Brian Sapient Responds to Your Comments

Some constructive nitpicking:

Ironically some atheists will buy into this, and become theistic pawns. Like they were when they were still religious, only now they’re atheist pawns for theism.

Poisoning the well is not only aggressive, but fallacious.

As for “deconverting” success, we counted no less than 150 emails and 50 posts on our forum in the last year from believers who–in full or large part credit the RRS for their deconversion.

There could be selective bias at work, since the the type of people who are into the RRS are probably more likely to speak out and send e-mails.

You’d have stopped investigating a claim altogether because someone seemed overly confident about their claim? Doesn’t seem very skeptical to me.

So public embarrassment is one principle.

Embarassment, while a possibly successful tactic, works by the same non-skeptical route as when people feel distanced by the RRS. Endorsing one and condemning the other seems inconsistent at best and dishonest at worst.

From Brian’s blog:

You’ll have a hard time enjoying our “behaviour” if you’re on the ass end of it, I get that.

Anal rape analogies. Gotta love it.

Also – do you think that by being aggressive, and talking about shoving things down people’s throats, you will silence people who disagree with your goals and your tactics? ‘Fraid not.

Excuse me if I’m not impressed with your “rationality” either.

I still say UnRRS is the opposite side of the same coin as the Religious Reich. Hemant, you are far better character than the UnRRS.

Quote:

Mriana said,

It is indeed their behaviour I do not like. I’m sure they can be very fine young people, but their behaviour has little to be desired and is indeed a big turn off to me.

Brian’s response:

You’ll have a hard time enjoying our “behaviour” if you’re on the ass end of it, I get that.

Now he’s acting like a snot nose brat. Glad he’s not my son.

Oh they blocked my user name. FINE! I’ll say it here, but it’s a shame you won’t let me say there, Brian. Nice that you can address me there, but I am not allowed to respond? You call us out, but won’t allow us to say anything? NICE! 🙄 Now that sounds like you’re in defensive mode Brian. Block/ban me because I don’t agree with your tactics without giving me a chance for rebuttle? Well, like I said, I’ll say it here.

Quote:

Mriana said,

I’m not so certain the UnRRS has and sometimes they sound an awful lot like Fundies. That sort of anger doesn’t jive and it’s not condusive to anything, except a big turn off.

Brian:
Our sort of “anger” isn’t “condusive” to anything?

So our sort of “anger” didn’t lead to us posting a blog, Hemant reposting it, and you making an ignorant absolute statement out of it?

Since you’re probably not following along, telling the world what we do doesn’t lead to anything, sounds emotional, irrational, and absolute when you are actually a product of it’s origin. Furthermore, I’ve already submitted evidence of several people who left religion because of us, and one is enough to prove your statement invalid. It was sitting right above the comment you made! How convenient.

No your anger isn’t conducive to anything. It’s a big turn off and IF your brand of atheism was the only form of atheism, I’d want no part of it. I hardly believe what I said was ignorant, esp if what you do is a BIG turn off to atheism- even though you feel it’s not. IMHO it is and I am ashamed to call myself an atheist. I can’t call myself a theist because I don’t believe in a historical Jesus or God and even if I were I’d be ashamed to say I was a theist due to the Religious Reich. I’d rather take a page out of Sam Harris’s book and call myself nothing. Thank humans there is Humanism.

What Hemant does is his business, but I think he is better than you all are, has more taste, tact, and dignity.

Product of what origin? Not liking cruelty and meanous done to others? No, I don’t like it when people are being mean and hateful to others. I hardly think that is irrational to not like hatred and meanous. By the same token I could say you are a product of your origin too. BOTH my sons have more reason and compassion than I’ve seen from RRS. I truly believe Hemant does too.

No one convert is not enough evidence to prove my statement is invalid. I don’t believe they have any basis to stay atheists. Nothing to hold onto that will keep them as atheists. They don’t have enough education from you all to have a basis. Bob Price has more knowledge of religion than any of you all, including Rookie. I have far more respect for Bob. I truly feel there are far better ways and still give people meaning to why they decided to “let go of God” than nothing. An actual education for starters helps a lot, IMO, and not just science, but religion too and Bob Price, for one, has a corner on that IMO and is far more decent in his tactics.

No, I’d be proud to call Hemant my son, if he were my son, but I can’t say the same for those of the RRS. I can’t say I’d be proud to call any of you all my children. I sometimes wonder if you all speak to your mothers the same way, but then again, at least one of you I hear has not told their parents that they are an atheist. What sort of example is that?

I have far far more respect for Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris for that matter than you all.

