I think more precision is needed on what sort of behaviour we’re talking about. The question posed is
“should a group dedicated to rationality be explicitly atheist? Or should it make an effort to be respectful to theists in order to make them feel welcome and spread rationality farther?”
First off, I think a group can be explicitly atheist but still respectful to theists. Why not? A meeting of a political party should be able to be respectful to those of opposing parties, even though that’s all they’re about. And rationality is bigger than atheism. But I’m not sure what explicitly atheist means here. I think a charter of beliefs of a rationality group is unhelpful in the first place!
Second, there’s a deeper issue here about whether people should have to defend/argue about all their beliefs. As a general rule of courtesy, you don’t have arguments against people’s will. Obviously amongst rationalists you’ll expect people to want to refine their beliefs, and inevitably people who are open to question will be more respected. I think this is inevitably universal, and the religious can’t be a ‘special case’: but on the other hand, if other disputes that really matter to people (such as politics) are skipped then religion shouldn’t be singled out as an area where you have to justify yourself.
This gets us to the critical issue: consistency. I’ve been incredibly irritated with anti-religious asusmptions on previous sites, and not here. I think the reason is that on the previous sites, it was clearly a case of insider/outsider and signalling. A theist was attacked ad hom from many sides, whereas atheist arguments with huge flaws of logic would be welcomed. Here the attitude is that anything will be criticised, even the statements most supportive of the core values/principles. And the explicit resistance to applause lights is especially helpful. My concern would be if the religious were pitched into a dissection of their belief in the first meeting, whereas other positions weren’t questioned because they seemed like those of ‘our sort of people’.
I think more precision is needed on what sort of behaviour we’re talking about. The question posed is
“should a group dedicated to rationality be explicitly atheist? Or should it make an effort to be respectful to theists in order to make them feel welcome and spread rationality farther?”
First off, I think a group can be explicitly atheist but still respectful to theists. Why not? A meeting of a political party should be able to be respectful to those of opposing parties, even though that’s all they’re about. And rationality is bigger than atheism. But I’m not sure what explicitly atheist means here. I think a charter of beliefs of a rationality group is unhelpful in the first place!
Second, there’s a deeper issue here about whether people should have to defend/argue about all their beliefs. As a general rule of courtesy, you don’t have arguments against people’s will. Obviously amongst rationalists you’ll expect people to want to refine their beliefs, and inevitably people who are open to question will be more respected. I think this is inevitably universal, and the religious can’t be a ‘special case’: but on the other hand, if other disputes that really matter to people (such as politics) are skipped then religion shouldn’t be singled out as an area where you have to justify yourself.
This gets us to the critical issue: consistency. I’ve been incredibly irritated with anti-religious asusmptions on previous sites, and not here. I think the reason is that on the previous sites, it was clearly a case of insider/outsider and signalling. A theist was attacked ad hom from many sides, whereas atheist arguments with huge flaws of logic would be welcomed. Here the attitude is that anything will be criticised, even the statements most supportive of the core values/principles. And the explicit resistance to applause lights is especially helpful. My concern would be if the religious were pitched into a dissection of their belief in the first meeting, whereas other positions weren’t questioned because they seemed like those of ‘our sort of people’.