Reply #54: Sure, it's a mixed crowd here... [View All]

[Silent3]

...when it comes to religion, and not so much so when it comes how DUers feel about Republicans, but it's still not the same rhetorical environment as an in-person conversation with one or two other people of differing opinions. When we post here, we're addressing an audience. Think of two opposing political candidates at one of those televised "Town Hall" meetings: even though they are addressing a mixed audience of supporters for each candidate and undecideds, they do not hesitate to make pointed jabs and mock positions of the opposing candidate.

As for using a term like "sky daddy" -- a quote from Thomas Jefferson (he was specifically talking here about the Christian concept of the Trinity):

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them..."

Often what I'm trying to convey when discussing religion is that, in opinion, many religious propositions are patently absurd. It's a perfectly valid rhetorical technique to try to highlight the absurdity of an idea or position that you oppose.

You may quibble about how effective that technique might be, whether or not all you do is make the other person dig in their heels deeper. A person seldom ever changes another person's mind in any argument, however, at least not right then and there before your eyes. You have to remember that part of the audience for a debate like this is people on the sidelines who may not have set opinions, or people who have already begun to have doubts. Those people are more open to barbed criticism, they may even find it more persuasive than mincing diplomacy. Passion and humor are at least as important as reason and logic in getting a point across. If you abandon passionate language and humor, including scorn and sharp-edged humor where appropriate, you severely limit yourself.

What do you think the general cultural effect of everyone being especially careful and respectful and gingerly in discussing religion is, when all of that is done to a much greater extent for religion than any other topic? Doesn't it seem likely that such deference gives religion a special survival advantage in the marketplace of ideas that other ideas, including atheism, don't enjoy?