY area of our discourse and wrap myself in cotton wool and hide from the world.

I do not want to be “that guy” in my social and political circles. However it is just not a choice I have been given The contrary in fact, it is a choice that is forcibly removed from me on every occasion.

Abortion for example. I have, what I think are, very rational arguments on the subject which actually place me half way between both camps as I am pro choice but I argue for a 12 week cut off where the US currently allow 24. My reasons I put a lot of work into and they are based SOLELY on ideas I can show to be true.

I INVARIABLY come across people telling me "No abortion is wrong because god puts the soul in the zygote at the moment of conception".

How can I NOT be hostile to that? Every argument I have I can show are based on things I can prove. My conclusion MAY be wrong but my arguments have had work put into them.

The people however have not put ANY effort into showing that god is real LET ALONE that he really puts the soul in at THAT moment. Its two levels of premise that they presume and then they declare a third level result.

I HAVE to be hostile to that. I HAVE to resist it and argue against it. I have no choice alas

So it is not you I am ranting at, but I do rant at this mis use of the word hostile. This is not hostility. This is just frustration at putting my position against people who think they can make up premise X and then espouse premise Y based upon it.

Zillah

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

He doesn't though. Hitchens preaches to the converted (for lack of a better term :rolleyes:) His motives are more about strengthening the convictions of Atheists to the point that they will actively go out and protest religious influence on society. He doesn't care about converting people to Atheism, rather getting the people that are already Atheist to not be so apathetic towards religious influence and its damaging effects on society.

You're just splitting hairs, his net goal is a less religiously influenced world, whether he personally converts people or he uses proxies, his goal remains the same.

Also, Dawkins purposefully titled his book the God Delusion to be hostile. I mean it is a title that most strict Christians would view as blasphemy. His approach is a lot more sombre than Hitchens of late, but the point of a lot of his writings and tv shows is that organized religion is an evil that this world needs to be rid of.

Yes it's a controvertial title, but he still doesn't conduct himself with the hateful energy that Hitchens does.

nozzferrahhtoo

I am not sure the comment that hitchens intends to preach to the converted is entirely wrong.

I suggest to people that they watch the badly named "four horsemen" video on youtube. This is a video where the 4 well known and no need to be named atheists sit in a really interesting close room discussion amongst themselves.

AT one point Hitchens stirs it up a bit and says that not only does he not think religious beliefs CAN be exterminated, but that he would be very upset if they were as it would leave him no one else to argue against.

I think he was being tongue in cheek to be honest, not least because even without religion there is a hell of a lot of things people, even fellow atheists, disagree with him on (I personally would love to sit with him over a bottle of Red Breast and talk to him about abortion all night)..... but he does say he addresses his polemic to people who are, like him, so made that they can never believe.

The idea then that he is not so much interested in conversion... but is attempting to strengthen the resolve of those like minded before they go into battle at his side.... is lent at least some credence. And what of it? Every movement needs people who convince the other side while also needing people who can raise the morale on their own side.

Goduznt Xzst

Zillah wrote: »

his net goal is a less religiously influenced world, whether he personally converts people or he uses proxies, his goal remains the same.

You can achieve a less religiously influenced world without converting a single individual you know? If some people convert in the process, well that's just gravy, but Hitchens is about removing the fear that Atheists have towards the fundamentally religious and also the apathy they have towards protests for respect of their beliefs that religious groups demand.

He wants to let the religious have their beliefs and not convert them, but also wants to remove their ability to hold them over other, non-believing humans.

Zillah wrote: »

Yes it's a controversial title, but he still doesn't conduct himself with the hateful energy that Hitchens does.

I agree. The conduct of Hitchens and Dawkins are quite different. I find Hitchens almost to be a comedian in his level of pomposity, grandiloquence and arrogance. Nevertheless I don't doubt the level of fervour each has towards battling Religion to be any different. Dawkins just has a much more subtle approach. Hitchens however knows his target audience, Atheists, and plays quite well to them.

Hivemind187

OPINION ALERT

I've read Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens.

Dawkins presents like an old school teacher with a young revolutionary still inside him somewhere. His elegant explanations of biological and evolutionary princiapls and how they influence both science and philosophy are possibly one of the single most important contributions made by any "popular" scientist today. That he attracts so much controversy is contrary to his usually mild (if often frustrated and exasperated demeanour) but it is unsuprising when compared to other individuals who have delivered their arguments in as solid a fashion. Dawkins may have a calm demeanour but he is in no way giving an inch to the religious. He might not be willing to deliberately antagonise them in the same way as Hitchens but he is certainly no apologist.

Harris has a more youthful and socio-centric view of things. I actually find him hardest to get to grips with but thats not so much a criticism as my own lack of patience and flexibility in prose. Harris explains things in a manner that most people find intellectual and considered but few have found to be "too aggressive" etc. This is a mistake on the readers part however (if we omit the use of directive "too"). Harris is extremely hostile towards religion and to the superstitions of archaic mumbo-jumbo. This is not to say that he advocates the burning of churches as the religious would have us believe the atheist agenda is, but nor is he apparently willing to give them any wiggle room.

