Be a good little atheist...

[dlorde]

The problem is that just about anything qualifies as a 'vicious attack' when you're dealing with the professional victim. The whole "aggressive atheist" thing is just a way to avoid dealing with the legitimate issues we raise.

That's very true - I spent some time on the Past Lives forum recently, and found them hypersensitively paranoid about sceptics - although not entirely unfriendly to (a very mangled idea of) science. They were paranoid of scepticism to the extent that just to communicate meant talking about it in the third person.

But Weak Kitten does have a point - by non-critical persistence and walking on eggshells, I did manage to gain a measure of acceptance and was able to explain the practical basis of sceptical thinking, and the scientific approach, in a way they could understand and seemed to accept.

No doubt the anti-sceptic distrust is probably too deeply ingrained for my small influence to last very long, but it does indicate that a tactful, understanding, and superficially uncritical approach can facilitate useful communication where plain old 'telling-it-like-it-is honesty' has the shutters slammed before you can finish the sentence. They may have learnt a little, but I learnt far more about how to approach skittishly paranoid woo groups. Softly softly catchee monkey...

I guess it depends what your objectives are. You can encourage them to think rationally for themselves, you can trigger them into a 'persecuted minority' mentality, or you can leave them to stew in woo.

 

[wellwhatif]

and Stay that way

 

[dlorde]

How about this conversation?
...
"That's the problem with all you atheists.!!!! Always trampling on everyone else's rights!!!!!"

Etc., etc., etc.

If you're serious about having any useful/positive effect on them, you need to be more cunning/careful/tactful/clever than that. Otherwise, as you point out, you're wasting your time.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Next time, record it on your cell phone and post it. I'm not saying such an encounter couldn't happen, but since I've been in dozens of such conversations without encountering Quadraginta's hypothetical, the hypothetical strikes me as pretty unbelievable. I'd like to see the evidence that it really was "a polite disagreement" which provoked such an unreasonable response.

Where's the evidence that you've "been in dozens of such conversations"?

 

[dlorde]

... I'm not saying such an encounter couldn't happen, but since I've been in dozens of such conversations without encountering Quadraginta's hypothetical, the hypothetical strikes me as pretty unbelievable. I'd like to see the evidence that it really was "a polite disagreement" which provoked such an unreasonable response.

Something very like this happened to me in my first few posts in the Past Lives forum, and not even a polite disagreement was involved. I simply stated an unexceptional sceptical viewpoint and was savagely attacked for it by a 'senior moderator' - here in a friendlier mood (unfortunately the thread has since been closed and deleted without explanation). His posts in The Debunker's Quest gives a flavour of his opinion of sceptics. To be fair, when he eventually realised I wasn't a soul-devouring demon, he did apologise for being so irrationally aggressive.

 

[marplots]

How are the reactions to disagreement with the religious, cited above, any different than other disagreements? I could have the same interaction with someone who believed in timeshares or Amway or any of a number of subjects. After all, I have a lot of opinions and sometimes even facts to back them up.

The point is to let them be a jerk if they want to, not to out-dick them somehow. Unless, of course, you happen to enjoy that sort of interaction -- that's fine. It just strikes me as tiresome -- completely a reflection of how I want to respond, nothing more. I don't want to be these people.

On a funny note, my mother is dying (completely expected and she's looking forward to it) and the religious side of the family is doing the pro forma prayers. The funny part is that, because they are Baptists, they don't do the Catholic thing where you pray for dead people -- you only get to pray for the living; that they will recover, get salvation and so on. But now, they need a lot of updates so they aren't stuck praying for her to get better after she is dead.

I've brought this problem up with one, that the prayers might be wasted if she died and they didn't hear about it. I got a nice little stutter-step before the ingrained reaction set in and I was informed, "It didn't matter" without any explanation. It's tough having to bend reality and logic to fit what religion demands of you. I don't envy them the task.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Marplots, the problem in the US is that the worst of the god-botherers firmly believe we should nuke anybody who doesn't like the US, who don't understand what all the fuss over slavery was about, and who routinely resolve their domestic disputes with violence.

 

[marplots]

Marplots, the problem in the US is that the worst of the god-botherers firmly believe we should nuke anybody who doesn't like the US, who don't understand what all the fuss over slavery was about, and who routinely resolve their domestic disputes with violence.

I'll agree with that. I guess my problem is how to get at the one without messing with the others -- the ones I know are all more, "hobby style" believers, even though they are believers. It would be nice to trim the violent fringe from any movement if possible.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'll agree with that. I guess my problem is how to get at the one without messing with the others -- the ones I know are all more, "hobby style" believers, even though they are believers. It would be nice to trim the violent fringe from any movement if possible.

The Good Atheists and the Good Christians are going to be on the sidelines.

 

[marplots]

Gawdzilla,

Your post reminded me of the mother of one of my wife's friends I met some 30 years ago. I still remember her. She was one of those who had the idea that blacks were inferior because of the Tower of Babel story. It was amazing. The story was that the curse from God was reflected in their skin tone.

I cannot say if she was made racist through her religious training and the justification of Babel, or whether she was already racist and just tacked the explanation on. Since then, I've never met another, but I think that remains one of the odd-ball vortexes still extant.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gawdzilla,

Your post reminded me of the mother of one of my wife's friends I met some 30 years ago. I still remember her. She was one of those who had the idea that blacks were inferior because of the Tower of Babel story. It was amazing. The story was that the curse from God was reflected in their skin tone.

I cannot say if she was made racist through her religious training and the justification of Babel, or whether she was already racist and just tacked the explanation on. Since then, I've never met another, but I think that remains one of the odd-ball vortexes still extant.

My cousins are, putting it kindly, redneck hillbillies. A lot of them have moved to an enclave that Google Earth would have trouble finding. They're the far end of the spectrum but they could muster up a small army of like-minded people from St. Louis in very short order. I know what they're capable of, and I don't want to see them in charge of the country.

 

[bokonon]

Something very like this happened to me in my first few posts in the Past Lives forum

Yes, this looks like the kind of place where a serious skeptic would quickly be shown the door. I was thinking more of interactions with people you meet, perhaps on an ongoing basis. In such situations you usually reach the point of agreeing to disagree, and go on with your lives.

 

[quadraginta]

A polite disagreement or dissent of the believer's story usually turns out to be a "you're faithless scum" or "you don't believe in anything" or some such. Quadraginta's hypothetical is accurate to what I've encountered.

Next time, record it on your cell phone and post it. I'm not saying such an encounter couldn't happen, but since I've been in dozens of such conversations without encountering Quadraginta's hypothetical, the hypothetical strikes me as pretty unbelievable. I'd like to see the evidence that it really was "a polite disagreement" which provoked such an unreasonable response.

You want evidence of a hypothetical conversation?





How about this. Google up one of the newspaper articles about the kind of billboards that say something like "It's okay if you don't believe in God.", and read a few of the comments.

I don't know where you live. But those people are out there. In real life. Where I live they are not bashful or reticent.

Sometimes they even come knocking on your door and try and correct the error of your ways right in your own living room. I generally resist the temptation to invite them in, because I don't really have a mean streak.

I grew up in the WV mountains, and have lived in the South most of my life. It is by no means uncommon to run across the sort of people who consider anything but a total capitulation to their religious beliefs to be a full-on attack. All you can do is try to figure out which ones they are and avoid them. Or lie to them, because otherwise you just light a really short fuse.

If you enjoy the confrontation you can also play with them, but it isn't unlike making fun of the handicapped.

I'll challenge things they do if I think it impacts me, but I won't bother with wasted efforts at persuasion. They are beyond that. They have no pride, no self -respect based on reality, and their "moral compass" is stuck in an MRI rig somewhere in cloud-cuckoo land.

I remember an incident some years ago at a local mall. I had gone in to visit the bookstore there (one of the chains) and discovered a congregation that had congregated in front of the store's entrance. Apparently they had scheduled an event with the local media, with the intention of exposing the disgusting pornography hidden within.

Only problem was, there wasn't anything disgusting enough in the store they had singled out to make much of an impact. So they put the demonstration; cameras, microphones, and all, on hold while they sent one of their people downstairs to a newsstand that sold something sufficiently vile.

When he made it back with the 'bad' goods they proceeded to picket the bookstore, not seeing anything at all amiss about waving around the damning evidence that they had actually gotten from somewhere else while they were publicly condemning a place they couldn't find anything wrong with.

 

[quadraginta]

If you're serious about having any useful/positive effect on them, you need to be more cunning/careful/tactful/clever than that. Otherwise, as you point out, you're wasting your time.

There is no chance for cunning in encounters like those. Or tact.

Anything which is perceived as an absence of complete agreement is, a priori, an attack.

No, not every conversation which touches on religion is like that. But then, I wasn't suggesting that they are. I was only curious what Bokonon's recommendations would be when the circumstances didn't conform to either of his hypotheticals.

 

[bokonon]

I was only curious what Bokonon's recommendations would be when the circumstances didn't conform to either of his hypotheticals.

If you're talking with the sort of hair-trigger crazy you portrayed in your hypothetical, it depends on whether or not you have an audience. If it's just the two of you, you're clearly wasting your time, so unless you need the exercise, my recommendation would be to walk away.

If you have an audience, you might want to continue the conversation just to demonstrate to onlookers who is hair-trigger crazy and who is up for a rational discussion. Unless you have prior engagements, or genuine fears for your safety, that would be my recommendation.

 

[quadraginta]

If you're talking with the sort of hair-trigger crazy you portrayed in your hypothetical, it depends on whether or not you have an audience. If it's just the two of you, you're clearly wasting your time, so unless you need the exercise, my recommendation would be to walk away.

If you have an audience, you might want to continue the conversation just to demonstrate to onlookers who is hair-trigger crazy and who is up for a rational discussion. Unless you have prior engagements, or genuine fears for your safety, that would be my recommendation.

Walking is good.

I usually disconnect after I try the second, "But ...I didn't say ...". Sometimes I'm quick enough to clue in on the first. This is no aid at all with the ones who aren't even available to disengage from. However, I can't hang around all the time and protect vehicles from the ravages of itinerant fundies. (Although I still think that they didn't actually have to use a tire iron on that Darwin fish. )

Back when I was the supervisor for a crew of ironworkers I had one employee who was habitually absent. Generally on Mondays. I would usually receive a call that evening, from his wife, never from him, and be informed that he had been to a Christian Retreat over the weekend, and hadn't gotten back in time to go to work.

Upon pointing out that it seemed like this sort of thing could be scheduled better, or maybe even at all, I was often attacked (in language that would make most of the rest of the crew blush) for dissing her husband's faith, and ridiculing God.

My office was reluctant to let me dismiss him, because such disputes could become ugly at the Labor Relations Board. (Another topic his missus was fond of.)

After I was able to establish for the record that Monday also seemed to be "hangover day" thanks to a bit too much 'hair of the dog' in preparation for a Tuesday (i.e., he came in stewed to the gills) I was finally able to let him go. Both he and his wife were screaming "religious persecution" the whole way out.

 

[marplots]

Yeah, the sacramental wine at those religious retreats can be a bear if you aren't used to it. In the end though, which is more important -- eternal salvation or regular employment?

(I thought that would be an easy question to answer, but employment keeps me from sinning -- maybe they are related.)

 

[thaiboxerken]

Next time, record it on your cell phone and post it.

I don't even have to go into my personal life to show examples. Just look at how Dawkins is treated by the faithful. They say he's rude and cruel.

 

[JoelKatz]

Look, I'm just trying to argue that going after theists and viciously attacking their beliefs is NOT the way to win them over to rationality.

I think this would be true if religious people held their religious beliefs for rational reasons. The thinking being that vicious attacks don't cause people to reason. But you can't (at least, I doubt anyone ever has) reason a person out of a position he hasn't reasoned into.

I've tried a variety of approaches and I've talked to a lot of people who have also tried a variety of approaches. Direct, blunt confrontation is the only mechanism I've seen to ever have any success at all.

I think the best thing to do with theists these days is to treat them kindly yet firmly. Let them know that you do not think less of them as a person because they are a theist but let them know that there is an alternative that makes more sense.

I have to wonder what your goal is in doing this. And are we lying to them? Or are we really not supposed to think less of them as a person because they are a theist? I'm curious, would you think less of an adult as a person if they professed a sincere belief in Santa Claus? Is that just because it's socially unacceptable?

People seem to be drifting away from religion on their own these days and the best thing to do is to just gently coax them away. Let them know they are not alone. Be supportive and understanding. Religion may yet die a natural death but if you act smug and aggressive you'll just make people question their decision to leave religion.

I realize it might seem, to a rational person, that this is how they'd behave. But my experience doesn't bear this out and the experience of people I've spoken to doesn't bear this out. Can you cite some people who you think demonstrate this technique so we can investigate what kind of successes they've had? Or is this something you're purely suggesting for people you know personally?

 

[Beth]

I think this would be true if religious people held their religious beliefs for rational reasons. The thinking being that vicious attacks don't cause people to reason. But you can't (at least, I doubt anyone ever has) reason a person out of a position he hasn't reasoned into.

I've tried a variety of approaches and I've talked to a lot of people who have also tried a variety of approaches. Direct, blunt confrontation is the only mechanism I've seen to ever have any success at all.

Could you define what you mean by success? Because I'm not seen vicious attacks have success in convincing others they are mistaken, although they are sometimes successful in getting the person to go away or shut up.

I have to wonder what your goal is in doing this.

I would think the goal was to help the person think more critically about what they believe in regard to their religion.

And are we lying to them? Or are we really not supposed to think less of them as a person because they are a theist?

Thinking less of a person because they are theist is applying stereotypes to individuals rather than basing your opinion on knowledge of the individual. Likewise athiesm is not a good reason to think less of a person. Such attitudes seem more like bigotry than critical thinking to me.

I'm curious, would you think less of an adult as a person if they professed a sincere belief in Santa Claus? Is that just because it's socially unacceptable?

It would be more appropriate to compare belief in god to belief in the spirit of christmas, of which Santa is a popular cultural personalization. Adults may believe in the spirit of christmas without necessarily believing in Santa the way young children do. Likewise many adult theists belief in god as they might believe in the spirit of christmas. They do not necessarily believe in god as you are conceiving of it - i.e. a cultural personification analogous to Santa. Thinking less of others because they don't share your belief system is unappealing whether it comes from a theist or an atheist.