• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Atheist Tactics that Work

Fnord said:
Is there a person or group of people upon whom the "Final Authority" of all things Atheistic rests?
Click to expand...

Is there a theist who is not utterly ignorant of what skepticism is ?

Is there, anywhere in the definition, a clause that states: "... and must ridicule and give insult to those who do believe in the existance of gods"?
Click to expand...

No, but being a non-believer pretty much means that when the subject of the supernatural is brought up, it's not seen in a positive way.

Which is fine, because when theists speak of atheists, they say far, far worse things.
 
Fnord said:
Or is it part of the "Atheist Tactics That Work" doctrine?
Click to expand...

Okay, now, what part of "no doctrine" didn't you understand ?

With that in mind, how about trying to form a more friendly relationship with those people you are trying to convert to your point of view?
Click to expand...

Why would we try to convert them ? People who have emotion-based faith can't be convinced by reason and logic, so why try ?
 
Belz... said:
Priceless. OTHER people's subjective experiences are suspect, but not yours ?

That is PRECISELY why we came up with science, Plum. YOUR OWN experiences are unreliable.
Click to expand...

how do you know science exists?
only by trusting your own experiences
 
joobz said:
So?
Many cultures explained the existence of lightning as a god's weapon or wrath.

Obviously, thier similar origins made them no more correct. Similarity in explanation isn't proof.

again, terrible analogy.
I do not doubt that a person can think of a bathroom. But to claim that thinking of the bathroom was a result of the bathroom god would require some proof outside the thought.
Click to expand...

the fact that some explanations in the past have been inaccurate doesn't mean that some current explanations must be invalid.
I never argued that similarity in explanation is proof. I was talking about similarity of description. Explanation adds a layer of theory.. which, of course, provides greater room for error.
The people in those cultures would describe the experience of seeing lightning in a similar way. Just as mystics and saints describe their experiences in a similar way.
Going by your approach, if you had never seen lightning, and were, as you seem, prone to dismiss other people's similarly described experiences of things you haven't yet experienced, then you would dismiss lightning as superstition or the like.
But you'd be wrong.

In the case of me thinking about my bathroom, that's only possible due to the existence, external to my ego, of my bathroom. Nothing to do with a bathroom God which you've added yourself.

I'm sure there are lots of things you've doubted until you experienced them yourself.
As a kid I used to think people were just being silly, or 'putting it on' when they got drunk.. until I first got drunk myself. Before I fell in love I thought the whole thing was exaggerated; I didn't really understand what they were going on about in love songs and poetry. Afterwards I understood completely, and no longer doubted the validity of the experience.
Because things like getting drunk and falling in love are internal experiences I've been wrong about in the past, I no longer easily dismiss the reality and validity of other people's claims to internal experiences.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Would you care to demonstrate how our (admittedly varied and changing) moral systems do not contribute to the survival of the human species?
Click to expand...

His point was that moral systems evolved purely for reasons of survival and reproduction. Your question here then is illogical.
 
Originally Posted by plumjam
Love CAN be studied scientifically.. but studying it scientifically will never give you the real experience of what love actually is
Belz... said:
And that, as they say... is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It's entirely relevant. Spiritual experience, like love, can be studied scientifically. But purely because most people fall in love, and hardly anyone, has spiritual experiences the former is accepted, while the latter is commonly dismissed or ridiculed, particularly on a forum like this.

I would think that morals could be determined logically, as well.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by 'determining morals logically'.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Foster Zygote said:
Given that they all have human brains with virtually the same neurophysiology and neurochemistry how does this show that the source of the experiences is external and not internal?
Click to expand...

Is love external or internal?
It is experienced internally, yet pretty universally the 'catalyst' for, or the object of, love is described as being external to the ego.
When people describe it thus, it's generally accepted, but only because most people have experienced it.

This is exactly the same with spiritual experiences. Except that many fewer people have experienced it. Therefore the majority can tend to dismiss or ridicule the descriptions offered.

I guess if you want very strong evidence you, as an individual, will have to experience it for yourself. But this is highly unlikely, because apart from rare occasions of 'grace', people who experience this are generally people who have done years of spiritual practice and self purification.
So, by disbelieving it, you make it almost impossible, for you.

But it's the same with science. If someone doesn't believe that there are valid results to be gleaned then they won't go to the bother of formulating hypotheses, gathering apparatus, performing experiments, analysing results etc..
 
plumjam said:
the fact that some explanations in the past have been inaccurate doesn't mean that some current explanations must be invalid.
I never argued that similarity in explanation is proof. I was talking about similarity of description. Explanation adds a layer of theory.. which, of course, provides greater room for error.
Click to expand...
Nice try, but no. I was also giving a "similarity of description" with the thunderbolt example.

