You mention two atheists as if they represent all atheists.
No, I did not. I mentioned two atheists as examples of people that stand out in people's minds as examples of obnoxious atheists.
That is not a good reason, anymore than it is a good reason to think all Christians are dangerous nutjobs because of David Koresh and Jim Jones. That would be stupid as well.
I didn't say I was giving good reasons. Just reasons.
I did not attack you, I labelled the ideas as stupid. Because they are. Yes, I could have been more polite, but I would be communicating the same thing.
Well that's something at least. I accept your apology such as it is.
And what does anything I say have to do with what people think about atheists?
You asked "why is this myth about atheists [etc]". Or would you like to walk that back also?
What I actually said is
so why is there this myth about atheists when they don't have any sort of mandate.
Still not sure how what I said, regardless of how it is interpreted, has anything to do with how atheists are perceived.
And what am I supposedly "walking back"?
Yeah, there are people who think that Dawkins and such are representative of atheists as a whole. SOF prides itself, in general, on being smarter than that.
I think I got what you meant, MT. Something like “the reason a lot of people think atheists are proselytizers is because the only salient examples of atheists they know of are people like these obnoxious assholes”?
I think I got what you meant, MT. Something like “the reason a lot of people think atheists are proselytizers is because the only salient examples of atheists they know of are people like these obnoxious assholes”?
Again, that is stupid. Well below the basic level of thought I'd expect for this site.
Nobody’s endorsing it as a rational conclusion, but I think it’s certainly a plausible explanation for why people might hold that attitude. I mean, there are books full of descriptions of cognitive biases like that.
And if it’s so stupid, what’s your explanation for why there’s “this myth about atheists” being proselytizers?
Nobody’s endorsing it as a rational conclusion, but I think it’s certainly a plausible explanation for why people might hold that attitude. I mean, there are books full of descriptions of cognitive biases like that.
And if it’s so stupid, what’s your explanation for why there’s “this myth about atheists” being proselytizers?
I suspect that most of us want our children both to think for themselves and to adopt our own religious value-system. With varying degrees of emphasis on each half of that potential conflict.
I honestly have no idea why you felt the need to throw the adjective "religious" into there. Unless you're proudly declaring that atheists are better off because they lack conflict.
How many atheists have you known who haven't proselytized for their views?
What has proselytizing got to do with it? The reference was to one's own children. Not going out and preaching to strangers.
And everyone else seems to have followed you down that rabbit hole. The question isn't whether atheists go out and proselytize, the question is whether atheists seek to instil their values in their own children.
I suspect that most of us want our children both to think for themselves and to adopt our own religious value-system. With varying degrees of emphasis on each half of that potential conflict.
I honestly have no idea why you felt the need to throw the adjective "religious" into there. Unless you're proudly declaring that atheists are better off because they lack conflict.
How many atheists have you known who haven't proselytized for their views?
What has proselytizing got to do with it? The reference was to one's own children. Not going out and preaching to strangers.
One of us has a faulty understanding of the word "proselytize." In my understanding, there is no requirement that you do not know the person you are trying to convince.
Nobody’s endorsing it as a rational conclusion, but I think it’s certainly a plausible explanation for why people might hold that attitude. I mean, there are books full of descriptions of cognitive biases like that.
And if it’s so stupid, what’s your explanation for why there’s “this myth about atheists” being proselytizers?
Humans are not rational, not by default.
Well, no shit. But as an explanation of any particular aspect of human behavior, that's unsatisfyingly non-specific, to say the least. MT is at least pointing to a known effect (saliency bias.)
Nobody’s endorsing it as a rational conclusion, but I think it’s certainly a plausible explanation for why people might hold that attitude. I mean, there are books full of descriptions of cognitive biases like that.
And if it’s so stupid, what’s your explanation for why there’s “this myth about atheists” being proselytizers?
I suspect that most of us want our children both to think for themselves and to adopt our own religious value-system. With varying degrees of emphasis on each half of that potential conflict.
I honestly have no idea why you felt the need to throw the adjective "religious" into there. Unless you're proudly declaring that atheists are better off because they lack conflict.
How many atheists have you known who haven't proselytized for their views?
What has proselytizing got to do with it? The reference was to one's own children. Not going out and preaching to strangers.
One of us has a faulty understanding of the word "proselytize." In my understanding, there is no requirement that you do not know the person you are trying to convince.
I'm more concerned with whether you have a faulty understanding of whether or not parents tend to want to pass on values to their children, regardless of whether those values are "religious" ones or not.
But you're also deeply weird for describing the act of parenting as "proselytizing". And did anyone else who followed you on the thread understand you to be referring to parents proselytizing their own children? Bet you the answer is no.
A parent might proselytize their own child if the parent converted to a new religion after the child had grown and left the nest. But parents teaching their minor children about their own faith are not proselytizing by any understanding of the word that I recognize.
I'm more concerned with whether you have a faulty understanding of whether or not parents tend to want to pass on values to their children, regardless of whether those values are "religious" ones or not.
Feel free to read the original comment as relating to both religious and non-religious values.
My understanding of atheists is that they don't believe in a personal God. Not that they are somehow incapable of holding any religious values.
Anything you hold sacred is a religious value, whether that's truth or Marxist doctrine or the imaginary nature of all gods or anything else.
Nobody’s endorsing it as a rational conclusion, but I think it’s certainly a plausible explanation for why people might hold that attitude. I mean, there are books full of descriptions of cognitive biases like that.
