Should atheism be considered a movement?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl,

My question was about how you would control who gets to be in this critical thinking movement. How will you do that? Make it a condition that you are an atheist? Take a test? Pledge, in public, with your hand on...presumably not the Bible, but what, then?...that you are now an Atheist?

I'm genuinely curious. What constitutes a member of this Movement of Critical Thinkers? What do they have to live up to? What are the tenets?

They have to be Atheists. What else?

Critical thinking is a process, Claus. The conclusions people come to when they use good critical thinking skills are not absolute or fixed in stone. So it is the skills that matter, not the conclusions.

But I am not going to give a pass to god beliefs as being compatible with good critical thinking skills. If you use the principles of evaluating the evidence, you come to the conclusion the Biblical god is as mythical as Zeus and Pele. Unless you are caught up in some god belief, it is a no brainer. If one is indoctrinated into one god belief or another, then one cannot see that their god beliefs are as mythical as any other god beliefs. An objective observer has absolutely no problem seeing that they are myths one and all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have it! We need to force all schoolkids to spend 2 hours+ a week in these forums. That should get their brain juices flowing

You must not have any non-adult kids, I take it?

If anything, most kids in the US and I assume the other first world countries, spend hours and hours on the Net interacting with people. They have incredible access to information. If you just teach them how to properly evaluate that information, you don't need to worry.

But you do have to teach them. My son, for example, 18, in college, pretty intelligent and he's been raised to think about things like I do...

So the other day he told me about some whale that had been found with a vocal abnormality that made its call unique and not like any other whale. For more than a decade the whale had been swimming the seas alone because its call was not like any other whales. It sounded so sad. He got mad at me for questioning this story which he had picked up on the Net somewhere and I could have let it drop. But I didn't. I told him it wasn't that I didn't believe him, it's that I like to check the original source of such stories. He remained miffed but I looked up the story anyway.

I was pleased to find the actual original report. It turned out that this whale was noted by its sound which had been collected in an audio survey and indeed it passed an annual migration site every year for a dozen years. The sound was unique but the whale had actually never been seen.

From that scientific report, however, it was added as the story was passed on that the whale was "lonely". However, several species of whales are indeed solitary animals. And while this whale is suspected to not be a new species, but rather to have a unique vocalization, it isn't clear if that has anything to do with the fact the recordings indicate the whale is alone when it passes the recording station.

So I was able to show my son how the scientific report was changed as the story was shared. A solitary whale became a lonely whale. A unique vocalization became an injured vocal cord that caused the whale to be isolated by its pod.

My son is smart, but it takes a lot of effort to teach the kind of critical thinking skills one has which leads you to look for the ways a story is vulnerable to change as it is shared from person to person. Those are the skills I think we should be teaching kids, especially in this computer age. That is what I mean when I say teach critical thinking skills.

 

[CFLarsen]

Critical thinking is a process, Claus. The conclusions people come to when they use good critical thinking skills are not absolute or fixed in stone. So it is the skills that matter, not the conclusions.

You said earlier:

I would like to see a critical thinking movement. Atheism is only one aspect of critical thinking, but there's no reason it needs to be the dominant aspect.

So if people aren't atheists, they are not allowed in the critical thinking movement?

A critical thinking theist is an oxymoron.

Then, curiously enough, you say:

First, critically thinking people can have a blind spot for their god beliefs (of course they recognize other god beliefs are myths) and still be critical thinkers. That doesn't change the fact that a person evaluating the evidence will see there are no magical beings in the sky and there are no nebulous beings in some bizarre existence somewhere outside of the Universe with some kind of magical powers over the beings inside the Universe. Theists cannot see how mythical their personal god beliefs are. That doesn't make their god beliefs any less mythical.

Your exact words. There are no misinterpretations on my part, so don't start that one.

So, which is it?

In this critical thinking movement of yours, does one have to be an atheist, yes or no?

If you answer yes, what other requirements are there? Give a full list.

Please provide a clear answer. I am not interested in yet another explanation of why you don't think god exists.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I guess it's hard for you to put the pieces together Claus but I can't see what the problem is.

If you use critical thinking skills you will conclude all god beliefs are equally mythical.

 

[CFLarsen]

I guess it's hard for you to put the pieces together Claus but I can't see what the problem is.

If you use critical thinking skills you will conclude all god beliefs are equally mythical.

OK, then: I'll assume that you meant yes: One has to be an atheist to join this critical movement of yours.

If this later turns out not to be the case, don't blame me.

