Atheist Tactics that Work

[joobz]

I like the oxygen rich environment analogy. But I wonder: Is the dislike of converting people really the result of a "day is night" trap. Because religious people so often are into converting others, we have to not do what they do? I agree with not doing it exactly the way they do it, but I think those who want to, have every right to attempt to convert the religious to nonbelief. I just feel that they need a better understanding of general tactics around their conversion attempts (and I'm taking for granted that they know how to produce an argument against religion).

Well, I guess my anti-conversion stance comes from a view that not all religions(or all religious) are in disharmony with the healthy environment I describe. If faith brings someone comfort, I see no reason to try and remove that aspect of their life. Especially if it helps them be a productive member of society. In this regard, I consider choice of belief akin to choice of music.

I simply wish to ensure that no one forces their views onto anyone else (especially if they are hatefilled and contradict reality).

 

[joobz]

it doesn't really.

medicine would likely struggle and make a huge mess of people's health if it refused to accept anecdotal, subjective evidence.

e.g. Doctor to patient:

what is the problem?
how do you feel?
where does it hurt?
do you feel better or worse after that?
which remedy helped you most? A? or B?
are you better now? would it be ok to discharge you, do you think?
etc...

Asking "What's wrong?" is not the same thing as
"prove to me what's wrong". I find it quite amusing that you would equivocate the two statements.

Anyway, I take it you have never been to a medical conference before? Or read the NIH road map? Each time you have a objective medical test to diagnose a problem, you have an associated leap in quality of medical care. Be glad medicine doesn't make the same assumption you do.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

it doesn't really.

medicine would likely struggle and make a huge mess of people's health if it refused to accept anecdotal, subjective evidence.

e.g. Doctor to patient:

what is the problem?
how do you feel?
where does it hurt?
do you feel better or worse after that?
which remedy helped you most? A? or B?
are you better now? would it be ok to discharge you, do you think?
etc...

All these things are measurable by scientific method. What you describe above is called 'saving time'.

So far, no positive evidence has demonstrated the light of Jesus inside the left ventricle.

 

[plumjam]

Exactly. And that is why you have to hit them emotionally

sounds a bit spooky

before you go into the logical.

In matters of experience logic has no power. If someone has, internally, experienced the existence of God, what does logic have to say about that?
Even externally speaking logic has no power in ontology. Things either exist or don't exist, and logic can have nothing to say about it.
What is logical or illogical about the Universe existing? It's a nonsense question. It happens to exist.

Religion is fundamentally an emotional and social experience.

Some interpret it that way, yes. Are you saying that if a thing gets you emotional then we therefore have to question it's existence? e.g. your family/friends?

Another great example. If you hit emotional people over the head with logic, they won't accept it. They need an emotional reason to hear what you're saying, first.

Doesn't really follow

 

[Meadmaker]

Great OP.

 

[plumjam]

Asking "What's wrong?" is not the same thing as
"prove to me what's wrong". I find it quite amusing that you would equivocate the two statements.

Anyway, I take it you have never been to a medical conference before? Or read the NIH road map? Each time you have a objective medical test to diagnose a problem, you have an associated leap in quality of medical care. Be glad medicine doesn't make the same assumption you do.

A new medical test to improve headache treatment:

how would you empirically demonstrate that the subject was indeed suffering from a headache or cured of a headache without taking their word for it? (anecdotal, subjective)

is there some apparatus or method that can clearly demonstrate that a person is experiencing the sensation of a headache?

 

[Suggestologist]

sounds a bit spooky

In matters of experience logic has no power. If someone has, internally, experienced the existence of God, what does logic have to say about that?
Even externally speaking logic has no power in ontology. Things either exist or don't exist, and logic can have nothing to say about it.
What is logical or illogical about the Universe existing? It's a nonsense question. It happens to exist.

Notice that you are taking emotional feelings and adding logical arguments to back it up. That's what religious people always do.

Emotional Needs Argument: Jesus died for my sins. I feel so free, and etc.
Logical Justifications: Look, his tomb was empty. People saw him fly up to heaven. 1 Billion believers can't be wrong. Etc.

I'm not concerned with specific arguments here, I'm concerned with tactics.

Some interpret it that way, yes. Are you saying that if a thing gets you emotional then we therefore have to question it's existence? e.g. your family/friends?

I'm saying that emotion is a path, not a proof.

 

[juniper_ann]

Benefits of Beliefs #9: Having Absolute Truth.

Science consists of hypotheses that are falsifiable and modifiable. With enough evidence, those hypotheses are upgraded to theories, but they are still falsifiable and modifiable. Many religions, on the other hand, have Absolute Truth from on high. Furthermore, in a materialist world view, there is no absolute morality. Compared to the security of religious "thou shalt nots," it looks like building a house on a sand dune.

Although I'm no longer Catholic, I still have essentially the same attitude toward conversion that I did as a Catholic:
1. Conversion is good because all people deserve to have a shot at the truth (even if it's not the Truth).
2. Aggressive conversion is bad because it is counter-productive--you just scare people off.
3. When asked, or when it comes up in conversations, be willing to intelligently discuss your beliefs. Do not try to convince anyone of anything--just state what's convincing to you and why. Be willing to be drawn into respectful debates, but do not begin them, and end them if they get personal. It's not about winning the argument (unless the argument is "don't sacrifice your children to Cthulu" or similar). It's about giving your debater more ideas to work with (planting seeds, so to speak), and refining your own beliefs.
4. Always try to be the person you'd like everyone else to be. If you're successful, maybe someone will ask you what's your secret to being so fabulous. If you're not, it's still a life well lived.

St. Francis:
“Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.”

A speaker from Opus Dei:
"Anything good can be used to bring people to God. If you and a friend both like beer, then use beer to bring them to God."

Explanation: She wasn't saying to get your friends drunk and brainwash them. She was saying that you should bond with people over common interests, and then have deep conversations with them. Of course (though it's not explicit in the quote), you're not supposed to try to convert people just to try to get your "conversion points" up. If you are converting people, it should be as part of a general interest in their welfare. People can tell the difference between a friend whom you would like to convert, and a potential convert whom you befriend.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Speaking as one who was once a "born again" Christian but is now an atheist I can honestly say that no "tactics" were involved in my conversion, although many convincing arguments were. I had an inquisitive mind that won out over my indoctrination. I was exposed to many ideas and gradually altered my world view until one day I realized that I no longer believed in the god of Christianity or any gods. Often the acceptance of an idea is based less on the quality of said idea than the person's emotional investment in accepting an alternative idea. The evidence that the Earth is about 4.3 billion years old is overwhelming but many believe it is only 6000 to 10,000 years old, even after being exposed to the scientific evidence, simply because they want to.

I've never felt an imperative to try to convert anyone to my way of thinking. I have many friends and family who have no idea that I'm an atheist, not because I've hidden this fact from them, but rather because it's simply something I don't talk about unless the situation warrants discussion. If someone asks me directly what my religious beliefs are then I am happy to tell them my position, and if they are further curious I will discuss the matter with them. And if they like I am certainly open to debate the issue as long as they can do so calmly. But I've never felt the need to make it my mission to convert people to atheism. I'll share my thoughts with those who would like to know them and if they find any part of my reasoning compelling then I'm glad of it. But if they still reject my views for whatever reason then that is fine with me as long as they respect my right to hold my own view as I respect their's.

 

[plumjam]

Notice that you are taking emotional feelings and adding logical arguments to back it up. That's what religious people always do.

I'm not at all. That's you over-interpreting according to your assumptions, and falling into error.

Emotional Needs Argument: Jesus died for my sins. I feel so free, and etc. Logical Justifications: Look, his tomb was empty. People saw him fly up to heaven. 1 Billion believers can't be wrong. Etc.

Seems like you've missed, or are avoiding, the points I made.

