kcrady, I am assuming that your definition of "marginalization" is the same as Joe's, so I'm not going to reply to those parts, as it has been taken care of.
I'm working through the posts trying to "catch up" with the thread, and I haven't gotten to the posts where you debate Joe's definition of "marginalization." I've been basically letting him deal with your replies to him, and focusing my attention on your replies to me.
When I talk about marginalization, I mean that belief in Jesus as God Incarnate, etc. should receive the exact amount of respect and deference as other, equally ridiculous beliefs, like David Icke's belief that the British Royal Family (and other prominent individuals) are shape-shifting alien lizards trying to take over the world. Let's say Rick Perry came on the Sunday talk shows saying, "I've just read a book by David Icke where he makes a powerful case that the British Royal Family are shape-shifting alien lizards out to take over the world. In order to confront this alien threat, I, as President, would dispatch Seal Team Six to take them out."
Would you advise Jay Leno, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert not
to make fun of him? Perhaps his proposal should be discussed seriously, with charts and graphs and polls indicating the likelihood of adverse effects on America's relationship with Great Britain. Or maybe we can be "moderate" about it, and suggest a compromise the British people might accept without a declaration of war: "Can we just assassinate Prince Charles?"
If you wouldn't advise a moderate, accommodationist approach to David Icke's lizard hypothesis (or any other brand of silliness), why single out Christianity for special treatment? Shouldn't we be nice to all
Actually, you are. I wasn't arguing; I was merely stating a fact. Also note how I didn't mention "mockery" or any tactic other than "logical arguments".
Sorry, I'm not following you here. What straw man do you think I'm arguing against?
Why should it if non-ridicule achieves the same thing without the increased tension between atheists and theists?
Air strikes achieve the same results as cruise missiles (targets blown up). Does that mean we should never use cruise missiles? Water colors achieve the same results as oil paints (paintings). Does that mean we should never use oil paints? My point: ridicule and "non-ridicule" (e.g. moral outrage or argumentation with logic and evidence) may achieve similar/the same results when successful, but each has a higher likelihood of achieving
success under different circumstances. Under some circumstances, logic and evidence may work, and ridicule won't. Under other circumstances, logic and evidence are BB's against a battleship, but a witty piece of mockery can be a torpedo hit below the waterline. In another case, moral outrage may be the right approach. It all depends on who you're dealing with and what the situation is.
I gotta say, I very much doubt this.
The audience would most likely agree with you, according to USA statistics. Why would you feel shame unless you already believed that your beliefs were ridiculous? Most creationists do not realize that their beliefs are ridiculous.
They know they are, to actual experts in the relevant scientific fields. Otherwise they'd be eagerly lining up to publish in scientific journals and win Nobel Prizes. It's not difficult to demonstrate
that YECism is ridiculous in the process of mockery. Just visit one of the "Noah's Flood" threads right here on this forum.
Even open minded individuals would ignore people who mock them. Why should you pay attention to someone who just wants to call you an idiot?
Which is why mockery should not be used against open-minded theists who (inconsistently) practice rationality. All along, I've been arguing for different tactics in different situations. How is this hard? You yourself mock Christian beliefs at the bottom of every one of your posts. Obviously you don't think it's always
I did not know this. I will consider if the increased tension is worth the potential benefit and get back to you.
OK. Do you think your sig quote (not to mention the post it's quoting) equating God to Santa is worth the increased tension with any Christian here who might read it? Since perfectly polite billboards saying things like "Don't Believe in God? You're Not Alone" raise seething "tension" from Christians, do you think maybe those atheist groups should just STFU, accept Christian hegemony and be grateful their Christian overlords don't burn them at the stake?
Moral outrage is not only acceptable but should be a part of everything, IMO.
So far the core of your position has been, "We don't want to piss the Christians off! They'll kick our asses!" That's the reason you've given for why we should should never use mockery. What if our anger and outrage pisses them off (it does)? If that's a good reason to censor ourselves WRT mockery, isn't it equally valid as a reason to censor our outrage?
Also, I don't like how your last sentence implies that you "knew" I would disagree. I'd call this "strawman", but I'm not exactly sure if it fits.
My last sentence was a question.
It wasn't meant to imply I "knew" you would disagree (or agree). I didn't know, which is why I asked.
Let me rephrase: Minorities (in the sense that they have opinions that other people do not share) cannot marginalize the majority (in the sense that they have opinions that other people share).
Yes they can. It just takes time and work (and sometimes, more than that) from the minority. Homosexuals are a minority. Blacks are a minority. Both groups have significantly changed the moral and cultural zeitgeist, swimming against the current of a WASP heterosexual majority opposition with cultural privilege. Then, after it was done, and the change (mostly) complete, acceptance of blacks and homosexuals as equals became the majority view.