Hitchens, you must remember, is not a scientist nor a philosopher. He's a writer, a journalist and a master of the English language. His arguments can not come from the foundation of a lif time staring through a microscope, nor from the immutability of mathematics. His is the argument - for better or worse - by phraze.

Its a trick that comedians have used for a long time now. If you are pissed off about something, shout about it - but shout only to be heard over the din made by the lunacy to are trying to combat. Hitchens purposely chooses his style and his words for maximum effect, much of it is largely offensive to the religious yet lacks the same sting for an atheist or any other rational person.

Yes, Hitchens choice of language is aggressive, even antagonistic but the question is not whether this in and of itself makes him right or wrong, its wether or not it succeeds in its objective - which as has been said is to help bolster the position of other atheists. In this regard it is a success with a lot of people (though I admit his method is likely to make many people feel uncomfortable and thats an entirely separate matter).

Hitchens, the swaggering, hard drinking, chain smoking, loud mouth is merely attempting to express in simple language the emotions and frustration many people feel with religion. He does not pull his punches. He does not mask his objections, his anger or his personal pride or his own failings. For this he is, in my opinion, the most honest of the three. Each of them is openly "hostile" (given the context of the word) towards religion, superstition and other nonsense yet each is approaching the subject in a different way - each is equally effective in its own right and to its target audience, that those audiences differ on their opinions (usually with a bias towards their preferred work) is no suprise.

To the OP.

I certainly do believe that atheists need to be more "hostile", if i understand hostile to mean "unwilling to apologise for the antics of voodoo-nutters or to allow myself to be subject to superstitious interference in my life".

If it requires I have to make any kind of effort to purchase the products for arson based protest then no, I dont.

Handsome Bob

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think it all depends on what you mean by hostile. A lot of atheists, like people on ANY issue, become very vocal. A common reaction by the weak minded in ANY realm of discourse is to call the vocal person “Hostile”.

A: I think religion is a superstition which is in every case man made. I also think any believer in religion is of a low intelligence and they might as well believe in the flying spaghetti monster in the sky. What is your stance on religion B?

B: I'm actually a Christian.

A: WHAT! I want to know why you believe in Christianity!

B: I just have strong faith, I don't know why, I'm just a very spiritual person and believe in the teachings of Jesus.

A: LOL, you can't have blind faith, your belief is founded on ignorance.

B: What are you getting worked up about? What is my belief to you?

A: You are the definition of everything that is wrong with the world!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To me, when I hear this, I actually hear them saying “I have no good arguments to counter your position so instead I will attempt, quite badly as it happens, to attack your reasons for saying it”.

In essence I have NO time for this and I have no reason to expect I ever will.

B: Look my relationship with God is a very personal thing. It gives me great strength and I don't let it affect my whole life. I disagree with the Church on issues such as homosexuality and on scientific research.

A: NONSENSE! You are a Christian so you must be a drone. You hate gay people and you are an idiot who believes in creationism! You are a fundamentalist and an idiot who doesn't have the capacity to question his Church!

B: But I just said.......

A: No! NO! You can't treat religion as a buffet where you discard the things you don't like. You must believe in everything!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Hostile to me is violence without words. Like the burning down of press offices for the crime of publishing a story with the admittedly badly named story of “Mohammad the idiot”. This was not a story about Islam, but a story about a kid who had that name. A bad choice of title but the reaction is what I would call hostile. Violent. Obscene.

B: That's nonsense. Would you not call me hostile if I said "I'm going to break into your house and cut your throat" would you not call me hostile?

A: I'd call it threatening behaviour.

B: What's the difference between being hostile and threatening?

A: *cue long tangent on semantics*

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As Sam Harris says “We should challenge bad ideas wherever we hear them”. IF this is hostile to you then so be it, but you have a lot to learn about the levels human hostility can reach.

If you think that's the most "impassioned" an Atheist can be, you have a lot to learn in regards to the levels human hostility can reach.

brianthebard

Zillah wrote: »

Huh. The Kamikaze thing never really occured to me before. I've always thought that mass suicide attacks required a belief in an afterlife but I suppose not. What was the religious situation in Japan during the war? Did these Kamikaze pilots think the manner of death would get them up the Kharmic ladder...?

They were mostly following orders, like any other soldier who goes out to fight for their country. yes Kamikaze attacks get tied into something a bit more "spiritual" but the term comes from a historical victory against invaders, not a mythical or religious event or belief. Also for the tamil tigers have I believe used suicide bombings as one of their tactics, and they are a marxist non religious group. You don't have to be religious to use suicide attacks, you just have to be really desperate.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sorry, Im not sure what your point actually is or why you posted a dialogue of your talking to yourself or what it achieved. Help me out here.

Handsome Bob

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sorry, Im not sure what your point actually is or why you posted a dialogue of your talking to yourself or what it achieved. Help me out here.

I was pointing out how I disagreed with your notion of "If someone doesn't want to have an in depth discussion with me about religion they are a weak minded idiot".

nozzferrahhtoo

I see, and is it common practise for you to attack positions a person never espouses or to quote things a person has never actually said? Because this is not my position nor is it my words.

