Over the last couple of days, an bit of a storm has been brewing in a thread on Facebook. Today I finally reached the end of my patience and posted what I expect to be something of an argument killer, which I'd like to share here with commentary.
The background. Atheist L, name redacted, is active in confronting theists on Facebook. Atheist C appears to dislike Atheist L's style of engagement, finding it inferior to his own, and has made it amply clear on several occasions. He expressed the belief that he was the superior debater, and that L should just shut up and let the better man continue, and displayed an arrogant, self-absorbed attitude which rubbed me up completely the wrong way.
C's style appears to be not unlike mine when I'm trying to be exact, logical and rational. A little wordy and verbose, and with references to historical milestones, philosophical points and probably a little pretentious. L, on the other hand, is a strident, passionate, gut feel debater who speaks in colloquial english liberally flavoured with profanity, and a pretty good provocateur. He's not always exact in language, but his tenacity can keep other, more rationally-based debaters in a thread long after they'd have written their opponent off, and has often achieved results this way, dragging a debate into new ground. He's a terrier that won't let go, which I like. My own style wavers between the two depending on mood and blood-alcohol level, but I never have the tenacity L can summon up.
The most recent post from C was incredibly dismissive, addressed to L:
You're still talking? I thought we had finished with you like 20 posts ago...
So I decided it was time to employ protocol:politefacestab and replied with this:
C,
You appear to be labouring under some misapprehensions which I think we should clear up about now
Atheism, the movement, is going through an unprecedented time right now. It's breaking out from being a mere philosophy with a social stigma to being a global community of nonbelievers, in what the press often call "new atheism".
One of the key things about communities is that they thrive best in conditions of plurality and diversity. If Atheism the movement is going to thrive, we need a plurality of voices. We need formal scholarly engagement, we need diplomats, we need teachers and we need strident, passionate firebrands.
L's debating style is different to yours. L speaks with passion in a colloquial, informal manner. His tenacity and stamina are refreshing to see, and L's input can keep me in a debate long after I'd have written it off as fruitless. L is not a formal oxford debating scholar, and he's not , but his voice is valuable. Very valuable.
Atheism needs people like L as much as it needs formal debaters.
What Atheism doesn't need is arrogant assholes who believe that their method of debate is the only legitimate method, and who would attempt to deny a voice to others.
This is how you're coming across.
You're doing Atheism a disservice, and you're making yourself look like the caricature of an asshole atheist so often advanced by the other side.
So here's what you're going to do:
Sit down
Shut the fuck up
Think about what you're doing
Then come back and apologise.
And on a final, personal note, I'd rather have one atheist like L in my organisation than ten who behave like you're behaving right now.
Am I right in doing this? I think I am. It's a fact that Atheism has rational debate covered. Most atheists I know can hold a rational position in a debate with a theist, but many theists neither respect nor value this rational approach. The "other side" is heavily sprinkled with gut-feel thinkers, who would award points in a debate based upon the sincerity and passion expressed by the speaker ahead of the actual reality value of the claim being made. There are people who don't care about evidence who equate conviction of argument with truth. We can't reach these people with reason, but we might be able to bring them round with passion, and from there fix their crazier opinions.
We need people in the atheist movement, and in skepticism generally, who can argue with passion and aren't afraid to fly their colours at full-staff, and who can hold their own in discourse without doing what I do and going all bigwords on people's asses.
And for someone to decry their contributions the way C has been doing is Not Helping.
Anyway... discuss.