Comments on: Atheism: More Aggressive vs. Group, Less vs. Individuals

By: A Weary Agnostic

A Weary Agnostic — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:56:17 +0000

Why do atheists seem to need to evangelize just as much as the theists? Are you feeling a little insecure with having just as much proof as the other guy?

If you want to declare someone wrong in the scientific sense, don't you require valid scientific evidence to the contrary?

By: simonsarris

simonsarris — Sun, 31 May 2009 10:11:51 +0000

I'd be careful with how you're wording this. I wouldn't say open ridicule is preferable, if only because adding ridicule may cause your important points to be taken less seriously by both sides.

Instead, I think it much more worthwhile to show why other's arguments are ridiculous, but with a serious face on things. Maybe I'm just mincing semantics and this is what you mean, though.

Another commenter said that you cannot prove a negative, which is to say that you cannot prove that most particular gods do not exist. He's right, however you don't need to show such. Instead, you can almost always show that other's proofs for gods are absurd.

By: cooperati

cooperati — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:16:26 +0000

"I prefer to reply with, 'If he you see him as just a man as I do, it's all the more proof of what good and amazing things humans can do on their own.'"

That is truely an all too rare but deeply refreshing perspective that comments on humanity's works and refocuses on mankind's capability. Most deservedly, thank you.

-=T=-

By: kenotic

kenotic — Fri, 29 May 2009 20:01:59 +0000

Well, here we are again. We have had many conversations on this topic and I think you know my stance. I would recommend that you try not to directly attack someones belief system as you will only harden it. Conversations are a great place to start, but you have to be willing to listen as well as talk. The moment you become “preachy” you have lost the very person that might accept your ideas.

By: TheFry

TheFry — Fri, 29 May 2009 19:06:20 +0000

I'm not in the camp with those who think the best defense is a good offense. To disregard others' beliefs by ridicule doesn't quite work. Another commenter mentioned that many believers take ownership of their religious faith, with good reason, so ridiculing what they take to be true (provable or not) just turns into an insult. I think that trying to have a meaningful conversation with someone you just mocked is a tough thing to pull off.

The better mode I've found in dealing with theists (I am a humanist, I suppose) is to offer an alternative. If they say, 'Look at Bach, he was inspired by God and his Lutheran faith, how can you disregard it then?' Instead of saying, 'He was misled and out of his mind,' I prefer to reply with, 'If he you see him as just a man as I do, it's all the more proof of what good and amazing things humans can do on their own.'

If theists are used to reaching into empty air and thinking they grasped something, then it's tougher to be brought back to reality when told, look you fool your hand is empty. Put something else there instead so at least they're grabbing at something.

I apologize if I'm not writing clearly; I'm writing this while bleary-eyed at work this morning.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:58:13 +0000

Daniel, you began with "I want to be more aggressive against religious ideas, but at the same time avoid being directly offensive to the individuals who buy into them." And, you asked for comments.

I would suggest that you're not going to be successful in avoiding being directly offensive to individuals if you can't hold off a little longer before telling them that they're as ignorant as a person who believes that they have leprechauns in their pockets. We've tried to suggest ways that you can share your ideas in a non-offensive (or at least less offensive) way. I think that Jon's suggestion to say "I don't think I could believe that because..." is a great suggestion. I believe that if you want to engage people, you need to not antagonize. Don't enter the conversation with a goal of changing minds. This is one of the things you probably criticize of some evangelistic Christians. They want to convert you and make this goal abundantly clear. You aren't interested in being converted, so you don't really listen to them. From their point of view, YOU are the evangelizer. Just share your ideas .. engage them in conversation. If you expect them to LISTEN to you, then you will have to be willing to LISTEN to them. It's the way conversation works.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:36:19 +0000

I'd argue that your lottery example is precisely like my coin flip example and that NEITHER is anything like "a belief in a supernatural, personal deity with specific desires and intentions". My point was merely that BY ITSELF the process used to arrive at a conclusion does not make the conclusion false. I'll be more explicit (no .. I was explicit before .. I'll be more DIRECT): To PROVE a conclusion wrong, you need to look at more than the process used to arrive at it.

If we're just talking about how much you would RELY on that conclusion, then the process has relevance.

You are incorrect to say that lottery numbers are just wrong if someone comes up with them in a dream. I believe that you would be right to say that they are not more likely to be right then random chance says they are, but this probability is not zero. People who have based their number choices on hunches have won. Does this mean that we should rely on their hunches? Not at all. Don't read more into what I am saying than what I am actually saying.