Really, I have enough words of my own without you putting yours in my mouth too.

Handsome Bob

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I see, and is it common practise for you to attack positions a person never espouses or to quote things a person has never actually said? Because this is not my position nor is it my words.

Really, I have enough words of my own without you putting yours in my mouth too.

Nope, I just gave an example of many arguments I have witnessed between religious people and atheists. You defined Hostility as "violence without words". I posted a general dialogue of an interaction I have witnessed many times which I believe to be quite hostile.

nozzferrahhtoo

You are obfuscating now. This is what you just said:

"I was pointing out how I disagreed with your notion of "If someone doesn't want to have an in depth discussion with me about religion they are a weak minded idiot"."

No this is not my notion.

This is not what I said.

This is not my position.

I never said these words in the "" marks.

So again.... is it common practise for you to ignore what a person has said and instead attack a position they NEVER espoused instead?

Handsome Bob

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are obfuscating now. This is what you just said:

"I was pointing out how I disagreed with your notion of "If someone doesn't want to have an in depth discussion with me about religion they are a weak minded idiot"."

No this is not my notion.

This is not what I said.

This is not my position.

I never said these words in the "" marks.

So again.... is it common practise for you to ignore what a person has said and instead attack a position they NEVER espoused instead?

A common reaction by the weak minded in ANY realm of discourse is to call the vocal person “Hostile”.

To me, when I hear this, I actually hear them saying “I have no good arguments to counter your position so instead I will attempt, quite badly as it happens, to attack your reasons for saying it”.

In essence I have NO time for this and I have no reason to expect I ever will.

You may not have literally said what I put in the "", but you did refer to people who can't give you a "good argument" and who instead tend to focus on what they would perceive as your hostile "reasons for saying it" as "weak minded".

We are in disagreement over semantics. Who would have seen this coming?

nozzferrahhtoo

Again you are obfuscationg and changing your position. This is what you JUST said….

I was pointing out how I disagreed with your notion of "If someone doesn't want to have an in depth discussion with me about religion they are a weak minded idiot"

In other words you are telling me that if someone does not want to discuss something with me that they are weak minded and an idiot.

No, this is NOT what I said.

If someone does not want to discuss something with me that’s perfectly their right and I respect them for it and I would never say a bad thing about them.

So you have attacked a position I NEVER espoused and its really low and dirty of you and rather than apologise and say “Actually sorry, I see what you mean now and I took you up wrong” you have now shifted to this:

and who instead tend to focus on what they would perceive as your hostile "reasons for saying it" as "weak minded".

This is MUCH closer to what I ACTUALLY said. Yes, if someone does not want to discuss it this is fine, don’t discuss it. But if someone doesn’t or cant discuss it and to obfuscate that they make up random things like “You are soooo hostile” or similar then yes, I find this weak minded and a tactic.

In essence they DO want to discuss it, they want to weaken your position, but they have nothing of note to say on the subject and so instead make things up.

Now please, show a little decorum….. you very clearly shifted from accusing me of thinking people who do not want to discuss it are weak minded, to saying that I was espousing that people who cant discuss it resort to a given low tactic.

This is a MASSIVE shift. You shifted somewhat to a closer thing to what I actually said, but at least have the decorum and manners to acknowledge that before you shifted you ENTIRELY misrepresented what I said and put words in my mouth and attacked a position I have never, would never and will never espouse.

Handsome Bob

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again you are obfuscationg and changing your position. This is what you JUST said….



In other words you are telling me that if someone does not want to discuss something with me that they are weak minded and an idiot.

No, this is NOT what I said.

If someone does not want to discuss something with me that’s perfectly their right and I respect them for it and I would never say a bad thing about them.

So you have attacked a position I NEVER espoused and its really low and dirty of you and rather than apologise and say “Actually sorry, I see what you mean now and I took you up wrong” you have now shifted to this:

Maybe I should have been clearer on what I meant when I said

"If someone doesn't want to have an in depth discussion with me about religion they are a weak minded idiot"

What I meant by this is that if someone doesn't want to have, for want of a better word, an "intellectual" debate with you and instead go down the route of "I have strong faith and don't have to explain myself to you so don't be so hostile" you'd describe them as "weak minded". I apologise for not making myself clearer.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is MUCH closer to what I ACTUALLY said. Yes, if someone does not want to discuss it this is fine, don’t discuss it. But if someone doesn’t or cant discuss it and to obfuscate that they make up random things like “You are soooo hostile” or similar then yes, I find this weak minded and a tactic.

In essence they DO want to discuss it, they want to weaken your position, but they have nothing of note to say on the subject and so instead make things up.

Okay, I apologise for misinterpreting what you meant. I thought, again, that you were saying that you'd harass someone into a debate and if they "cop out" by calling you hostile, then you would call them weak minded. Most interactions I have across the believer has been uncomfortable in debating religion with the non-believer ridiculing him for what he perceives as the believers inability to debate him. That's where I thought you were coming from.

Again I apologise in that respect.