Is he who is intolerant towards intolerance any more justified to be intolerant then the intolerance he is being intolerant towards? Does his intolerance towards intolerance not make him a hypocrite?

Views: 43


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by TJMorgan on July 30, 2008 at 1:51pm
I agree with you Drew. You make some good points. In most arguments with theist, when the, " you are being intolerant to my beliefs" comes out, it often used as a misdirection tactic from ever really having to address the issue at hand, the actual subject matter. I haven't heard that "atheism is illogical" before except for perhaps "Pascal's Wager" might suggest it. However, there are too many assumptions in "Pascal's Wager" to take it seriously.

I see this mirroring tactic A LOT. Not only the intolerance card, but many other things too. Often not even properly applied. And I am so tired of these ol' ad hominen arguments creationists use to try to misdirect the topic. The things they say often if not almost always applies to themselves. Makes you wonder if they just hadn't heard it before used against them, and like parrots, repeat it even when it doesn't really apply to the scenario.

Good thoughts man.
Comment by Drew on July 30, 2008 at 1:25pm
Hi TJ. Isn't this one of the most frustrating issues in ALL public discourse, not just issues about religion? I find it tiring and utterly ludicrous to read comments from theists about how "atheism is illogical" etc.

This is one of the most common, most fallacious, and yet most effective debating tricks that there is. The person who actually is intolerant starts by accusing his accuser with the same terminology. This is an attempt to confuse third parties; because if both make the same accusation, then it's harder (for a person who is less intelligent in simple debates, or less knowledgable in complicated debates) to figure out who really IS the intolerant one. So it's a "defensive shield".

It's also an attempt to render the term "intolerant" meaningless, by applying it to things that are not, actually, intolerance. This is meant to take the power away from the word.

I call this tactic "mirroring", because I haven't seen it described or named anywhere else. It is exactly that - a tactic. Once it is carefully explained, the person using it is unlikely to admit what he has done or change his tone - but hopefully third parties reading or listening to him will see his for what he is - a person whose position has so little merit that he has to use tricks rather than information to support his views.

Examples of "mirroring" abound. The communist regimes of Eastern Europe all called themselves "People's Democratic Republics". Who did this fool? Theist apologists pretend that atheism is a "religion", that atheists are "illogical". Do they really believe this, or, like all charlatans, do they know they are lying, but for them the ends justify the means? George Orwell is the best known social commentator on this sort of "double-speak" - perhaps instead of accusing people of using "mirroring" I should be accusing them of Orwellian Double-Speak.



Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service