What other requirements are there? Give a full list.

 

[Beth]

I think any child given the evidence and facts and not given an indoctrination in god beliefs will conclude god beliefs are not supportable conclusions.

Why do you believe this? I'm sorry, but I won't be able to respond much as my broken index finger makes it difficult to type, but I am genuinely curious.

You've stated this belief more than once, though it's clearly not always the case. For example, consider the evidence in "Amazing Conversions: Why Some Turn to Faith & Others Abandon Religion (Hardcover)" which has the following description

Amazing Conversions addresses the how and why of conversion to and away from religious faith. Canadian social psychologists Bob Altemeyer and Bruce Hunsberger surveyed thousands of young adults in order to investigate the backgrounds and lives of amazing believers (individuals who became devout believers in spite of little or no religious upbringing) and amazing apostates (individuals who became agnostic or atheists irrespective of their strong religious training). The authors document in great detail the answers provided by interviewees to questions such as "At what age did the first questions about your religion arise in your mind?" or "In what ways are you glad because you no longer believe?" Readers interested in the intellectual, emotional, and social influences on religious belief and non-belief will find the scenarios of individuals fascinating reading. Although amazing believers and apostates seem to contradict their own socializing process, Altemeyer and Hunsberger contend that their research demonstrates the power of socialization, since other social factors (family strife, employment, relationships) influence the conversion process. One might suspect that many forms of religious belief and conversion are not susceptible to a statistical survey approach and the attempt by the researchers to quantify religious belief seems problematic. The authors will strike many readers as theoretically naive in claiming that the survey method produces only random error but not systematic distortion. Given that the surveyed group consisted entirely of Canadian university students, this study is more valuable in its depiction of actual cases of religious conversion than in its general conclusions.

What you probably mean is that you place a significantly higher probability of not becoming religious under those circumstances. If so, I agree with this. But I also find the idea that parents shouldn't be permitted to raise their children with the idea that they will follow their religion to be profoundly abhorant. I'm with Meadmaker on that issue.

What I find interesting is that those who advocate such an approach do not percieve that they are attempting to foster their own religious beliefs in other people's children. I see the insistance that a religious upbringing is somehow harmful to a child, which many people posting here do, as being any different than the religious folks claiming that a non-religious upbringing is harmful to a child, and many religious people do feel that way.

Anyway, back to my main question is for those who feel that raising a child to believe in a religion is morally wrong: Do you believe that a mandatory secular education will result in more atheist and agnostic adults (I do, but I think that there will always be some portion of the population that believes in supernatural gods)

If so, do you have any ethical concerns about the fact that a mandatory secular education would have the effect of fostering converts to your own religious beliefs - i.e. no gods actually exit?

If somebody wanted to make this a poll, that'd be nice. But that's all the typing I can handle today.

 

[Meadmaker]

That's exactly the problem with false dichotomy. It eventually snowballs to the point where the libertarian atheist and the religious fanatic who wants a theocracy land in the same court because you're doing a straw poll instead of thinking about the issue.

No. If someone wanted a theocracy, they would be in a different court. I am saying a libertarian atheist and a libertarian Christian are in the same court.

Saying that all answers fit into yes, no, or didn't vote just shuts off debate and discussion.

Sometimes I wish, but no. There are lots and lots of different reasons and justifications one could give. There are differences in exactly where you would draw the line on religious freedom. For example, some people would say that imposing secular standards for education on religious schools infringes on freedom of religion. I disagree. That isn't where I draw my line.

But I have a line, and on any specific issue, you are either on the same side of that line, or the other side.

Since I will never follow anyone into the territory of insanity, I obviously am against you in the worldview of your persecution complex.

Well, you do seem more like a leader than a follower...

If you want to step back and admit that human opinion is diverse, and that understanding the full range of opinion is important, I fully support that movement. Otherwise, you are irrational, pure and simple.

I don't think truth is ever pure and simple. Oh, wait. I do think that. You were the one who thought it was more subtle. Or, now I'm very confused. Which of us is drawing a hard line here? It seems difficult to tell the difference.

I don't see any way religious education will ever help critical thinking skills. The entire basis of religion is faith, the entire basis of critical thinking is questioning and searching for answers.

You have a view of religion that appears to be heavily influenced by a particular style of Christian teaching. The religious leaders I listen to today would never assert that the basis of religion is faith, and they would say that the most important part of religion is questioning and searching for answers.

I grew up Christian (Roman Catholic, specifically), and I thought that way about religion, then. I thought that the best way to compare religions would be to list different things that this religion and that one believed, and compare those lists. Looking back, I realize that this is a very shallow, and largely irrelevant view.

 

[GreyICE]

No. If someone wanted a theocracy, they would be in a different court. I am saying a libertarian atheist and a libertarian Christian are in the same court.

People who want theocracies pretty much have always been for religious schools.

Sometimes I wish, but no. There are lots and lots of different reasons and justifications one could give. There are differences in exactly where you would draw the line on religious freedom. For example, some people would say that imposing secular standards for education on religious schools infringes on freedom of religion. I disagree. That isn't where I draw my line.

But I have a line, and on any specific issue, you are either on the same side of that line, or the other side.

Oh man, so you don't even get a 'no vote' in your world?

Well, you do seem more like a leader than a follower...

And you do seem more like a lunatic

I don't think truth is ever pure and simple. Oh, wait. I do think that. You were the one who thought it was more subtle. Or, now I'm very confused. Which of us is drawing a hard line here? It seems difficult to tell the difference.

It's a mental state. Rationality involves accepting different worldviews. If you don't accept the range of opinion, you can never challenge your own opinion. When you draw that line, you stop listening to the people who you decide are against you. That's the beginning of the end of rationality. Once you start thinking that people who disagree with you are against you, you lose the ability to challenge your own opinions and ideas, because any external challenge comes from those who were against you.

You have a view of religion that appears to be heavily influenced by a particular style of Christian teaching. The religious leaders I listen to today would never assert that the basis of religion is faith, and they would say that the most important part of religion is questioning and searching for answers.

Which coincidentally are all found in their woo manuals, thus proving that the answers to any questions can be found through your faith in the sky fairy. It's a very lame form of questioning that keeps finding the same answer.

I grew up Christian (Roman Catholic, specifically), and I thought that way about religion, then. I thought that the best way to compare religions would be to list different things that this religion and that one believed, and compare those lists. Looking back, I realize that this is a very shallow, and largely irrelevant view.

How about we do a different comparison then. Do any of them have a rational thought process? No. Do all of them ask you to believe in baseless superstition? Yes. Is there a single one that is not a giant waste of time? No. They're all worthless, the major question is the degree of damage each one does.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm glad to hear the school turns out many well educated kids that don't have a critical thinking exception to god beliefs. I believe many Israelis are secularists and I also think, on the whole, the Jewish culture highly values a good education.

I think any child given the evidence and facts and not given an indoctrination in god beliefs will conclude god beliefs are not supportable conclusions. If the school provides the education and religion is an elective or a cultural awareness topic, then it sounds like a good school.

As a parent, I'd just want to be sure there was not an indoctrination class.

Just one class on indoctrination? Certainly not. It's a huge part of the school's mission, and it takes up a significant part of the day, and it certainly isn't an elective. Once in a while there are even elements of indoctrination in the math class, but not very often.

Personally, I think any child given evidence and facts can make up his own mind with or without indoctrination. Short of some sort of high intensity brainwashing exercises, I think people have a clue. You can tell people anything you want about God, but no one is forced to believe it.

I also think that your notion of just exactly what constitute "god beliefs" are heavily influenced by Christian teachings.

I'd be concerned if they added the magic beads and ritual chanting.

Jews don't use beads, but there's plenty of ritual chanting.

By the way, I said that many of the graduates are agnostic. Some of those agnostics are very religious. For those of you who think that's a contradiction, there might be something you don't understand about religion.

 

[andyandy]

I don't see any way religious education will ever help critical thinking skills. The entire basis of religion is faith, the entire basis of critical thinking is questioning and searching for answers. The two cannot be reconciled, and religious education will not help (except perhaps to say: "Think critically, or you'll end up like that").

a fundamental misconception that seems to be harboured by a lot of posters on this forum is that religious education is equal to religious indoctrination. As a general rule they seem to be American and quite adverse to the idea that any religion whatsoever should be so much as mentioned in school. It does seem a shame when just about every other western country does include religious education within their curriculum, and all enjoy much less religiousity than America. This has been discussed at length in previous threads, and I'm not sure I fancy rehashing old arguments. Suffice to say, religious education provides the opportunity for children to learn about many different religions and many different beliefs. It is taught as an academic subject which takes into consideration social issues, philosophy and history. I find absurd that people would wish for children's understanding of religion to be limited by what they have been exposed to by their parents. This simply perpetuates the passing of religiosity down hereditary lines, something I would have thought that secularists would have been looking to limit.

