Quote:
Originally Posted by Aegir
There are two possibilities :
a) They're purely that short-sighted and impatient believing that what they're doing is the most effective way to draw closeted atheists out in largest rate achievable and maintanable.
b) They're purely that short-sighted and impatient believing that what they're doing is the most effective way to draw closeted atheists out in largest rate achievable and maintainable, by consciously trying to stir conflicts within the religious communities to separate the minerals from the ores, while simultaneously "demonstrate" how inherently palaeololithical religious peoples are and thus scoring ideological points over the unreasoned myth believers.
Judging from how they behave, it's safe to decide on b). And not only their method will likely drive the religious more confrontational and close-minded, there also won't be much outflow of freed atheists coming their way, much less continuously, compared to what they could've achieved by building more compassionate public image. What they want is to ignite an epic confrontation where they can come out as victorious freethinkers with their rationally-based arguments unconfrontable by verses from books based on imaginary perceptions about reality, which will cause large scale abandonment of religion in favor of reason, which explains the level of their political sensibility and their grasp over how human socio-psychology works. Scenario a) demonstrates even less amount of those but at least there is no destructive intention in it (though will certainly bare the same result).
They're gonna fail ultimately. And I don't like it when attempts to encourage people to use more of logic and reason to evaluate things (especially religion) end up in failure, especially when caused by the ironical use of methods not grounded on logical sensibilities, inspired by wishful teleological visions. All they will serve us with will be mind-degenerating flame wars that will lead us to nowhere, and I have been exposed to them at a frequency more then I need in a lifetime !
|
In other words, your entire perception on the reasons for the campaign rests on an
Appeal to Motive based on a
petitio principii. I must confess, I am confounded by how you made the assertions that the campaigners are attempting to 'stir conflicts within the religious communities', as well as '"demonstrate" how inherently palaeololithical religious peoples are and thus scoring ideological points over the unreasoned myth believers', in order to 'draw closeted atheists out in largest rate achievable and maintainable', which according to you is 'short-sighted and impatient'... every one of which appear to be conjured out of thin air, with nothing concrete backing them up whatsoever. There are certain ways to make your points conclusively, my friend, but tarring the character of a third party with decidedly wild speculations about their motivations is not one of them.
You seem to be under the impression that these people are of the evangelical sort, preaching in an attempt to convert more followers to their cause; an impression that couldn't be further from the truth. I do not think the campaigners expect a large-scale deconversion from their efforts; as they themselves have stated, they are reaching out to people who may feel isolated in their non-belief within the highly religious community they found themselves in, and do not expect to change the minds of those who cling much tighter to their faith. I would suggest doing another read-through of the article in question in order to catch any detail you might have missed, instead of making further wild accusations due to your ignorance of their aims.
Try again.