Kinder, Gentler, Atheists

Christopher Hitchens has described himself as an anti-theist. Richard Dawkins has ascribed to the label, at times, too. They are often described as "The New Atheists", those two along with Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. "The New Atheists" are characterized by being "out", proud, and open about their atheism; which a lot of people on the religious front take to mean "aggressive", "indignant", etc.

Then, there're people like DJ Grothe- host of the Point of Inquiry podcast- Annie Laurie Gaylor, and Dan Barker. These are, what I consider to be the KG Atheists. Dan Barker introduces himself, on Freethought Radio on Air America, as "your friendly neighborhood atheist". The KGs are all about inclusiveness and "not raising to the bait", etc etc.



Then there are those who are somewhere between the polar opposites I'm making these groups out to be- including most of the people I just mentioned. This probably represents the largest group of atheists. (And here, by atheist, I mean anyone covered by terms such as Freethinker, etc; the big A word is one of my favorites).

The KG position is that by being aggressive, dismissive, confident/arrogant, and responding in kind to vitriol, we're only hurting our own position. It's an argument I dislike; but I can't find fault with it. They claim organizations such as The Rational Response Squad only serve to drive away some people who might otherwise join, or support, us.

But, I'm a kid of the digital revolution. We had watches that did trig, when I was growing up. Eat that, old people with your stupid sliding rulers...

I've dealt with trolls for longer than I've dealt with herp... er.. the POSSIBILITIES of STIs. :twisted:

Obviously, the best way to deal with those people is to ignore them, completely. But you know what that does? Nothing. It does nothing, so the troll gets bored, and the watchers go watch someone who WILL feed the trolls. You know what happens when you out troll the troll? The watchers help you beat the pitiful creature into the cyber-dirt, and rub it's crushed psyche with salt so that confidence may never spring forth from such potent manure, ever again. You gain allies, who can then be coddled, appeased, treated kindly, and won over.

The KGs have their place. They will always be needed, because "midwestern, Lutheran, housewives" will always be scared of the big mean satanic atheists; and dulcet tones may be the only way of getting them to put down their monster burning torches. But KGs often condescend to the Aggressives.

Worse, KGs, often express the exact same sentiments, feelings, and ideas as the Aggressives. Yet, it comes off- to me- as passive aggressive. Why is that bad? First, if you're asking you'll never truly get it. Second, it's bad because it stinks of false confidence.

Humans are social animals. We're wired to instinctively trust confident, self-assured, people- regardless of how stupid/idiotic/intelligent they may be. Who was the smartest kid in your High School? And who was the MOST popular? Chances are, they weren't the same kid. (Yeah, yeah, beauty has something to do with it, too; but you can't fake beauty as easily as confidence). Passive aggression has a stigma of being sleazy, underhanded, and... passive aggressive. It connotates negatively.

There's, seemingly obviously, always a place for the KGs; but why not accept the Aggressives, too? Those of us who enjoy a good screaming match of sarcastic one-ups-man-ship, insult round-up, or pin the negative stigma on the loser-faced-loser-boy have our uses. When slick sleazy conmen like Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Kent Hovind, etc etc etc ad nauseum, get up and spout their lies- the same lies that they've spouted a million times before, despite having been shown the evidence each and every time- why not return fire with someone who will equally ignore logic and gladly participate in tit-for-tat?

Why is it bad to ever offend, instead of the tried and true strategy to defend?

Let's face it, the moderates will attract some people. The KGs will attract some people. But the Aggressives could help to make it harder to say provably false, demeaning, bs- and less of that would attract some people. As would a projection of confidence and self-assurance.

This is very much tl;dr territory, so I'll stop there, for now. This is something I've been thinking about seriously for the last 6 months or so. I'm curious to hear the opinions of others "in the trenches", so to speak.

This is my first volley in a discussion I'm trying to start at the North Alabama Freethought Association's forums. I can maintain separate conversations- it'd be interesting to see how two different conversations develop, honestly- but anyone who would like to see it there will need to register for their forums.