And if it’s so stupid, what’s your explanation for why there’s “this myth about atheists” being proselytizers?
Humans are not rational, not by default.
Well, no shit. But as an explanation of any particular aspect of human behavior, that's unsatisfyingly non-specific, to say the least. MT is at least pointing to a known effect (saliency bias.)
Again, a reasonably intelligent person on a site that prides it self for reasonably intelligent discussion said something stupid. Questioning why is not unreasonable.
I suspect that most of us want our children both to think for themselves and to adopt our own religious value-system. With varying degrees of emphasis on each half of that potential conflict.
I honestly have no idea why you felt the need to throw the adjective "religious" into there. Unless you're proudly declaring that atheists are better off because they lack conflict.
How many atheists have you known who haven't proselytized for their views?
What has proselytizing got to do with it? The reference was to one's own children. Not going out and preaching to strangers.
One of us has a faulty understanding of the word "proselytize." In my understanding, there is no requirement that you do not know the person you are trying to convince.
I'm not buying what you are selling. There is a strong tendency on SOF for an over-reaction when someone ascribes a behaviour to religious. To me, your post seems like that.
But, going along that route; of the atheists I know who I also know how they raise their children, most just don't talk about religion at all. I also know people who belong to various religions who also do not discuss religion with their children.
This is also true among non-theists and agnostics.
Nobody’s endorsing it as a rational conclusion, but I think it’s certainly a plausible explanation for why people might hold that attitude. I mean, there are books full of descriptions of cognitive biases like that.
And if it’s so stupid, what’s your explanation for why there’s “this myth about atheists” being proselytizers?
Humans are not rational, not by default.
Well, no shit. But as an explanation of any particular aspect of human behavior, that's unsatisfyingly non-specific, to say the least. MT is at least pointing to a known effect (saliency bias.)
Again, a reasonably intelligent person on a site that prides it self for reasonably intelligent discussion said something stupid. Questioning why is not unreasonable.
I think maybe you should question your interpretation of what MT said (assuming that's who you're referring to.) It may or may not be correct as a matter of fact, but it certainly isn't obviously stupid.
Nobody’s endorsing it as a rational conclusion, but I think it’s certainly a plausible explanation for why people might hold that attitude. I mean, there are books full of descriptions of cognitive biases like that.
And if it’s so stupid, what’s your explanation for why there’s “this myth about atheists” being proselytizers?
Humans are not rational, not by default.
Well, no shit. But as an explanation of any particular aspect of human behavior, that's unsatisfyingly non-specific, to say the least. MT is at least pointing to a known effect (saliency bias.)
Again, a reasonably intelligent person on a site that prides it self for reasonably intelligent discussion said something stupid. Questioning why is not unreasonable.
I think maybe you should question your interpretation of what MT said (assuming that's who you're referring to.) It may or may not be correct as a matter of fact, but it certainly isn't obviously stupid.
tclune said it. And given the context, I stand by my evaluation.
Nobody’s endorsing it as a rational conclusion, but I think it’s certainly a plausible explanation for why people might hold that attitude. I mean, there are books full of descriptions of cognitive biases like that.
And if it’s so stupid, what’s your explanation for why there’s “this myth about atheists” being proselytizers?
Humans are not rational, not by default.
Well, no shit. But as an explanation of any particular aspect of human behavior, that's unsatisfyingly non-specific, to say the least. MT is at least pointing to a known effect (saliency bias.)
Again, a reasonably intelligent person on a site that prides it self for reasonably intelligent discussion said something stupid. Questioning why is not unreasonable.
I think maybe you should question your interpretation of what MT said (assuming that's who you're referring to.) It may or may not be correct as a matter of fact, but it certainly isn't obviously stupid.
tclune said it. And given the context, I stand by my evaluation.
Well, given the context, if it's tclune's remark you were objecting to, it probably would have been clearer if you had responded to directly to him rather than to MT.
A parent might proselytize their own child if the parent converted to a new religion after the child had grown and left the nest. But parents teaching their minor children about their own faith are not proselytizing by any understanding of the word that I recognize.
Comments
And what am I supposedly "walking back"?
Yeah, there are people who think that Dawkins and such are representative of atheists as a whole. SOF prides itself, in general, on being smarter than that.
And if it’s so stupid, what’s your explanation for why there’s “this myth about atheists” being proselytizers?
What has proselytizing got to do with it? The reference was to one's own children. Not going out and preaching to strangers.
And everyone else seems to have followed you down that rabbit hole. The question isn't whether atheists go out and proselytize, the question is whether atheists seek to instil their values in their own children.
One of us has a faulty understanding of the word "proselytize." In my understanding, there is no requirement that you do not know the person you are trying to convince.
Yes that's the point. Jesus.
I'm more concerned with whether you have a faulty understanding of whether or not parents tend to want to pass on values to their children, regardless of whether those values are "religious" ones or not.
But you're also deeply weird for describing the act of parenting as "proselytizing". And did anyone else who followed you on the thread understand you to be referring to parents proselytizing their own children? Bet you the answer is no.
Feel free to read the original comment as relating to both religious and non-religious values.
My understanding of atheists is that they don't believe in a personal God. Not that they are somehow incapable of holding any religious values.
Anything you hold sacred is a religious value, whether that's truth or Marxist doctrine or the imaginary nature of all gods or anything else.
But, going along that route; of the atheists I know who I also know how they raise their children, most just don't talk about religion at all. I also know people who belong to various religions who also do not discuss religion with their children.
This is also true among non-theists and agnostics.
Agreed.