Conversational Accountability
Posted: 28 May 2009 04:54 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

I like conversational accountability much better than Sam’s conversational intolerance and I think anything with “intolerance” in the name is going to throw up barriers to absorption so it won’t even really be considered by many, probably most.

In any case, there are a few things to consider regarding conversational accountability. Assuming we want to promote the idea, does a lack of conversational diplomacy compromise the effort? How do you include challenging the status quo in the meme? Is it too late to “sell” a solid package of proper conversational accountability when most people will more than likely include faith in their version?

IOW, this topic is about rehashing the basic reasons Sam wrote The End of Faith and started this forum (and tossing that term tweak out there to see what yous think of it).

Yup.

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2009 08:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05

‘Is it too late to “sell” a solid package of proper conversational accountability when most people will more than likely include faith in their version?’

I would say yes to that. Faith would seem to be the opposite of accountability. How can people converse with accountability when they interject faith into the discussion? Doesn’t that deflate the entire process right there?

I think the concept of Sam’s Conversational Intolerance is to be intolerant of faith from the beginning, being is that it is a non sequiter. We should stop respecting faith and delusion before the discussion even begins, because there is no accountability in that train of thought.

 Signature 

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2009 10:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1585
Joined  2006-10-20

Such high falutin’ words, boys.  Byron, perhaps there needs to be more than one approach to the issue.  Let’s examine the Civil Rights movement as an example, and compare it to the growing numbers of confessed faithless.  Drawing attention to an issue requires some sort of militancy, whether it is a widespread boycott or physical violence, but the result is a combination of attention (negative or positive) and recognition.  In the case of the blacks in the US, they weren’t an idea but, of course, people who couldn’t go away or stand to hold their tongues, so MKL’s and Malcolm X’s tactics both drew attention to the plight for legitimacy, and through a long process have achieved many of their goals.  In short, both of your approaches are correct at the same time, it’s the old “Good Cop, Bad Cop” game.  Thoughtful atheists like you and Jefe are just as important as the attention grabbing bludgeons of Salt Creek and Bad Rabbit.

Another way to look the issue is as teacher with a new class - spend the first couple weeks being a hard-ass and then slowly become the nice guy.  This works because the students think the teacher primarily has a bad side but with good behavior can keep it at bay.  But if the teacher were to start out by being a nice guy then when the time came to be a hard-ass the students wouldn’t take the teacher seriously.

I hope I have made myself perfectly opaque.

 Signature 

“All extremists should be killed!” - neighbor’s bumper sticker

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 May 2009 08:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2007-10-18

-deleted-

[ Edited: 07 March 2011 03:47 PM by J.C.]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 May 2009 09:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2007-10-18

-deleted-

[ Edited: 07 March 2011 03:47 PM by J.C.]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 May 2009 02:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1585
Joined  2006-10-20
Joel Armstrong - 30 May 2009 01:02 AM

But I see the point you are possibly trying to convey; don’t let up from the start, and have high expectations in as far as accountability is concerned.

Yeah, that part.

 Signature 

“All extremists should be killed!” - neighbor’s bumper sticker

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 June 2009 10:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20

Yes, that all makes sense. There is a difference between calling bs on something and calling for an explanation.

I don’t find myself in a position where I am speaking to people about religion. I virtually never have been asked kind I am. I do remember instances where I was clearly being baited, and in such instances, I usually find a way to not take the bait and still leave them wondering. I don’t see any point in a baited conversation. In the right setting, I’d be pleased to say what I think.

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 June 2009 02:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  951
Joined  2007-06-23
Skipshot - 29 May 2009 02:40 AM

I hope I have made myself perfectly opaque.

OMG, where did the Bay go?

OMG, did I just use the juvenile web convention “OMG”?

Put me down for “good cop” about 80% of the time. I enjoy calling BS on complete asshats as much as the next guy, but conversational accountability implies a continuing dialogue in a manner which conversational intolerance does not - and time makes more converts than reason.