More from the world of not logically sound, and emotional arguments against the RRS…

Not logically sound because I care about human dignity. Really? Emotional arguments? Emotional? Can’t help it if I’m a passionate and compassionate woman, now can I? I do things from my heart and I truly believe that has more meaning than anything else- even religion. Sorry, I need a better intellectual argument then that.

Whatever the case, I am not discriminate. I will call both atheist and theist alike on their behaviours- esp if it is not dignifying to the human.

MikeClawson said:

Personally, as I’ve said before, I think there far more important goals both atheists and Christians ought to be working together towards (e.g. improving the status of atheists in society, maintaining the separation of Church and State, undermining the Religious Right, fighting poverty, ending slavery, protecting the environment, global peacemaking, creating a society of mutual-respect and active concern for others, etc.) none of which require one side to convert the other.

I agree 100%. This game of trying to get people to convert is just plain silly and being a militant atheist or a militant theist won’t get anyone anywhere. Reason, compassion, and love will.

I’ve said this before too, but I have more respect for MikeC and Bishop John Shelby Spong than I do for any of the kids at RRS.

One more thing, Brian:

Quote:
I assume he’s quoting Richard:
In religion he’d be exactly like the bigots we face.

Brian:
Oh fuck it…. Fuck you Richard Wade.

Do you kiss your mama with that mouth? That really was not nice and Richard is an atheist, but what you and Richard do is none of my business. However, I happen to agree with Richard- but um… Brian, no thanks, you’re a little too young for me.

Banned by RRS, Mrianna, eh? Take it as a badge of honor. 🙂 Anyway …

This game of trying to get people to convert is just plain silly

I disagree. I don’t see anything wrong with trying to rationally convince people that one’s position is right, which is what conversion should be about. The problem comes when irrationality creeps in.

and being a militant atheist or a militant theist won’t get anyone anywhere.

I will puckishly nitpick here. Being a militant atheist or a militant theist does get some people somewhere. It’s just a matter of whether that somewhere is worth going.

I’ve been thinking about this, where I stand, etc. Some tidbits have come up, but the most important thing about my own position is that I am basically a humanist and that makes me a proponent of Free Will. And Sapient’s techniques demand serious scrutiny from this point of view.

Mriana’s experience proves one of my main concerns: that Sapient is indulging in cult-like programming. When Mriana becomes an effective and thoughtful critic of his methodology, he shuts her up, though he continues to attack her. Students of cults will recognize the technique. One can properly guess that if any of his “converts” spin off into an undesirable direction, he will attack them likewise, prevent people from seeing just what these people think.

Insecurity is at the root of this desire to convert, to control the views of others. One wonders just how firm Sapient’s own atheism is that he is willing to throw out free choice. Sapient’s aim here is control and who among us has not bristled at the attempt of churches or political movements to control our thinking? Sapient is like the Millenialist who feels s/he must convert everyone to Jesus that s/he can before the Rapture. There’s an almost pathological desire to tot up the convert numbers as evidence that he’s a better atheist than other atheists out there. By statisticating (a kind of fornicating) the issue, he chews out the heart of what it means to make up your own mind and joins the ranks of other missionaries and zealots.

I don’t think we humanists are served by a siege mentality. This is not forced on us by circumstances, but chosen by us as a response to circumstances. And if we’re really after the individual’s right to choose belief, we must rule out any kind of coercion whether by the state, family, community groups, or self-appointed saviors.

This also goes to prove that being an atheist does not immediately credential one as a humanist.

1. I’d be curious to find out who these converts of theirs are… rebellious teens who quite likely might go back to being theists after the phase is over? (It happens)

2. Funny how in the video he linked to, Brian lumps in people who are critical of the RRS along with people who slander and defame the RRS.

3. Yes Brian, I don’t like your group because you’re right. My mistake, you’re not arrogantly ignorant at all.

5. RRS is quite good at getting attention. That doesn’t mean their tactics are appropriate, only that they are attention gathering. I can go downtown and get a lot of attention by ranting on a street corner, but I won’t convince many people. I can strap a bomb to my chest and threaten to blow myself up, I’ll make the 6 o’clock news but I won’t convince many people. Of the percentage of people who read the Unabomber Manifesto, how many actually bought into it?

6. The Catholic Church probably converted more than 150 people in the US last year. Does that make the Church superior to the RRS? Does that mean the church’s message is stronger and more effective? Does it say anything at all?

Joel Sax,

By statisticating (a kind of fornicating) the issue, he chews out the heart of what it means to make up your own mind and joins the ranks of other missionaries and zealots.

Taking a page from the RRS with the attitude, I see. What, are population statistics invalid now because they wrongly turn people into numbers? Someone asked for hard evidence, and he gave it.

This also goes to prove that being an atheist does not immediately credential one as a humanist.

I suggest cutting the elitist attitude.

Miller writes

I suggest cutting the elitist attitude.

You know, Fundamentalists (and country music lovers) like to hurl that at Christians who don’t partner up with their program. I’m not surprised to hear it from you. You’re cut from the same cloth. When your methods and attitude can’t take the heat of humanism’s call to respect the human being over ideology, you call it elitism.

A classic cult tactic, I dare say, designed to obfuscate.

Mriana: We don’t always agree, but on this I’ll be glad to be on your team any time.

Daniel: As opposed to your poor weak atheism, humanism does not endorse militancy. By supporting RRS’s methods in the hope of attracting more converts, you become co-opted into their coerciive techniques and sucked up into their system of ethics. You think that by standing a step or so back, the blood doesn’t fall on you. It’s there, right down the front.

Tao Jones:You’re describing classic cult behavior. Which only goes to show that you don’t have to believe in a God, Higher Power, etc. to practice these techniques. A lesson to the wise.

Do you kiss your mama with that mouth?

I don’t know about that, but he did say he wants to put his mother in a mental institution b/c she is a theist. Btw, Mriana, congrats on being banned, lol. Guess if they don’t like you disagreeing with them, they ban you. Yeah, we all know that works so well……..

1. I’d be curious to find out who these converts of theirs are… rebellious teens who quite likely might go back to being theists after the phase is over? (It happens)

2. Funny how in the video he linked to, Brian lumps in people who are critical of the RRS along with people who slander and defame the RRS.

3. Yes Brian, I don’t like your group because you’re right. My mistake, you’re not arrogantly ignorant at all.

5. RRS is quite good at getting attention. That doesn’t mean their tactics are appropriate, only that they are attention gathering. I can go downtown and get a lot of attention by ranting on a street corner, but I won’t convince many people. I can strap a bomb to my chest and threaten to blow myself up, I’ll make the 6 o’clock news but I won’t convince many people. Of the percentage of people who read the Unabomber Manifesto, how many actually bought into it?

6. The Catholic Church probably converted more than 150 people in the US last year. Does that make the Church superior to the RRS? Does that mean the church’s message is stronger and more effective? Does it say anything at all?

very well said. someone made similar points on rrs’s website, but Brian refused to even read it b/c they started the post with “since when are you intellectual?”

Amen to MikeClawson’s comment #1.

Cooperating with theists should not be equated with being wishy-washy and mealy-mouthed. I often post comments on the most popular LDS blogs, talking about politics and especially about seeing atheists as regular people who deserve rights (not monsters). It is because I’m not about deconverting people (or telling them their beliefs are wrong) that my comments are taken seriously there and generate real discussion.

That in turn makes my job as a pastor harder when I try to convince my congregation and other Christian friends that not all atheists are like that and that we really should be working together with you guys for shared goals.

Too funny — over on my blog I’m handling the other side of the same coin. That’s why I have Clawson’s blog listed in my sidebar: to use as a handy counterexample when people claim that all Christians think like the religious right.

Joel Sax,
Slow down there. You’ve gone fairly quickly from “I’ve been thinking about this, where I stand…” to “When your methods and attitude can’t take the heat of humanism’s call…” And then I was compared to a fundamentalist (and country music lover?) for the first time. Did you mistake me for the RRS? Because I’m not from the RRS, and I’m far closer to agreeing with Hemant or Mike Clawson.

Yeah, I don’t call myself a humanist. Do you really think it’s because I hate humanity or that I’m not “credentialed” enough? I just don’t like the word is all, with all its little connotations. Much like the way that some people avoid the label “atheist” because of the “aggressive” connotation created by the likes of RRS.

Tactics is one particular point that you seem to agree with the RRS on. I see you poisoning the well (comparing me to a fundie), using sexual analogies (“statisticating”), and intimidation (“can’t take the heat”). I can’t tell if you’re doing it on purpose, but the comparisons draw themselves.

I apologize for being unclear with the “elitist” accusation. It is elitist to imply that everyone wants to be just like you, only they aren’t “credentialed” enough. If I said, “Being an agnostic does not immediately credential one as an atheist,” that would seem a little off-key as well.

I was trying to point out that, to some extent, there’s the need of some degree of militancy within a social movement ;as such,dismissing the work of the RRS at the moment would not help atheism: they do touch a lot of people which the more agreeable atheists can’t.
I don’t really like their methods; still, I think it’s better to work, find common ground/goals and try to figure out what’s best for us all with our more militant fellows, than to just ignore them or push them away. Fragmentation would only do us more harm than good right now. Plus, if their tactics are indeed (or they become) counterproductive to our common goals, it would be easier for us to try and dialogue with them and expose our concerns.

As mister Mehta rote:

We can criticize the tactics the others use. But for now, we’re still in this together. We need the mutual support of each other.

Then again, everything I just wrote might just be poor weak atheism.

Me: “The problem comes when irrationality creeps in.”

Mrianna: “Oh being overbearing or imposing.”

I have found that the more combative atheists tend to be more irrational. Even Dawkins, who is relatively nice as combative atheists go, has credulously repeated a quote mine of John Adams, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it,” which in context expresses a sentiment opposite to the one Adams had. It’s a variation on the theme of truth being the first casualty of war.

Maria said,

December 22, 2007 at 1:09 am

Do you kiss your mama with that mouth?

I don’t know about that, but he did say he wants to put his mother in a mental institution b/c she is a theist. Btw, Mriana, congrats on being banned, lol. Guess if they don’t like you disagreeing with them, they ban you. Yeah, we all know that works so well……..

He must be insane if he thinks he can do that.

BTW, he is BSing about that not banning from the atheist community. First I can post and now all of a sudden I can’t because I’ve been blocked. He knows very well what’s going on and if he were honest he’d come out with it and say, “Oh we don’t want dissenters posting here.” 🙄 Kelly has a childish poll about whether or not Brian should spend a few more days destroying the arguments of atheist dissenters: http://www.rationalresponders.com/should_sapient_spend_a_few_more_days_destroying_the_arguments_of_atheist_dissenters

Seems like children to me.

If that is your goal then I really think people like Sapient and his RRS are really, really hurting you. They just feed all the negative stereotypes that religious people have of atheists.

I agree, MikeC. What they do is abusive in more ways than one.

That in turn makes my job as a pastor harder when I try to convince my congregation and other Christian friends that not all atheists are like that and that we really should be working together with you guys for shared goals.

It is sad in a way too.

I’m just very glad that you — as a theist, but more importantly as a pastor — can see the RRS for what it is.

I second that, Tao.

Miller said:

Yeah, I don’t call myself a humanist. Do you really think it’s because I hate humanity or that I’m not “credentialed” enough? I just don’t like the word is all, with all its little connotations. Much like the way that some people avoid the label “atheist” because of the “aggressive” connotation created by the likes of RRS.

I can understand, and it is precisely why I prefer the title Humanist. It is because of attitudes like the RRS that I do not like the word atheist. Non-theist seems more appropriate for me, that it is the perpetuated stigmatism various groups give the word atheist. The word is less appealling with such behaviours and I just do not want to be associated with such groups. I’d rather be associated with Humanists and so far it is a group I can be proud of.

Daniel said:

As mister Mehta rote:

We can criticize the tactics the others use. But for now, we’re still in this together. We need the mutual support of each other.

Then again, everything I just wrote might just be poor weak atheism.

Maybe, I don’t know, but I for one cannot be supportive of such tactics as the RRS. I would rather take a few pages out of Robert Price’s book. It is far more civil, IMHO.

Jeff said,

December 22, 2007 at 7:15 am

The RRS is really more about youth (people in their teens and twenties) rebelling. That age group sees things more in black and white and the RRS is an age-appropriate IMO way to express feelings about atheism. As a person gets older, they see more shades of gray and hopefully desires to find more common ground and compromise.

Maybe you are right, Jeff. They certainly act like it that is for sure. I do hope when they get older they aren’t as rebellious and hateful, that they chill out a little and become a little more tolerant of others.

J. J. Ramsey said,

December 22, 2007 at 8:17 am

Me: “The problem comes when irrationality creeps in.”

Mrianna: “Oh being overbearing or imposing.”

That was a typo. It was suppose to be “or being overbearing or imposing”. I didn’t see it until the time to edit elapsed. 🙁

Here’s a tussle I had with him on the RRS boards over Michael Shermer’s editorial.

Sounds like Rome’s control over the Vulgar and the Spanish Inquisition. UnRRS is not much different and I can’t believe he was not up front about banning, either. Whatever the case, it is obvious they want control just by observing the methods they use. Well, atheists like cats are virtually impossible to herd or control.

