Why I don't read many atheism blogs
Despite the fact that I'm an atheist and a fairly outspoken one, I have little time for most atheism blogs -- by which I mean blogs whose primary purpose is to promote atheism, not merely any blog written by a person who happens to be an atheist.
Most atheism blogs in this sense seem dedicated to endlessly re-hashing what are basically the same debates and arguments we've been having with god-believers for decades, if not generations. I had my fill of those arguments quite some time ago -- long before the internet was on the scene, in fact -- and I find little interest in repeating the same conversations over and over.
More fundamentally, I've come to concur with Pat Condell that the best way to confront religion is via ridicule, not debate -- because religion is inherently ridiculous, and the most effective way to combat it is to highlight this. Trying to have a serious "debate" about the befuddled hash of incoherence that passes for "ideas" in religion means according religion a seriousness and credibility and respect that it simply does not merit. It's like "debating" the "stork hypothesis" of where babies come from; the mere act of attempting such a debate would dignify the absurd.
A blog whose approach to religion I do like (though religion isn't its sole topic) is Pharyngula.
Most atheism blogs in this sense seem dedicated to endlessly re-hashing what are basically the same debates and arguments we've been having with god-believers for decades, if not generations. I had my fill of those arguments quite some time ago -- long before the internet was on the scene, in fact -- and I find little interest in repeating the same conversations over and over.
More fundamentally, I've come to concur with Pat Condell that the best way to confront religion is via ridicule, not debate -- because religion is inherently ridiculous, and the most effective way to combat it is to highlight this. Trying to have a serious "debate" about the befuddled hash of incoherence that passes for "ideas" in religion means according religion a seriousness and credibility and respect that it simply does not merit. It's like "debating" the "stork hypothesis" of where babies come from; the mere act of attempting such a debate would dignify the absurd.
A blog whose approach to religion I do like (though religion isn't its sole topic) is Pharyngula.
posted by Infidel753 at 7:06 AM
4 Comments:
OK, I'll bite. Your title is a draw into a blub that simply screams "debate me so I can ridicule you". Was that planned or did you just not realize how ironic it would be?
I'm a Christian and I don't debate religion either. Neither do I ridicule those who do not believe in God because, who am I to know whether or not one day they will and I've offended a brother or sister? I give them the respect of letting them make their own choices without compromising mine. Just a thought for you.
Lonni
I don't really understand your first paragraph. This posting, like the linked Condell video, is clearly aimed mainly at those atheists who do think that debating religion with the religious is a fruitful approach. It certainly doesn't "scream 'debate me'" when I say very emphatically that I'm not interested in those kinds of debates.
I have no respect for religion, but I do respect religious people (an important distinction) to this extent: I don't go onto their turf/blogs and pick fights with them there.
I`m Sorry!
Who's sorry?
Post a Comment
<< Home