Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alice on June 3, 2011 at 7:55pm

LOL

Permalink Reply by Tom Ristola on June 2, 2011 at 5:39pm

It is very easy to get carried away having a debate about evolution with a deist, and it seems that it acts as a red herring when the central issue is the existence of god/s.  I once had a online discussion with some 2012 doomsday Christians which spiraled into a evolutionary technical argument that quite frankly neither of us i suspect were qualified to have.  What was telling however, was that I repeatedly asked for an explanation for the vestigial tail that we all have (coccyx), and this was completely ignored.

Permalink Reply by Alice on June 3, 2011 at 2:21am

yes - now that brings up another issue for me - after reading all these books by Dennitt / Dawkin's etc - I feel like I must go out and convert the masses to sensibility - perhaps my own crusading tenancy - but all the same - your comment here brings up an important point for me - if none of us are really qualified to discuss these things - they what sort of conversations should we be having with theists regarding changing their minds? Perhaps we should really be talking about the books and logic we have that have led us to our world view - and perhaps suggest that they do the same - in order to broaden their understandings more - as they seem narrow minded to us. But then again, are we really qualified to say this? I say this myself as a regular Joe who's read a few science based books here and there.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on June 3, 2011 at 9:21am

Yeah, if you can catch them young, before they've completely invested their identity in the whole concept, they're much more open to an alternative to their brainwashing.  Most teenagers believe because they're not aware that there's a viable alternative.

 

That's why it doesn't matter if we actually convert anyone with the billboard campaigns going on around the country.  We're still at the public awareness stage of the campaign.  Any deconverts we get are a bonus.

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on June 3, 2011 at 11:49am

In high school I helped a classmate realize he is and atheist. :)

Permalink Reply by Alice on June 3, 2011 at 7:28pm

That's right - we need to improve on the memes that are circulating out there - I'm glad that I had my dad for this sort of input when I was a kid - he told me about the big bang, evolution, physics, and other theories - so even though I also had a lot of supernatural influence from most of the others in my life - I still had this as something to think about - and it just made more sense - it was a more complete and complex theory - that had more explanations - religion actually doesn't have much depth - it doesn't take a genius to ask questions way beyond the capacity of religion to provide interesting answers - although eventually in both we get to a point in science where we are cutting edge and we just don't know - which most people feel very anxious about - and instead of saying oh well - they have a desperate need to fill the void - because there is an answer - because there much be an answer to every questions - so when science says we just don't know - the anxiety is too much and people feel much safer with God did it - even though that makes no logical sense - as if God did it - how did God get there etc.  It's something to do with the feelings of anxiety and the amount of questioning someone knows how to ask.  Until I've had someone to explain logic to me, I don't have it naturally - I only recognise logical explanations when I hear them - and only get rid of ones that sound less logical when I come across conflicting ones that sound more logical.  For example when I was about 7 years old - I had two options one was a religious explanation of the world, the other was the scientific explanation of the world.  I accepted them both until I realised that they conflicted in the age of the world - 5,000 vs 13,000,000,000 or something like that.  So here I saw a contradiction.  So I did some more questioning and decided that the scientific answer was way more plausible, even though the religious answer was way more appealing because the whole package met my human needs much better.  By the time I was 15 I was feeling quite lost in life - and I actually thought I'd try out the religious life - because I was quiet desperate and had many unmet needs - such as community, friendship, closeness, security, meaning etc - but the religion that I picked didn't meet any of those needs - perhaps another one would have - but again I had all that science in my head and I just couldn't make things stack up.  This caused me to be very isolated and vulnerable and depressed.  It's tough growing up.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on June 3, 2011 at 9:13am

Ultimately, you should bring people over to atheism by reason and evidence (or lack thereof), but you have to crack their shell first.  You need to start with emotional arguments to get them actually listening to you in the first place.  You can't reason with people who have their fingers in their ears.

 

Case in point:  the girl I'm working on, who presented Thomas Aquinas's Five Proofs as a solid proof of the existence of God.

The first three 'proofs' are the same damned thing.  They're the exact same structure of the first cause argument with very slightly different wording.  They have the same flaws in the exact same places.  At that, it's a very primitive construction of the first cause argument.  It's not even as advanced as the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

The first 'proof' ends with:

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

I've explained to her what a perfect demonstration of the Argument from Ignorance that statement is ... what a complete non sequitur it is.  Until I can crack the shell and get her to the point that she's able to seriously consider the idea that her god is made-up, she won't be able to look at the arguments objectively.  She'll fill in the freaking huge holes in the arguments with her a priori belief in her brainwashing.

It's the emotional arguments which may get her at least slightly free of the brainwashing to the point that she can start to reason.

Permalink Reply by Alice on June 3, 2011 at 7:31pm

I think people believe what makes sense to them - but also what they want to believe - what suits them to believe - and it's usually strongly based on what they were told as children.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on June 3, 2011 at 7:37pm

Brainwashing, in other words, yes.  That's what I meant.  You need emotional arguments, if you want to get them into a frame of mind in which they're capable of questioning their childhood indoctrination.

Permalink Reply by Alice on June 3, 2011 at 8:12pm

I agree with your sentiment - although I'm not sure what you mean by emotional arguments as such.  I think all my conversations are emotional - in that we can't separate emotions from logic or reason - it's all intertwined.  Sam Harris mentions this in his book the moral landscape - because it's all dealt with in the same frontal cortex.

 

But that besides - I would say it's important to develop an emotional connection with the person - find common ground - show them compassion - and then bring up conflicts of belief - so that they can see that you are a loving and compassionate person who also has a logical way of seeing the world - which may well be surprising to them if they have been brainwashed into believing that we are all sinning heathens with evil intentions.  This conflict will be quite obvious to them.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on June 3, 2011 at 8:27pm

... although I'm not sure what you mean by emotional arguments as such.

 

Stuff like one of my favorite Matt Dillahunty rants:

 

 

Similarly, Dan Barker makes a lot of the immorality sort of arguments, in his latest book.  You need to attack a theist emotionally, before they'll listen to reason and stop filling in the holes in the logical arguments that they cling to so tenaciously.  You have to make them want to be objective.

 

If you start from the perspective of logic, explaining the null hypothesis, the burden of proof, shooting down all of their (il)logical arguments for God.  You have to get past their emotional fallbacks, like faith, before you can reason with them.

Permalink Reply by Alice on June 4, 2011 at 11:10pm

I didn't see the emotional connection as such - I saw that he started a conversation with them and then gave them evidence why what he said wasn't logical - and gave good argument.  Which is very good, and I obviously knows his stuff.  I might use that one next time I see a 7th day Adventist or other...

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page