QuoteAtheism is inevitable secular progress. Its existence is a thing society needs. However, too many atheists act like missionaries -- evangelizing at strangers who just want to live their lives, feeling and acting smugly superior because of their (non)beliefs, and insisting that a greater good justifies their asshole behavior. I would know; I'm an atheist myself, so I talk to them all the goddamn time. So it's especially frustrating when my more devoutly atheist friends don't realize that not only do a lot of their arguments fall on deaf ears, but also how in the long run, they hurt their own cause way more than they help. Here are a few examples...
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-atheist-arguments-which-arent-helping-anyone/
Interesting analysis of why a lot of atheist arguments fail to carve through the average religious individual.
It depends up the situation If someone argues that their holy book is literally true and infallible, then it's appropriate to point out where it's wrong. Or if someone argues that religion fosters good morality, it's appropriate to point out reprehensible religious moral codes.
I'm also not thrilled with the tendency to buy into the stereotype of atheists as smug, in-your-face evangelists.
And I have to strongly disagree with the idea that religion as a crutch is something that should be respected:
QuoteYou have no idea how someone uses their faith. Maybe it's a comfort in the face of the infinite. Maybe it's a way of dealing with past trauma. Maybe they just like the idea that their dead loved ones are still around somewhere. As long they're not sacrificing victims to a resurrection shrine, it's not a problem.
By that logic, creationism and faith healing are not problems. Perhaps we shouldn't set human sacrifice as the criteria that an idea has meet in order for objection to be warranted.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 16, 2016, 07:21:26 PM
It depends up the situation If someone argues that their holy book is literally true and infallible, then it's appropriate to point out where it's wrong.
I sort of agree with the author's point on this. If someone is deluded enough to think their holy text is literal and should be interpreted that way, that's a kind of brainwashing that no logical explanation will solve. The best you can do is to make sure these kind of people don't project any kind of social or political power.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 16, 2016, 07:21:26 PMAnd I have to strongly disagree with the idea that religion as a crutch is something that should be respected:
I think it's fine for personal introspective purposes. If someone's having some serious shit going on in their lives and just wants to pray about it, fuck it, why not? If it makes them feel better, who am I to say they're dumb? In that sense, it's not incredibly different than meditation, but I see your point about it extending into other avenues such as faith healing or animal sacrifice.
Quote from: TomFoolery on January 16, 2016, 07:33:03 PM
I sort of agree with the author's point on this. If someone is deluded enough to think their holy text is literal and should be interpreted that way, that's a kind of brainwashing that no logical explanation will solve. The best you can do is to make sure these kind of people don't project any kind of social or political power.
Well, yeah. All the arguments in the world aren't going to do anything against a wall of faith. But the point of these arguments isn't to dissuade dyed-in-the-wool theists, but rather to foster doubt in less close-minded theists in the audience. And since many atheists are former theists, apparently that strategy is sometimes successful.
QuoteI think it's fine for personal introspective purposes. If someone's having some serious shit going on in their lives and just wants to pray about it, fuck it, why not? If it makes them feel better, who am I to say they're dumb?
I somewhat agree. On one hand, one shouldn't attend a religious funeral service and declare that heaven doesn't exist. But on the other hand, it's dangerous to let this stuff go unchallenged in the public sphere. Seemingly innocuous beliefs like "modesty" can have some nasty repercussions down the line unless vigorously opposed. Besides, no idea is sacrosanct.
I rarely see any of those actually being used as the spearpoint of an "argument". My most common usually is the amount of gods in the past and who determines what is a "myth", along with the very ascent of "religion" in the evolution of human culture when we have sufficient evidence of the progression of superstition from animism to tokenism to shamanism and into whack villa. And then I get to dive into the who-doo of the voodoo of the babble, which is usually more fun.
Quote from: aitm on January 16, 2016, 08:17:05 PM
And then I get to dive into the who-doo of the voodoo of the babble, which is usually more fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS_Shu8y0sI
They couldn't make that movie today… hell, I doubt any Mel Brooks movie could me made today without a societal uproar.
Quote from: aitm on January 16, 2016, 08:24:48 PM
They couldn't make that movie today… hell, I doubt any Mel Brooks movie could me made today without a societal uproar.
And may the Schwartz be with you.
Maybe people should be assigned remedial "adulthood" ... people are too easily "hurt" and have no sense of humor.
Really though, do you think a movie could be made today where the lead says, "freeze or I shoot the nigger"?
Quote from: aitm on January 16, 2016, 10:56:07 PM
Really though, do you think a movie could be made today where the lead says, "freeze or I shoot the nigger"?
Someone like Quentin Tarantino could probably pull it off, since people just assume he's going to put crazy shit in a film just for the sake of crazy shit, opinions and critics be damned.
Pretty damn sure the newest Tarantino, The Hateful Eight, includes in exact quote: "Freeze, or I shoot the nigger". 5 stars, btw, so much is great in this film....
Anyways. We digress!