I can assure you that many people arrive at their atheist positions through greater knowledge of religion. The more you study the Bible, the more its inconsistencies become apparent. The more you study religion, the more you realise how many other gods are out there, how many other strange beliefs that people hold. And then you start to question, why is my God the right one? Why are all these other beliefs strange, but mine sensible? And that is the journey towards greater understanding of religion and in my opinion the fast-track towards atheism.

And yet we have some of the most vocal atheists on this forum shouting down any ideas about religious education - it seems at times that cultural conditioning gets the better of people

 

[Meadmaker]

Which coincidentally are all found in their woo manuals, thus proving that the answers to any questions can be found through your faith in the sky fairy. It's a very lame form of questioning that keeps finding the same answer. How about we do a different comparison then. Do any of them have a rational thought process? No. Do all of them ask you to believe in baseless superstition? Yes. Is there a single one that is not a giant waste of time? No. They're all worthless, the major question is the degree of damage each one does.

It is hard to argue with that line of reasoning.

 

[Egg]

You mean what is the evidence god beliefs originate in the human imagination and not real encounters with actual gods?

I've posted on this before. You can start a thread if you want but it's pretty basic stuff. The Bible has nothing in it, for example, that suggests special knowledge that would come from a god. They got the germ theory wrong, they didn't note the rest of the world was populated, they thought the Moon was a light rather than reflected light and so on. If you break it down it is typical of all the other myths that developed in every other culture.

My apologies if you have already covered this in detail and cited the evidence. Perhaps you might be able to direct me to that thread?

 

[GreyICE]

a fundamental misconception that seems to be harboured by a lot of posters on this forum is that religious education is equal to religious indoctrination. As a general rule they seem to be American and quite adverse to the idea that any religion whatsoever should be so much as mentioned in school. It does seem a shame when just about every other western country does include religious education within their curriculum, and all enjoy much less religiousity than America. This has been discussed at length in previous threads, and I'm not sure I fancy rehashing old arguments. Suffice to say, religious education provides the opportunity for children to learn about many different religions and many different beliefs. It is taught as an academic subject which takes into consideration social issues, philosophy and history. I find absurd that people would wish for children's understanding of religion to be limited by what they have been exposed to by their parents. This simply perpetuates the passing of religiosity down hereditary lines, something I would have thought that secularists would have been looking to limit.

I can assure you that many people arrive at their atheist positions through greater knowledge of religion. The more you study the Bible, the more its inconsistencies become apparent. The more you study religion, the more you realise how many other gods are out there, how many other strange beliefs that people hold. And then you start to question, why is my God the right one? Why are all these other beliefs strange, but mine sensible? And that is the journey towards greater understanding of religion and in my opinion the fast-track towards atheism.

And yet we have some of the most vocal atheists on this forum shouting down any ideas about religious education - it seems at times that cultural conditioning gets the better of people

In the context of the discussion, religious education clearly referred to education at a school by members of a single religion, in a heavily biased manner. Taken out of context, like you did, gives you a pretty strawman.

 

[articulett]

I think it's harmful to teach people that faith is of the highest value... that it's "salvation worthy"... the thing the invisible guy who judges your eternity wants more than anything else.

My stomach turns when I hear adults checking with their church or pastor to see what they are supposed to believe about evolution, the peopling of Americas and so on. I think it's sad when people are afraid to learn some of the coolest facts humans have come to know because they are afraid they might lose faith and suffer consequences. They trust people whose expertise is in imaginary entities and "divine truths" that there's no reason to imagine exist and fear those who would give them real and testable truths along with ever accumulating evidence... if they really wanted to know such truths. They fear the null hypothesis, so they never test it. They never test to see if their beliefs might be as misguided as those of people who have beliefs they don't shre.

When faith is promoted as a value, critical thinking is something to fear. Critical thinking is about doubting unless or until the evidence accumulates to convince a person otherwise. Faith is about believing without or despite evidence... or due to faulty evidence, anecdotal evidence and wishful thinking. Faith is about claiming to know things that no one can know and fearing and bad-mouthing those who say it isn't true and calling them "arrogant" for questioning it. Here's an analogy I gave on another thread.

We live in a society where everyone agrees not to point out that the Emperor is wearing no clothes...(it's taboo)-- and it causes the people who notice his nakedness to feel like they are the crazy ones... and the people who see "clothes" to feel "chosen"-- they are empowered... elevated to guru and prophet and wise man. They truth is, they are delusional and self-important. Their followers are trusting victims, but society pretends it's all fine and dandy and super duper and punishes those who say, "hey, the Emperor sure looks naked to me!"

