First may I state that I am a non believer, a non believer in the sense that I KNOW God does not exist and they don’t come stronger than that. Naturally I can’t prove this, no more than I can prove God does not exist, and I certainly won’t swear it on a stack of Bibles, and I certainly won’t get bogged down in the “my atheism is bigger than your atheism” arguments, or the “nodding dogs debate” where we all sit in a line and nod in unison to every issue.

I will try and simplify at least one of my proposals in a logical way much beloved by atheists everywhere.

Premise:- The current anti theism clichéd arguments don’t work and a new strategy and arguments needs to be developed and introduced.

Logic states that if something is to be believed it must be empirical, in other words belief must be gained from information gleaned by means of observation, experience, or experiment.

Non theists have argued with theists for 1000’s of years using the same old clichéd logical arguments and given that there are more theists in the world today than have ever existed at any time in the past then clearly that particular brand of logical strategy has failed.

In the best traditions of logic this conclusion is empirically based, as there are 1000’s of years of “experience” of the failed strategy, we “observe” the failure daily, and twice on Sunday, and, as an “experiment”, try and convert any theist with those old clichéd logical arguments especially when he is in his herd with other theists and your conversation rate will be smaller than theirs. In fact so small it will be impossible to tell it apart from natural wastage as the odd theist falls from the straight and narrow.

Logic would dictate that, faced with a failed strategy, and if one really wanted to win the war instead of the odd battle, then that failed strategy should only be kept in place long enough to hold the line, until it can be replaced by another better one that learns and adapts from the failings of the old strategy.

However, it’s impossible for that to happen unless an honest appraisal is made of those failings so that alternative strategies can be created, and burying ones head in the sand and saying “my arguments must work because they are inescapably logical” when they clearly aren’t working will never win the day.

And that’s the challenge, there are two choices, either honestly dissect all the old failed arguments and figure out why they fail and try and create new better ones that don’t, or, go back to sleep and hope it all works out in the end.

Views: 19

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And that’s the challenge, there are two choices, either honestly dissect all the old failed arguments and figure out why they fail and try and create new better ones that don’t, or, go back to sleep and hope it all works out in the end.

Or recognize that all kinds of people are perfectly content to accept and even perpetuate irrational ideas in just about every aspect of human life. There's no "perfect argument", no antidote, for the individual that delights in the comfort of delusion.
I'm not suggesting "perfect argument" just better.
That's easy: let France, the Scandinavian countries or the Czech Republic rule the world. "Old failed arguments" seem to work reasonably well here.
"rule the world" another failed argument.
Not an argument - a proposition. ;-)
Can you get others to join, I'm up for it.
A faith is a belief held without rational basis. Faith is, by definition, utterly impervious to reason. It's even strongly resistant to physical counterexamples ("We prayed around the clock for Daddy, but the cancer just ate him alive. God works in mysterious ways!"). Therefore, one can't convert a believer. The best we can do is defend ourselves. In the United States, we have the Constitution, Amendment 1 and (written before the First Amendment) Article VI: "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Arguing with theists can be fun, especially if you get one of the stupid ones who can point to two contradictory Holy Babble verses and insist that they are both "inerrant", but we shouldn't expect to win. Sometimes a theist deconverts, but that's usually the result of some intolerable act by his preacher, not anything he heard from an atheist.
Fair enough, but is "faith" impervious to any attack, surely everything has a weakness. Clearly "reason" or "counterexample" is not it, is there anything left that may make an impression.

Defence implies that it is we who are under attack and the best form of defence is attack.

Where I come from arguing about religion can get you dead, usually at the hands of a "believer" who kill and maim each other for entertainment, and claiming to be an atheist is no protection as you are then asked "OK, but are you a protestant atheist or a catholic atheist"

I to think it may be to much to expect to win, but I would love to put up a better argument than some of the toe curling embarrassing arguments currently trotted out.
Fair enough, but is "faith" impervious to any attack, surely everything has a weakness. Clearly "reason" or "counterexample" is not it, is there anything left that may make an impression.

"Faith" as a stand alone item is not impervious to logic. It can be easily dismantled. That's obviously not the case when it's become a part of an individual's self identity. This is where cognitive dissonance plays its role. Believers don't remain so for lack of evidence contrary to their position. Ironically, a true believer will find a way to utilize such evidence to actually reinforce their belief- "It's a crafty ploy from the enemy designed to destroy my faith, I must be more careful in the future to protect myself from such thinking".
I would suggest that the "easily dismantled" observation is an illusion. To the logical non believer it is clearly easily dismantled, to the true believer it stands impervious to attack.

The erosion of faith is usually an internal thing resulting from conflict in the mind of the believer, and the old tired arguments create little conflict. In fact I agree they can even be counterproductive in reinforcing the belief.
Its not really converting its reverting. We are born atheist and convert to faith, so its simply a matter or reverting to our natural state which is atheism.

However, I do agree it must be comforting to be a true believer and live the illusion, and never get to know how wrong they are. Whereas if they are right then we will. They win both ways, I hate that.
Playing the advocate of the dark lord, maybe it has succeeded in a limited manner. There is probably a larger percentage of non-believers around the world now than ever in the past.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service