The "average religious individual" has zero care for facts or argument unless they question their faith, which puts them in the not-average category, nullifying the posted link. Look, until you deal with a die-hard evolution denier and wish only to counter that load of shit, why are you trying at all here? They have to be already questioning their sky daddy that lives in another dimension and grants wishes only to them because they are so amazing.....do I digress again?
Point being; unless your target human already has questions, this list is moot.
I have no interest in converting people to atheism. If someone's actions are harmful I will address that action in terms of consequences but I don't believe my perspective of human existence is the only perspective, or the best perspective for other people. I don't think because someone believes in God that they are wrong and need to be corrected. Even if I wanted to promote atheism I know that attacking someone's beliefs isn't the most effective way to promote change. When people feel attacked they respond with defense, when people feel pushed they push back.
I use 5, 4, and 3 all the time. I'm just not a dick about it. I'm also pretty sneaky at introducing that stuff into conversation before they realize what they're agreeing with. Religious people may have big thoughts, but they have the wrong thoughts. They're fun to play with.
Brooks and Tarantino are pandering hacks. Sorry to be a dick about it.
I think that the biggest chink in the armor is the gap between what the believer professes to know and what is actually known. Lots of grandiose claims with little or no backing - assumptions and opinions masquerading as objective fact. And obviously, the process by which these conclusions were reached was unlikely a judicious deliberation of the facts. If you can prod in this area without eliciting a defensive reaction, you might have a shot at changing theists' minds. Otherwise, doubt is doubtful.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 17, 2016, 10:36:24 AM
Lots of grandiose claims with little or no backing - assumptions and opinions masquerading as objective fact.
A lot of pseudoscience does this: they use sciencey sounding words and a scientific-like approach to reach a conclusion. Often the conclusions are even logically sound based on the evidence presented and the method used to arrive at such a conclusion. It's just that the problem is that the premise is total shit. The premise is always the problem.
I noticed this during an argument on abortion last weekend wherein a girl pointed out that since nothing happens without God, all pregnancies happen for a reason. Since all pregnancies happen for a reason, all babies conceived have a purpose in God's plan, and aborting them is tantamount to murder. If all of that were true, I would agree. The problem is I can't get behind the first sentence and without it, the rest of it kind of falls apart. I think it's a pretty key reason opinions on abortion remained pretty divided: we're all playing the same game on different playing fields and telling the other side they're stupid because they showed up to the wrong venue.
You are dealing with some of the most insecure and fear mongering people. Basic common sense is anathema to them. They'll believe in the most ridiculous idea to cover up their flaws. Some will even use that to satisfy their power urges. For most of them, truth is the first casualty. So you get religious people who are harmless as a butterfly, and stinging dangerous as a scorpion.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 17, 2016, 11:10:03 AM
You are dealing with some of the most insecure and fear mongering people. Basic common sense is anathema to them. They'll believe in the most ridiculous idea to cover up their flaws. Some will even use that to satisfy their power urges. For most of them, truth is the first casualty. So you get religious people who are harmless as a butterfly, and stinging dangerous as a scorpion.
Truth is the first casualty of war. And life is conflicting, a life and death war.
Daylight Atheism (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2016/01/cracked-response/) chimes in. He makes some excellent points, imo.
TomFoolery - about abortion vs G-d's will. The assumption is that if G-d were real, that G-d isn't the dick G-d is in the Book of Job. G-d's plan may involve both the conception of a child, and the subsequent miscarriage or deliberate abortion of that child. Or even infanticide of baby girls like in ancient Arabia before Muhammad. Given that in my experience, G-d is a dick ... I see no reason to rely on whatever G-d's plan might be.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 18, 2016, 10:48:59 AM
Daylight Atheism (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2016/01/cracked-response/) chimes in. He makes some excellent points, imo.
I feel like the author of this article has a real axe to grind, as if he's suggesting the author of the Cracked article is saying it's wrong to criticize religion or the religious. I think the Cracked article is simply laying out reasons why certain arguments just don't work, not that the arguments themselves are bad or use poor logic.
I myself tend to agree. You can't reason with crazy. All you can do is cope.
Quote from: TomFoolery on January 18, 2016, 05:21:58 PM
I feel like the author of this article has a real axe to grind, as if he's suggesting the author of the Cracked article is saying it's wrong to criticize religion or the religious. I think the Cracked article is simply laying out reasons why certain arguments just don't work, not that the arguments themselves are bad or use poor logic.
I myself tend to agree. You can't reason with crazy. All you can do is cope.
That is why I take rationalism with a grain of salt ... the world is crazy, and I am doing the best I can to cope.
Quote from: TomFoolery on January 18, 2016, 05:21:58 PM
You can't reason with crazy. All you can do is cope.
I find that I can plant seeds of change and healing. Perhaps it's my technique.
except for the preaching I disagree with every thing this article says.
This article is basically telling atheist to shut the fuck up. Just about anything you do to support atheism will offend some one. There for I see nothing wrong with being in your face as much as Christians are. Religions need to die! they are not a crutch they are a brain washing! a graffiti of the mind!
anything that holds back or gets in the way of science gets no respect from me.
Quote from: Baruch on January 16, 2016, 10:25:32 PM
Maybe people should be assigned remedial "adulthood" ... people are too easily "hurt" and have no sense of humor.