I think of dealing with not-ready-for-open-atheism doubters as a battle of attrition. It takes a bit of information here, a conversation there etc. for a person to abandon old belief structures (IOW - a continuing dialogue). A bash in the face usually doesn’t change someone’s mind, rather it puts them on the defensive.

Unless, of course, you hit them hard enough to cause amnesia and/or alteration of brain structures.

 Signature 

He who is not a misanthrope at forty can never have loved mankind  -Chamfort

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 June 2009 10:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
mpbrockman - 02 June 2009 06:51 AM

I enjoy calling BS on complete asshats as much as the next guy, but conversational accountability implies a continuing dialogue in a manner which conversational intolerance does not - and time makes more converts than reason.

I think of dealing with not-ready-for-open-atheism doubters as a battle of attrition. It takes a bit of information here, a conversation there etc. for a person to abandon old belief structures (IOW - a continuing dialogue). A bash in the face usually doesn’t change someone’s mind, rather it puts them on the defensive.

Conversational intolerance is Dionysian.

Conversational accountability is Newtonian.

Conversational futility is Derridian.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 June 2009 11:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2136
Joined  2006-02-20
mpbrockman - 02 June 2009 06:51 AM

I think of dealing with not-ready-for-open-atheism doubters as a battle of attrition. It takes a bit of information here, a conversation there etc. for a person to abandon old belief structures (IOW - a continuing dialogue). A bash in the face usually doesn’t change someone’s mind, rather it puts them on the defensive.

If ‘liberal or moderate’ Christians are willing to read ‘THE VIEW FROM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE’ by Joel Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams . . . it won’t bash them in the face, and it might rattle their teacups.  Thinking about it later, it might strike them that Bible stories are like Disney fairy tales in comparison.

 Signature 

“The simple fables of the religious of the world have come to seem like tales told to children.”  - Nobel Prize recipient - Francis Crick

“It is time we recognized the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved.” - Sam Harris

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 June 2009 11:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
unsmoked - 02 June 2009 03:15 PM

it won’t bash them in the face, and it might rattle their teacups.

But your program is not aimed at the end of woo, it’s aimed at the expansion of your brand of woo at the expense of their brand. You ignorant twat.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 June 2009 12:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2136
Joined  2006-02-20
Salt Creek - 02 June 2009 03:36 PM
unsmoked - 02 June 2009 03:15 PM

it won’t bash them in the face, and it might rattle their teacups.

But your program is not aimed at the end of woo, it’s aimed at the expansion of your brand of woo at the expense of their brand. You ignorant twat.

“Why do atoms wonder what the universe is instead of just being the universe?” the White Rabbit said.

“Well, you can’t blame them for being curious,” the Walrus said, sipping his tea noisily.  “I mean, it’s all so unlikely.”

“Bosh!”  Alice said, thumping the table with her fist.  “Why hasn’t anyone noticed my new frock?!”

(quoted from FURTHER ADVENTURES OF ALICE)

 Signature 

“The simple fables of the religious of the world have come to seem like tales told to children.”  - Nobel Prize recipient - Francis Crick

“It is time we recognized the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved.” - Sam Harris

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2009 12:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  951
Joined  2007-06-23
Salt Creek - 02 June 2009 02:40 PM

Conversational futility is Derridian.

I was with you until here. Deconstruction is futile? Or did the point sail right past me?

 Signature 

He who is not a misanthrope at forty can never have loved mankind  -Chamfort

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2009 09:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
mpbrockman - 03 June 2009 04:18 AM
Salt Creek - 02 June 2009 02:40 PM

Conversational futility is Derridian.

I was with you until here. Deconstruction is futile? Or did the point sail right past me?

You got me with that one, and anyway, I didn’t spell it correctly as “Derridean”. Maybe I meant something like “derision”. How can we know what we mean, anyway? What would you call a combination of elision and derision? Futility has been deconstructed in earlier conversations, but it wasn’t futile. See, “the infinite amount of nonsense one can know about nothing”.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed