FtBCon is coming on 22-24 August, and this is your chance: we are taking proposals for talks and panels.
Anything goes. You’ve got some subject you’d like to get in front of a camera and tell the world? You’ve got a group of people with a shared message you’d like to promote? You’ve got an idea that must be discussed, and you’d like to suggest a few experts who’d be recruited to explain it all? Go for it. There are only a few catches. You have to write a good proposal; you have to get it to us by 22 July; and it has to pass muster with our crack team of inspectors.
Do it nooooow!
Here’s a quick one.
Is there any way to quantify if gnu atheism works better than accommodationism in getting people to disavow religion and/or adopt a secular/atheist worldview? The key word is quantify, like in terms of #s/population exposed to either approaches or some other measure. I claim it does work better but what is the evidence.
re mikeyb@1:
My “skepticism” [ORLY?] forces me to ask you, does accommodationism accomplish anything? To me it is like your daddy saying, “ok, you can keep believing that, now run along.” Meaning that “accommodationism” does not confront the religiots any challenges to their beliefs, just tells them, “You stay over there and we’ll stay here, OK?”
.
There is a lake here in Mass. that is famous for it’s Native AMerican name that is longer than any other. Translated into English, is is “Your tribe fish on that side of the Lake, our tribe will fish on this side of the lake, and nobody fish in the middle.”(boom. period) [the name is even longer than that sentence]. I only brin up that “trivia” as an illustration of “accommodationism” [to my mind].
.
Your question again: I claim it does work better but what is the evidence?
Answer: Not Applicable.
^_^
That’s not an idea. It’s a question. Are you proposing to give an answer? Do you have evidence to discuss? Then follow the link and volunteer.
If not, you’ve missed the whole goddamn point of the call for proposals.
Yeah, not quite.
re @4:
mea culpa. I only provided the humorous translation, not the _actual_ translation*. Even so, what I quoted is still my illusion of accommodationism. (boom. period).
Both versions seem to qualify: “…Neutral Meeting Grounds” is also appropriate; accommodating several tribes disputing about the lake’s use. Apologies.
tl;dr . I’ll listen now.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
* actual translation is: “Fishing Place at the Boundaries — Neutral Meeting Grounds”