I'm saying that emotion is a path, not a proof.

Proof belongs to the realm of logic.
I assume you believe that people fall in love. If someone were to ask you whether you're currently in love, what evidence could you offer them apart from the evidence of your emotions?
So in certain situations emotion is the only, or the strongest, evidence for the existence of particular phenomena.
Also, ultimately, all systems of morality are founded on emotion.
If you aren't going to trust emotion then we can have no systems of morality.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

because of the nature of the subject matter the evidence for the existence of God is of a different nature to that generally accepted by empirical science.

Post hoc rationalization.

the evidence is of a spiritual nature, experienced internally.. and thus not amenable to the scientific method of external (intersubjective) verifiability.

Post hoc rationalization.

so if (some) scientists want to dismiss such evidence they can easily say it's "anecdotal, subjective and unverifiable", and that's the end of the matter for them.

Strawman fallacy.

such an attitude has behind it the assumption that empirical science should be accepted as an arbiter for the existence or non-existence of absolutely every phenomenon in reality.
it's an assumption I don't make.

Strawman fallacy.

 

[Fnord]

... Religion is fundamentally an emotional and social experience. ...

... Well-stated.

Or, as one of my Atheist friends puts it: "Love is to Religion as Sex is to Science." One is primarily about relationships while the other is primarily about procreation.

Please continue...

 

[Suggestologist]

Speaking as one who was once a "born again" Christian but is now an atheist I can honestly say that no "tactics" were involved in my conversion, although many convincing arguments were. I had an inquisitive mind that won out over my indoctrination. I was exposed to many ideas and gradually altered my world view until one day I realized that I no longer believed in the god of Christianity or any gods.

This is similar to my experience, except that my family was never very religious. From this, I think we have one type of person who can be targeted:

People with inquisitive minds. People who are not afraid to think about things. Essentially, such people are already in an "unlocked" position.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

. . .I assume you believe that people fall in love. If someone were to ask you whether you're currently in love, what evidence could you offer them apart from the evidence of your emotions?

Measurable physiological changes when near the person you are "in love" with.
Objective third party observable changes in behavior.

So in certain situations emotion is the only, or the strongest, evidence for the existence of particular phenomena.

The above counters this assertion.

Also, ultimately, all systems of morality are founded on emotion.

What have you have just stated is specific to hedonism. Behavioral psychology and evolutionary psychology have put forward hypothesis as to the origin of morals.

If you aren't going to trust emotion then we can have no systems of morality.

Utterly incorrect.

 

[Belz...]

because of the nature of the subject matter the evidence for the existence of God is of a different nature to that generally accepted by empirical science.

No such thing.

the evidence is of a spiritual nature

Isn't that an oxymoron ?

experienced internally.. and thus not amenable to the scientific method of external (intersubjective) verifiability.

And therefore useless, unless you also accept all the OTHER religions.

 

[Jimbo07]

Utterly incorrect.

In fact, a morality based purely on emotion could be somewhat problematic!

 

[Belz...]

how would you empirically demonstrate that the subject was indeed suffering from a headache or cured of a headache without taking their word for it?

That's precisely WHY we have double-blind tests, junior.

 

[plumjam]

Post hoc rationalization.


Post hoc rationalization.


Strawman fallacy.


Strawman fallacy.

I see you have things in common with your avatar
you know, you could always attempt to engage in discussion intelligently, addressing the points made.. instead of relying on dubious labeling

 

[Belz...]

If someone were to ask you whether you're currently in love, what evidence could you offer them apart from the evidence of your emotions?

Uh-huh, but the existence of the emotion is proof of that emotion, not that there's a logical reason behind it.

For example: if you get scared, it doesn't mean there's a reason to. But you ARE scared.

 

[Belz...]

I see you have things in common with your avatar
you know, you could always attempt to engage in discussion intelligently, addressing the points made.. instead of relying on dubious labeling

It's usually simpler to just point out the fallacies than explain what they mean at length.