Apologists say, "No, no-- he's wearing clothes... you just can't see them because you aren't worthy-- they are magical clothes after all." They never really say they see the clothes, but they sure want to believe there are clothes there and that maybe they got a glimpse of his "robe" that one time. They enforce a paradigm built on a sham because they want their version of that sham to be true. People who "see the clothes" (or get a burning in their bosom, or speak in tongues, or meet a "real psychic", or have a premonition that comes true, or get rid of thetans, or astrally project) truly want to believe that these experiences were "real" and a sign of whatever mystery they've come to believe they are "in on".

But either invisible entities give messages to people or they don't. Believers support the false paradigm that they very well could be doing just that--they feel righteous for doing so and are compelled to bad mouth nonbelievers in order to continue to feel open minded and like they are amongst the "chosen". They lose the right to say who or what is getting real messages from which invisible entities when you do so, because there is no way to tell one from the other. They are all built on subjective nothingness and indistinguishable from a delusion. And yet they think they are being diplomatic and open minded because they are leaving the door open for "possibilities". You may as well leave the door open that some psychics might be true too.

Atheists see that the Emperor is naked... they don't see a way to prove it to anyone else, but they don't want other kids or other trusting people to feel like they are wrong or missing something because they "don't see clothes". They want to encourage that kind of thinking just as they wish people had done so for them when they were wondering why the Emperor was so obviously naked. They are tired of pretending to see clothes or that it's not crazy when they hear people and their "clothes visions". To me, defense and tangents and imagined "stridency" of atheists is really a way people shield their own woo from criticism. They'd rather keep believing in their own brand of woo without ever really putting it up for examination--instead they attack the messenger to avoid hearing the message just like all the woo do to Randi.

You can tell because they never really say their point... and they hear and exaggerate the words of those who don't threaten their belief they are trying to protect. They have to --to keep the belief alive. They lecture and expect respect for their opinion, but they don't give those who see no clothes the same respect.

The movement is skepticism. Atheism is no more or less than lack of belief in astrology or supernatural explanations. It's a nothing. It's only forced to become a something because believers have been made to fear it and see it as a threat--a sign that someone might damage that fabulous "gift of faith" that makes them feel so darn special and chosen". And questions are a threat to faith. So is doubt and scrutiny and mocking. Theists have invented a world of scary things about atheism and imagined harm to keep the faith alive. They have the inane straw man that atheism is another faith (sure... if lack of belief in astrology is another faith) or that there is such a thing as fundamentalist atheism... nor that atheists want to force their belief on others or are militant and strident when they take the same freedom of speech right that believers and the self appointed vigilantes take for themselves readily.

Scrutiny isn't a threat to the truth, however.

I think most atheists would be quite content with the same freedom of speech and right to assemble and mock as those who disbelieve in Scientology have... as those who think homeopathy is woo have... as those who think other superstitions are bad have... I am tired of having to pretend that religious woo is special woo... something to defer too. People have a right to believe what they want... but if they inflict their belief upon me, they've opened up my right to express my opinion about their self important view.

An atheist has the balls to say he see the Emperor's balls-- the Emperor is naked. And the world is full of people who have been taught to silence and fear people who dare to say as much.

 

[articulett]

My apologies if you have already covered this in detail and cited the evidence. Perhaps you might be able to direct me to that thread?

Look in the I am soul thread... the why skeptics should be atheists thread... the what makes you think your god is more true than other gods thread.... the what I'm trying to say thread.... .

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107030&page=23

The evidence is just everywhere... What exactly is it you want to know... how morals evolve? why people believe unbelievable things? Why humans invent imaginary agents to explain that which they don't understand? Why an absence of evidence for clothes is evidence that the Emperor is naked? Why you can't prove that invisible magical clothes don't exist and that the Emperor isn't wearing them?

You want to believe there is no evidence, Egg, for whatever belief you don't say, but want to keep believing. You can't see the evidence because you really want to believe it doesn't exist. You want to believe that that time you saw the Emperor's clothes, it was a sign-- not a delusion.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Should atheism be considered a movement? Heck yeah!?!?!?! All it takes is fifty, in harmony......

You know, if one person,just one person does it
they may think he's really sick and
they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony,
they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them.
And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in
singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an
organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said
fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and
walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

And that's what it is , the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and
all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the
guitar.