From Brian’s blog

Here is Mriana’s profile, that I was able to access fine until today, when it says “access denied”, and here is somewhere where she posted:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/user/mriana
http://www.rationalresponders.com/problems_with_acharya_s_a_brief_review

Brian, I do hope you peek in over here, because IF I didn’t get a message that I was blocked and not allowed to even sign in, then I would not be having people ask on my behalf as to why I can’t log in and post. A red message upon attempting to sign in that that says user has been blocked would be a sign they have been banned or something. Now please stop threatening them with being banned just because they bring it up and inquire for the information. That doesn’t seem fair to me either. It seems a bit secretive and even worse when the person is not told that they are being banned and what for- I can only assume and you know what assume means.

I found out yesterday that I was blocked from even signing in to RRS. I’m rather curious as to why you just now know about it. If it is because I do not agree with you and Rookie, I will not apologize for that because I am entitled to my opinions, but it would seem nice to have a reason for being banned.

Oh shoot! If someone is brave enough to take this over there and post it for me (even if it is a post under your name), I’d be greatful, because if I’m not banned, then I want to know why I’m not allowed to even sign in and post a rebuttle to Brian.

Maria said,

December 22, 2007 at 7:19 pm

LOL, now he’s threatened to ban someone who said Mriana was banned-right after saying he doesn’t ban anyone! LOL! and someone just sent me this latest quote of his:

“The three of us have a combined IQ of about 450, I think that’s a good start. The rest is up to you to remove your head from your ass and read what we write, admit to yourself you’re delusional if you think we’re not intellectuals”

so now anyone who doesn’t take it on faith that sapient is a genius just b/c he says so, is deluded! lol, yeah, the intellectuals have so much to show for it.

Oh get out! IQ scores don’t impress me, because that is all they are scores that can fluctuate at any given moment. They mean NOTHING! Don’t let them bully you or anyone else, Maria. Divide that by three and I’m still not impressed. One day they will wake up after 4 hours sleep, no breakfast, and stressed out beyond anything and score 135 or less. It’s just a score.

Besides, I’m not sure if that’s bragging or trying to impress others. Who knows, but I don’t buy it and even if they did, like I said it fluctuates and I’m not impressed. Besides, my son and I score pretty high ourselves. It just doesn’t impress me.

They are being arrogant about their intelligence and one day they will take a fall off their big ego pedestal.

Well that is fine and I read what you said. None of it changes my mind and what you said, well let’s put it this way, those who know me know it’s not true and something is very wrong. Doesn’t help that posts have been altered, but that’s alright, they can see through that as well as the statement that is out of context on your blog.

I’m entitled to my opinion and nothing I read has changed that. Personally, I don’t want to go back to such sneaky, degrading, demeaning attitudes either. I won’t deal with such abusive behaviour, so don’t unblock me. No not sour grapes, I just wanted a change to rebuttle on your turf. Doesn’t matter, since I already have.

AJ, you are trying to wriggle out of the obvious:

*Any reasonable person who read Dawkins’ quote of Adams would conclude that Dawkins was indicating that Adams thought the world would be better without religion in it.

*Any reasonable person who read the source of Dawkins’ quote would conclude that Adams did not think the world would be better without religion in it.

You can pile up all the verbiage that you like, but we are still left with Dawkins misleadingly quoting Adams out of context.

You did a deeper hole by pointing out Dawkins’ further credulity. As Ed Brayton on Dispatches from the Culture Wars pointed out, Jefferson was no atheist:

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/11/hitchens_jefferson_and_atheism.php

J. J. Ramsey,

AJ, you are trying to wriggle out of the obvious:

*Any reasonable person who read Dawkins’ quote of Adams would conclude that Dawkins was indicating that Adams thought the world would be better without religion in it.

*Any reasonable person who read the source of Dawkins’ quote would conclude that Adams did not think the world would be better without religion in it.

You can pile up all the verbiage that you like, but we are still left with Dawkins misleadingly quoting Adams out of context.

I’m not trying to wriggle out of the obvious, you can’t tell the wood from the trees. Any reasonable person would conclude Dawkins was indicating what he said he was before quoting the Founding Fathers. He lays out his points, then quotes some people, and none of them had anything to do with what you were accusing him of. The Adams quote in full doesn’t weaken Dawkins point of the founding fathers being Deists, and some possibly Agnostics and Atheists.

He seems to be wrong about Jefferson being an Agnostic (he doesn’t say Jefferson is an Atheist), but you seem to think that’s somehow dishonest. Being wrong is not dishonest, you haven’t given evidence to suggest Dawkins is trying to mislead anyone, you’ve only done what you accuse Dawkins of, taken someone out of context.