Hi Steve, (I was about to say) you might usefully take Michael's point though ... (the, I see you did ...)
As DMB said "You simply can't criticize something until you understand what it is. This is not an arbitrary rule." I Agreed. I think this is the main (logical) rule of discourse, (besides all the rhetorical "rules"). Calling your opponents words "lies" is not a recipe for anything but conflict. One man's lies (or truth) is simply another man's myth. The religious seem to start closer to this position, whereas the archetypical atheist / scientist can take a long time to learn this. As you see, however well intentioned your campaign, words and style of argument matter. Regards Ian On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Steve Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Michael, > >> Steve Peterson wrote: >> >>> What do you think? Do you think you can tell a good story of hope for a >>> better future that doesn't include lies about virgin births and >>> resurrections? >> >> Michael: >> Just thinking out loud here, perhaps you'd get a better reception in >> claiming a >> path "for a better future" if you didn't refer to people's theistic >> beliefs as "lies" ... > > Steve: > Your name is unfamiliar. If you are new here, welcome! What brings you to > MOQ.org? (If you are not new here, well... I've been away for a while.) > > First of all, the blog I am working on is not aimed directly at convincing > theists that they have a bunch of wacky beliefs that we'd all be better off > if they dropped. That is indirectly part of my goal, but the blog is not to > attract theists to the discussion. I want to converse with other non > believers in an ongoing strategy session that would include the sort of > suggestion you made. > > But I also want to talk to non believers to find out if what I hear from > theists is right--that atheists are generally materialists and > relativists--and if so (as I suspect), to criticize their SOM assumptions > using the arguments against SOM that Pirsig and pragmatism in general offer. > I also want to discuss the positive alternative that Pirsig and pragmatism > offer since atheism is only a negative. > > Secondly, you are right that I shouldn't go around saying that such things > are lies. They are actually myths which equate to either facts or lies from > the SOM perspective. In the MOQ, they of course are neither. A myth is not > "false" because it never happened and it is not "true" because it actually > did happen at some point in history if it in fact did happen. A myth is > something more powerful than a fact. A myth, if it is a good one, is true > because it happens all the time. > > Regards, > Steve > > atheistichope.blogspot.com > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