Perhaps some genetic techniques could enable people to grow thicker skins?
(http://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/617/flashcards/712617/jpg/2-_thick_and_thin_skin1318615196467.jpg)
Quote from: Daylight AtheismIt’s true that most people won’t change their minds after hearing a single argument, however persuasive. Human psychology just isn’t that malleable. But that doesn’t mean that atheist argumentation is pointless. It just means we need to be realistic about what we hope to accomplish. I’ve used the “wind and water†analogy for this: minds are changed slowly, a little bit at a time, like erosion wearing away a stone. You can’t convince someone who’s determined not to be convinced, but you can plant a seed of doubt or questioning that may one day sprout and grow in surprising ways. And even about deeply held faith, people do sometimes change their minds, as the many, many, many, many testimonials from former believers will bear witness.
I agree with this. Everybody has doubts, to some degree. The Christian may not admit it, but if you aren't a dick about it, you might spark something that leads to a later question. That's how I see civil discussions with Christians. If they are going to preach at me though, then the gloves come off.
Quote from: doorknob on January 19, 2016, 05:24:18 PM
Religions need to die! they are not a crutch they are a brain washing! a graffiti of the mind!
It's the same with commercialism, capitalism, and politics. People consider it natural to navigate these fields. These are false and degrading ways to deal with the problem of awareness. They are profitable tools designed to keep the peasants away from the kings.
I think the article is pretty pointless. For the most part, by the time we're using those arguments it's already a shit-throwing contest anyway. Personally, I would talk reasonably to a reasonable theist. I would LOVE to someday have an intelligent conversation with one. I keep trying. But once they say something utterly moronic, such as any sentence which ends with the words, "...just a theory", there is really no point in trying to convince them of anything. You can show a Jehovah's Witness all the facts in the world, you can introduce him to every single geneticist, anthropologist and biologist alive and have them, personally, tell him their beliefs on evolution, you can give him pen and paper to track how many agree, how many disagree and how many think there is some debate raging among scientists about whether it's true, give them a super computer to tally the results and they will STILL walk away believing that a majority of scientists doubt evolution and there's a huge debate in science right now over whether it's true or not. When faced with that kind of single-mindlessness the only point in the debate is turning their faces red.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on January 18, 2016, 06:06:01 PM
I find that I can plant seeds of change and healing. Perhaps it's my technique.
Fixed that for me.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on January 21, 2016, 11:20:34 AM
It's the same with commercialism, capitalism, and politics. People consider it natural to navigate these fields. These are false and degrading ways to deal with the problem of awareness. They are profitable tools designed to keep the peasants away from the kings.
Yeah, as Napoleon said, religion is the only thing that keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
Quote"There's No Scientific Proof"
Who from our side is presenting that as an argument?
From my experience Theists are the ones who relentlessly challenge scientific claims. I think the author has this one backwards.
I dont get his take on faith either, because it doesn't explain why Theists invent "science" in order to challenge scientific claims in the first place.
According to the author there is no reason for them to do this. Their faith should be enough.
In truth, with no real way to distinguish the fantastic from the practical, Theists invariably encroach upon the realm of science. Like everything else, they think it belongs to them.
QuoteScience and religion work fine together as long as they stick to their own roles.
No, they have nothing to do with each other. In past centuries when great minds like Newton and Kepler sought to reconcile the two it turned out to be a massive waste of time.
QuoteBefore blaming wars on religion, find a religious campaign mounted to invade a resource-poor region without any major population centers or concentrations of wealth
That still means religion is almost entirely to blame here.
In such campaigns the participants themselves believed they were fighting for God, and only the orchestrators had selfish motives.
QuoteReligions don't start wars; they're just excellent excuses for them.
He makes no distinction whatsoever here, but I don't think it matters.
The role of religion in war is what matters, and with that in mind it's quite reasonable to assume the world would be a far more peaceful place without religion.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.digication.com/M5da4bbe62dc3bfccbeeaff57204ebcff.jpg)
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on January 21, 2016, 06:01:39 PM
QuoteReligions don't start wars; they're just excellent excuses for them.
He makes no distinction whatsoever here, but I don't think it matters.
The role of religion in war is what matters, and with that in mind it's quite reasonable to assume the world would be a far more peaceful place without religion.
But religion actually does start wars. Sunni vs Shiite is just one example. 9/11 is another. You can't get some jackass to fly a plane into a building with an "excuse". Without the religion 9/11 never would have happened. It is extremely unlikely that they could have convinced all those people to kill themselves without the promise of magical reward made believable by a lifetime of religious indoctrination. Then there's the quasi-religious "war on drugs". Not a war in the traditional sense, but every bit started by and because of religious beliefs nearly exclusively.
In fact, this article (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/14/religions-war-cause-responsible-evidence_n_6156878.html) is trying to make the very point that religion is not the cause of wars but
repeatedly has to admit a small percentage of exceptions. So the statement, "religions
do not start wars" as an absolute is an absolute falsehood. It may not be the major factor in a majority of wars, but religion does cause at least some wars.