By: Michael Blume

Michael Blume — Fri, 29 May 2009 11:27:13 +0000

but a belief in a supernatural, personal deity with specific desires and intentions is nothing like a belief that a coin will come up heads. It's much more like a belief that tomorrow's lottery numbers will be 25 3 17 45 62 because you heard those numbers in a dream.

If you suggest lotto numbers to me without doing anything to bring your guess in line with reality, then they're just wrong. I know that as well as I know that the moon is made of rock, or that george washington was actually the first president and american history isn't a story the school teachers taught us to amuse themselves.

By: cooperati

cooperati — Fri, 29 May 2009 09:56:49 +0000

The lore and myth are comingled with the other products bundled in the package of religion so much so that it seems to take a backseat, and even be the media by which others are delivered.

The primary products for modern religions are morality and communion. Knowing the lore in each faith is equal to knowing the rules of baseball, which puts everyone on a familiar playing field.

It isn't until you have faith healers and snake handlers that you understand where society DOES discredit and estrange the fringe sect from the fold. There is a dividing line between extremists and moderates.

-=T=-

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Fri, 29 May 2009 07:20:45 +0000

Does this apply to someone who believes Elvis is alive, or that they have leprechauns in their pockets?

Don't say that's different, because it isn't. A belief that the all-powerful creator of the entire universe cares personally about your life, and that you can communicate telepathically with him, is at best the same, and at worst...much worse.

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Fri, 29 May 2009 07:18:09 +0000

Very nice.

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Fri, 29 May 2009 07:17:25 +0000

Too good. :)

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Fri, 29 May 2009 07:17:04 +0000

Who said anything about proving a negative? To take a Harris example, if someone says during a job interview that they believe Elvis to be alive, they get punished. Perhaps not by open ridicule, as that wouldn't be appropriate, but they probably won't be hired.

And if you are out on the street you WOULD get laughed at for saying such things. So we don't have to prove negatives; we just need to treat highly specific, fantasy-based claims about the nature of reality with the respect they deserve--which is none.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Fri, 29 May 2009 05:28:55 +0000

I agree entirely. Taking ownership of our ideas is something that we ALL should do. This does not mean that we ought not reflect on them and subject them to analysis and scrutiny. Indeed, it is incorrect to assert that those with deeply held religious convictions have not done so or are not willing to do so.

It is true that SOME religious people have a low tolerance to listening to opposing views. The same is true of some scientists. Change in a prevailing scientific view does not come quickly, but such changes do occur. If you want to engage someone in a serious discussion, don't be antagonistic, and don't enter in the discussion with the goal of changing their mind. Enter the discussion because you want to engage in a (two-way) conversation of ideas.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Fri, 29 May 2009 05:20:53 +0000

"Their assumptions and logic will still be wrong."

Of course. My point is that you can't conclude that a conclusion is wrong because it was arrived at through faulty assumptions or faulty logic. (Not that I'm accusing Daniel of having the tendency to make this sort of leap.)

as for your ps. :P

By: cooperati

cooperati — Fri, 29 May 2009 04:36:42 +0000

"These are BOTH irrational beliefs, but one of them will be correct."

I've thought about that. The caveat, or asterisk, being that in such cases people will be correct by accident. Their assumptions and logic will still be wrong.

-=T=-

ps: "the impossible task of proving a negative." It's not always impossible. About once a year I prove a negative by looking up my bank account, and find it overdrawn. :) (I'm a bit overdue for this year's $35, erm, hiccup.)

By: cooperati

cooperati — Fri, 29 May 2009 04:29:04 +0000

"religionists take such ownership of their ideas"

This is called conviction, and it is entirely right and proper that they should take ownership. This type of conviction and ownership shouldn't be narrowed down to only religion, but must be put to use in daily life.

-=T=-

By: cooperati

cooperati — Fri, 29 May 2009 04:24:39 +0000

"Fuck 'em."

Extremely well put. Getting evangelical on religionists as they randomly do to "non-believers" is not the best expenditure of energy. Instead, save the proto-atheists needing rescue from the environment that is toxic to their ideological inclinations.

"Throw them to the lions."

If by lions you mean the faults endemic to religious extremism, trust me, you cannot stop people from giving in to these temptations. It is so much a part of their nature that any application of a superior reasoning will only confound the use of reason in a wasteful way.

Then again, this is the nature of extremism, not religion.

-=T=-

By: CarlM

CarlM — Thu, 28 May 2009 23:23:40 +0000

"I don't think I could believe that because..."

I think that this is precisely the right way to proceed.

By: PI

PI — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:52:32 +0000

Fuck 'em. Throw them to the lions. Their beliefs are “an impediment to societal progress”. Plus, those people are just annoying.