 

[Egg]

Look in the I am soul thread... the why skeptics should be atheists thread... the what makes you think your god is more true than other gods thread.... the what I'm trying to say thread.... .

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107030&page=23

The evidence is just everywhere... What exactly is it you want to know... how morals evolve? why people believe unbelievable things? Why humans invent imaginary agents to explain that which they don't understand? Why an absence of evidence for clothes is evidence that the Emperor is naked? Why you can't prove that invisible magical clothes don't exist and that the Emperor isn't wearing them?

You want to believe there is no evidence, Egg, for whatever belief you don't say, but want to keep believing. You can't see the evidence because you really want to believe it doesn't exist. You want to believe that that time you saw the Emperor's clothes, it was a sign-- not a delusion.

Skeptigirl said she'd posted about the evidence that overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that god beliefs are just made up constructs by ancient people trying to explain what they observed around them.

Rather than expect her to go to the trouble of posting it all again, I was hoping she might be able to point me to the thread where she did this.

 

[Meadmaker]

a fundamental misconception that seems to be harboured by a lot of posters on this forum is that religious education is equal to religious indoctrination. ...I can assure you that many people arrive at their atheist positions through greater knowledge of religion. The more you study the Bible, the more its inconsistencies become apparent.

FWIW, I agree with everything you said, especially the last two sentences above.

On the other hand, the kind of "religious education" I've been talking about is not what you described. I mean the kind taught by people deliberately hoping to influence children to accept a specific religion. In my humble opinion, that has many of the same benefits. Perhaps I can elaborate at a later time.

 

[andyandy]

In the context of the discussion, religious education clearly referred to education at a school by members of a single religion, in a heavily biased manner. Taken out of context, like you did, gives you a pretty strawman.

On the other hand, the kind of "religious education" I've been talking about is not what you described. I mean the kind taught by people deliberately hoping to influence children to accept a specific religion. In my humble opinion, that has many of the same benefits. Perhaps I can elaborate at a later time.

Okay apologies if I missed the context of the discussion. I haven't been paying attention to the full thread. No strawman intended Greyice

meadmaker, I'd be interested in your argument. I certainly think that there is a role for religious schools insofar as they can be regulated by the state and provide a place where children of religious parents can at least receive some regulated imput distinct from their parents' dogma.

It really seems something of a no-brainer. We can have children whose only exposure to religion comes from whatever their parents may tell them, however nutty that might be, or we can at least try to control that exposure. Much as one could make the argument for a state legalisation of drugs in order to control and regulate the supply, I think that religious schools fall into the same utilitarian argument. As long as there are religious parents who will be indoctrinating their children, then there should be state run religious schools as a means of regulating that exposure.

 

[articulett]

Skeptigirl said she'd posted about the evidence that overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that god beliefs are just made up constructs by ancient people trying to explain what they observed around them.

Rather than expect her to go to the trouble of posting it all again, I was hoping she might be able to point me to the thread where she did this.

Well, it's tons of accumulated evidence like there is for evolution... you can't explain it in a sound bite to someone who has come to believe something different that makes them feel special.

But here's a start: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=searching-for-god-in-the-brain
http://www.godless.org/sci/ramachandran.html
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/22
http://www.nobeliefs.com/howwebelieve.htm
http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/04/interview-with-daniel-dennett/
http://skeptically.org/logicalthreads/id15.html

Here's a start if you are actually interested. But I'm rather certain you are asking one of those vague questions so you can keep pretending that "scientists not knowing everything" means that your "beliefs" have a chance of being "true"... you aren't going to look to see how the scientists know the Emperor isn't wearing clothes, because you want to believe you really caught a glimpse of them that one time.

Truly, this is exactly what believers of all sorts of woo do all the time. You may as well have asked for her to prove that no psychics are real--that beliefs fostered by people "noticing the hits"-- all the data in the world and Randi's videos wouldn't change the mind of someone who wanted to believe in psychics... would it? All the evidence in the world doesn't change a creationists mind about evolution... but the gaps in knowledge and anecdote is all the evidence they need to support a belief they want to be true. People evolved to look for signs and meaning in the world... they get it wrong a lot especially in certain areas... science helps make such mistakes less frequent. Remember, we can't prove the Emperor isn't wearing magical clothes... we can only show the evidence that supports the "he's naked" hypothesis.

(I have a feeling I'm going to be wasting my time tracking down those links for you, but I know that they may well be just what others are looking for.)