"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."Now that Usenet newsgroup discussions have been superseded by blogs, wiki talk pages, and other discussion areas, this would probably be updated:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."Godwin's Law is often invoked in online discussions to caution us against the use of exaggerated comparisons and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the "reductio ad Hitlerum" type.
Some would suggest that anyone who invokes a Nazi analogy has "lost" the online debate.
For discussions involving atheism and skepticism, a similar adage is Blake's Law:
"In any discussion of atheism (skepticism, etc.), the probability that someone will compare a vocal atheist to religious fundamentalists increases to one."Or in simple terms, most comparisons to Nazis or fundamentalists are not true attempts at dialog but rather rhetorical devices intended to shut down discussion through name-calling.
And once a person has invoked a "fundamentalist = atheist" comparison, it's pretty apparent that an honest discussion is over.
5 comments:
Haha! That's a good laugh.
But on the flip side I think there should be another law, something like:
"In any discussion of religious fundamentalism, the probability that someone will compare a vocal religious fundamentalist to a sheep/idiot/etc. increases to one."
As with Blake's Law, the person who compares the religious fundamentalist to a sheep/idiot/etc. is considered to have lost the argument.
This should be true when considering 99% of all humans that ever lived were not atheists. And considering that almost all of the 1% humans that have been atheists did so in advanced modern secular societies - meaning atheism has more to do with culture than intelligence.
Clearly an atheist calling a theist stupid would be rather... stupid in itself wouldn't it?
To Jesus Cake --
If you think the need for a descriptive adage like you described in your reply exists, start pushing the meme. See if it gets any traction and if others find the need for your descriptive adage.
If your suggestion that atheism (and by extension) theism are cultural phenomena, you raise an interesting possibility.
Perhaps every person is born atheist (born with an absence of belief) and only develops a belief in god or gods due to cultural influences of family and society?
One suggestion -- you may want to examine the chip on your shoulder.
I never said that people who believe in god or gods are somehow less intelligent.
I merely commented on the strange pattern that happens in atheist - theist discussions where folks who are saying "show me the evidence if you want me to believe" are called "fundamentalist" for this.
An atheist can be justified in rejecting belief in god or gods due to a lack of evidence after exhaustive searching for evidence.
Admittedly, this is a "provisional certainty" and not an absolute belief.
However, most modern-day theists are atheists with respect to older gods who have fallen in popularity.
I suspect that you're an atheist with respect to Zeus or Baal.
99% of all humans who ever lived being theists of some sort isn't really relevant here. Is truth determined by majority vote or by evidence?
The increase in atheism in modern societies may reflect a cultural influence. As we learn more about the natural world, there is less and less for god or gods to do.
Germ theory for disease removes god's hands from infection.
Natural selection as a "bottom up" and not "top down" algorithmic process removes the need for an "intelligent designer" to explain modern-day biological complexity.
The role for god or gods at this point is reduced to a deistic role and no intervention is required to explain things.
That may be the cultural reason for recent increased in non-belief and decline in theism in North America and Europe.
:Or in simple terms, most comparisons to Nazis or fundamentalists are not true attempts at dialog but rather rhetorical devices intended to shut down discussion through name-calling.
It's not a question of "name-calling" Steve. It's a question of separating the atheist chaff from the atheist wheat. It is perfectly legitimate to use the term "fundamentalist atheist" to distinguish vocal intolerant militant atheists from more moderate atheists.
:And once a person has invoked a "fundamentalist = atheist" comparison, it's pretty apparent that an honest discussion is over.
Actually the above "comparison" is quite dishonest because I am not calling all atheists fundamentalists. The whole point of using the term "fundamentalist atheist" is to distinguish between the minority of vocal militant atheists whose words and actions are very comparable to those of religious fundamentalists (albeit from an anti-religious perspective) from the majority of atheist who seek no quarrel with believers. I have elaborated on this in the past but most recently did so over on the blog of fundamentalist atheist aka Atheist Supremacist P.Z. Myers.
In the process of searching for my posts there so I could refer you to them I found this one which preceded them. Please note that it was posted by an avowed "unbeliever" aka an atheist. It more than adequately justifies and vindicates my use of the term "fundamentalist atheist" -
"The self-righteous sneering of fundamentalist atheists almost makes me ashamed to be an unbeliever."
Posted by: David Harley | July 10, 2008 11:06 PM
The rest of that post is well worth reading it is post #385 in this Pharyngula thread -
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fresh_crackers.php
My relevant posts are #1090, #1129, #1133, #1137, #1160 and #1194.
Sorry Steve but thanks to people like Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers the terms "fundamentalist atheist" and "Atheist Supremacist" have entered into legitimate usage within the English language.
Of course I was legitimately using the term "fundamentalist atheist" to describe Rev. Ray Drennan and other "like-minded" U*U anti-religious bigots years before I ever heard of Richard Dawkins or P.Z. Myers. . . I was probably amongst the first people people to use that phrase, and coined it quite independently of others who may have coined it before me. I am certainly pioneering the use of the term "Atheist Supremacist" and coined that independently as well although it does seem that others got there a bit before me. . .
"The whole point of using the term "fundamentalist atheist" is to distinguish between the minority of vocal militant atheists whose words and actions are very comparable to those of religious fundamentalists (albeit from an anti-religious perspective) from the majority of atheist who seek no quarrel with believers."
Herein is the problem Robin, using your definition, if I sit quietly and say ‘I don’t believe god’ and “seek no quarrel with believers” then that’s ok, but if, in response to increasingly assertive and insipient theism trying to force its beliefs and cannons of behaviour on me, I take issue with the beliefs directly and point out their flaws and their effects then I am a “vocal militant” and as fanatical as someone who insists the universe is 6000 years old or who would fly a plane into a building. Apart form being patent rubbish, it a ridiculous attempt at dismissing a principled critique of sets of ideas by equating it with extreme versions of the ideas themselves.
You never hear people say this in politics for example, we’d never say that people who are critical a set of political ideas are “vocal militants” or “fundamentalists” if they speak out against political ideas they disagree with, democratic government rather depends on debate, but religion somehow deserves to fenced off from criticism. Fortunately most people can see through this straw man and it does the cause of theism no good whatever to try and shut down debate (rather than respond to the criticism) by saying anyone who dares question religious ideas that are increasingly affecting their lives is some sort of fanatic.
Post a Comment