There has been talk off and on for a few years about being too mean in order to improve the image of atheism. I want to offer up something to think about on the topic.
Whether someone is mean or nice in their political or religious stance seems to be inconsequential. I have never read a story or account of someone who changed their position on something because the "other side" was more well-mannered. Would any of you become religious because the missionary was a nice guy/gal? Of course not. Why would we expect any believer to behave differently? No person ever said, "Those atheists are so nice, I think I'll give their information more weight." It doesn't happen.
Also, of all the world's leaders with the most numerous followers, how many of them were complete and utter assholes? I would say almost all of them. People do respond to those who are seen as mean by some. It works. Being as asshole may not get people to come over to your house to watch a football game, but it can get people to back you up religiously and politically. Being nice seems to carry no power whatsoever; it only serves to make you seem unimportant and easy to ignore.
You might say, "What about people like Martin Luther King? He was non-violent." Yes, but he was still very edgy and didn't give timid and nice speeches. His attitude was one of a fighter. If he was a timid "nice guy," he wouldn't have lasted more than a few speeches.
So, I guess my point is that if someone automatically shuns an atheist who isn't "polite" or something similar, I think you might as well give up. While it's true that people don't change by being attacked, the people who witness the attack (readers of a blog, for example) can openly and more readily accept the information because it's not personal. (And, something that's passionate is more powerful than something that's not.) The object of the attack is not important at all. What's important is that others can see it, no matter what attitude it takes.
The witness to an event always has a different experience than a participant. The witnesses are what's important.
Whether someone is mean or nice in their political or religious stance seems to be inconsequential. I have never read a story or account of someone who changed their position on something because the "other side" was more well-mannered. Would any of you become religious because the missionary was a nice guy/gal? Of course not. Why would we expect any believer to behave differently? No person ever said, "Those atheists are so nice, I think I'll give their information more weight." It doesn't happen.
Also, of all the world's leaders with the most numerous followers, how many of them were complete and utter assholes? I would say almost all of them. People do respond to those who are seen as mean by some. It works. Being as asshole may not get people to come over to your house to watch a football game, but it can get people to back you up religiously and politically. Being nice seems to carry no power whatsoever; it only serves to make you seem unimportant and easy to ignore.
You might say, "What about people like Martin Luther King? He was non-violent." Yes, but he was still very edgy and didn't give timid and nice speeches. His attitude was one of a fighter. If he was a timid "nice guy," he wouldn't have lasted more than a few speeches.
So, I guess my point is that if someone automatically shuns an atheist who isn't "polite" or something similar, I think you might as well give up. While it's true that people don't change by being attacked, the people who witness the attack (readers of a blog, for example) can openly and more readily accept the information because it's not personal. (And, something that's passionate is more powerful than something that's not.) The object of the attack is not important at all. What's important is that others can see it, no matter what attitude it takes.
The witness to an event always has a different experience than a participant. The witnesses are what's important.
No comments:
Post a Comment