Depending on how polarized the sides are, the audience is either mostly, or completely going there to watch a fight and root for their team.
Like I said, entertainment.
If they just want to have pride in being right, and rallying their base, they shouldn’t keep up a pretense of spreading rational atheism. They want both, but they can’t have it.
Theory 2 proposes a way that rallying the base spreads atheism.
Granted, I didn’t express my thoughts on that clearly. I think there is a fundamental difference between attempting to get someone to agree with your opinions and helping them develop rationality—likely through both similar and different opinions. I think the latter is a better moral play, and it’s genuine.
What is the higher priority result for a rational atheist targeting a theist:
a more rational theist
a not-any-more-rational-than-before atheist
an irrational agnostic
I think the biggest “win” of the results is the first. But groups claiming to favor rationality most still get stuck on opinions all the time (cryogenics comes to mind). Groups tend to congregate around opinions, and forcing that opinion becomes the group agenda, even though they believe it’s the right and rational opinion to have. It’s hard, because a group that shares few opinions is hardly a group at all, but the sharing of opinions and exclusion of those with different opinions works against an agenda of rationality. And shouldn’t that be the agenda of a rational atheist?
I think the “people who don’t care” of your 1st theory are either 1) unimportant or 2) don’t exist, depending on the meaning of the phrase.
I think theory 2 makes a fatal mistake, it emphasizes the cart (opinion) rather than the horse (rational thinking). I’m willing to grant they’re not so separate and cut-and-dry, but I wanted to illustrate the distinction I see.
Like I said, entertainment.
Theory 2 proposes a way that rallying the base spreads atheism.
And I said rational atheism, not atheism.
Granted, I didn’t express my thoughts on that clearly. I think there is a fundamental difference between attempting to get someone to agree with your opinions and helping them develop rationality—likely through both similar and different opinions. I think the latter is a better moral play, and it’s genuine.
What is the higher priority result for a rational atheist targeting a theist:
a more rational theist
a not-any-more-rational-than-before atheist
an irrational agnostic
I think the biggest “win” of the results is the first. But groups claiming to favor rationality most still get stuck on opinions all the time (cryogenics comes to mind). Groups tend to congregate around opinions, and forcing that opinion becomes the group agenda, even though they believe it’s the right and rational opinion to have. It’s hard, because a group that shares few opinions is hardly a group at all, but the sharing of opinions and exclusion of those with different opinions works against an agenda of rationality. And shouldn’t that be the agenda of a rational atheist?
I think the “people who don’t care” of your 1st theory are either 1) unimportant or 2) don’t exist, depending on the meaning of the phrase.
I think theory 2 makes a fatal mistake, it emphasizes the cart (opinion) rather than the horse (rational thinking). I’m willing to grant they’re not so separate and cut-and-dry, but I wanted to illustrate the distinction I see.