Criticized for my methods, Hump remains unrepentant

“… for me to use arrogant, derogatory language is counter productive to my motive for engaging [theists] in the first place. … if your goal in discoursing with theists is to get them to shut up and retreat in awe of your debate skills then, Hump, you have succeeded.” -- D.

The above is an extract from an exchange on Facebook with a well meaning atheist of the kinder gentler persuasion. His motive in engaging theists is to bring them to value the inherent truth in secular thought. A noble enterprise, one that I endorse, but only with those whose level of receptivity and intellect make them candidates for deprogramming.

This may not be apparent to certain freethinkers who erroneously assume all levels of believers are receptive to logic and will come around if only one is patient, genteel, and avuncular. A couple of decades of atheist activism have taught me otherwise -- this rationale is as faulty as a fundie trying to proselytize Richard Dawkins.

My response to this gentleman’s chastisement follows, revised and extended:
-------------------------------------

Dear D,

Most discourse I have with theists is civil and dispassionate. More often than not they are liberal/moderate theists who have accommodated acceptance of reality, social justice and science with their preferred supernatural beliefs. They are receptive to the “truths” of reality. However, that rarely makes for good blog or book fodder.

My "take no prisoner" method, which is substantially more entertaining to read, is reserved for those theists whose concepts are often dangerous to society or patently moronic. These are the fundamentalist's and those Christians who do not take the time to explore secular reality/science and reject it as being a threat to their belief system; who typically resort to absurdities, hackneyed platitudes, defunct apologetics, perversion of scripture and distortion of scientific theory to feed their agenda.

These people are not candidates for "sparking interest in choosing to value truth" as you so eloquently put it. These are people to whom "truth" (i.e. reality/reason) is the enemy, albeit, they are unable to perceive that through the fog of their delusion. They are due no respect, they are owed no platform, and their arguments are unworthy of my time or effort. If you believe that the likes of Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, or those Christian fanatics, haters, history revisionists and reality deniers who hold them in reverence are subject to being reasoned with, you are operating under a delusion of your own abilities.

I'll waste not a moment trying to throw pearls before those swine, anymore than I would spend hours trying to explain the virtue of medical science to a religious fanatic mother who opts to pray over her sick child, and allow him to die from an easily curable disease. I'd bitch slap her, and take the kid to the hospital. Period.

I don't toy with them or fool myself into thinking that I am some guiding light and they are receptors of my sage argument and intellect. Those people deserve nothing more than being "shut up" by ridicule, dismissal and utter rejection of their buffoonery. That's my position. That you disagree is fine with me.

Regards,

Hump