You are assuming that an external thing is required to ahve an experience. This is not true.
plumjam said:
The people in those cultures would describe the experience of seeing lightning in a similar way. Just as mystics and saints describe their experiences in a similar way.
Going by your approach, if you had never seen lightning, and were, as you seem, prone to dismiss other people's similarly described experiences of things you haven't yet experienced, then you would dismiss lightning as superstition or the like.
But you'd be wrong.
Click to expand...
Again, false example. You can setup experiments to prove that people have very similar experiences as to what lightning is. This doesn't prove lightning, only that the expierence shared is similar. You need a secondary experiment to verify the lightning's existence.
plumjam said:
In the case of me thinking about my bathroom, that's only possible due to the existence, external to my ego, of my bathroom. Nothing to do with a bathroom God which you've added yourself.
Click to expand...
Sure, but as Belz points out, your thoughts on your bathroom doesn't prove the bathroom is real.
plumjam said:
I'm sure there are lots of things you've doubted until you experienced them yourself.
As a kid I used to think people were just being silly, or 'putting it on' when they got drunk.. until I first got drunk myself. Before I fell in love I thought the whole thing was exaggerated; I didn't really understand what they were going on about in love songs and poetry. Afterwards I understood completely, and no longer doubted the validity of the experience.
Because things like getting drunk and falling in love are internal experiences I've been wrong about in the past, I no longer easily dismiss the reality and validity of other people's claims to internal experiences.
Click to expand...
You keep trying to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

No one is doubting the religious experience. I'm saying that the fact that you can recreate those experiences through non-religious ways raises doubts on the origin of the experiences in the first place.
 
plumjam said:
I see. You can find no flaw in my argument, so instead of addressing it you try to get out of it by using a label.
Click to expand...
Obviously, no. Your argument is an blatant attempt to change subjects to try and save face.
Arkan just called you out on it.
 
The tactic I'm currently using is to advance deism as a more rational alternative to dogmatic theology.

I don't have a desire to convert people from belief to non-belief per se. If a person has a deeply-held belief in feng shui, the result is that they spend time and money re-arranging their furniture. Their irrational belief doesn't have a negative effect on my life, or (as far as I can see) on society as a whole, beyond the endorsement of irrational thinking itself.

My battle with religion is more focused on mitigating the harmful effects than eliminating the beliefs themselves. As an American in 2007, I'd like to foster a climate in which abortion is available, stem cell research can be federally funded, and intelligent design can only earn its way into the classroom when (yeah, right) it furnishes enough evidence to be accepted by the scientific community. My quarrel is thus more with fundamentalists and evangelicals than with religious people as a whole.

I'm willing to settle for moving someone from harmful belief to less harmful belief. Someone may have an "inner experience" of God, but it's their choice to map that experience onto a set of dogma. People in a Christian culture tend to adopt Christian dogma, those in a Muslim culture tend to adopt Muslim dogma, those in a Hindu culture tend to adopt Hindu dogma, etc. To echo an earlier poster in this thread, my experience of fear while walking alone in the woods doesn't confirm that I'm being stalked by Bigfoot. It's my choice to interpret the inner experience that way.

If someone has an inner experience of God, and they attribute the experience to a natural sense of awe and wonder for the creator of the universe, it doesn't necessarily follow that "heaven and hell are real, and only the blood of Jesus can purchase entry into heaven." Yes, you've had an experience of God. Now, go and discover the universe, the real universe, that you believe he created. Yes, that universe is awesome and incredible, and (as the signature of the creator you experienced) is worthy of study and devotion. The actual realized universe which you yourself were born into, not the dust-covered words of someone who was born into a different time and place. Learn about it, see how God really works.

I don't know if this will be effective in moving a hard-core fundamentalist toward rationality. It's a tactic which may be effective in some circumstances, and will undoubtedly be completely ineffective in others. I do think that moving someone from belief to unbelief may be more of a leap than many people can make. Maybe in some of those cases, moving them from an anti-science belief to a science-neutral or even a pro-science belief will still be a realistic goal.
 
plumjam said:
how do you know science exists except for having some experiences in relation to science, and trusting those experiences?
Click to expand...

Solipsism. Gotta love it.

This is why I hate philosophers. ANY and all arguments with them ALWAYS go back to ridiculous arguments about the self or some other nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom