Atheist Tactics that Work

[Belz...]

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 think you're confused. No one is disputing that spiritual experiences exist. We're just saying that they're not proof of god, any more than you loving someone is proof that this someone else loves you back.

Not sure what you mean by 'determining morals logically'.

Person dying = reduced social efficiency
Person dying = hurt relatives
Hurt relatives = reduced efficiency
Therefore, Murder = bad

That sorta stuff.

 

[Belz...]

I guess if you want very strong evidence you, as an individual, will have to experience it for yourself.

Just like a hallucination.

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.

Evidence ?

I'd say that people who have spiritual experiences are spiritual people to begin with, apart from rare exceptions.

So, by disbelieving it, you make it almost impossible, for you.

Yes, that is EXACTLY my point.

 

[l0rca]

I don't know about tactics, but so far as argument is concerned, I've so far used what I've come to call "axiom reasoning" to out-argue any point someone might make of value in access to truth vs a scientific method. I've written it out a few times on the internet. Here are two examples of it:

Consider axiom reasoning the best way we might have to weigh the value of different systems which model the world around us. You ask yourself: what about the axioms I derive my models from is most essential to my models? Or ask: could I replace my axioms with completely different ones and still arrive with the same rationalization for my model?

You can replace any spiritual idea for another, and arrive with the same rationalized consistency for noumena and phenomena. The same level of prediction remains, and its falsifiability remains vaguely in the dark.

Falsifiability and prediction are of course values based on scientific axioms, and their worth is not communicable to spiritualism — but axiom reasoning is. We can always ask ourselves if we can arrive at the same conclusions we have if we switched up our axioms. In science we can not do this, and it is the need for falsifiability and prediction that hold us above rationalizations that can fall among any other set of axioms. Science has more rigor, and less and less can its reasonings be compromised.

God-axioms do nothing to ratify reality — we can always replace the axioms concerning faith about different characteristics about god, and our correspondence with god, with equal but different axioms, and remain with the same accuracy. To give a good example: to say that god is all knowing, and that god’s works are mysterious, and that the real god is the biblical, Christian god, means that we can justify any event that happens as something god made happen, and does not want us to know the reasoning behind. We can replace these same axioms with different axioms, and reach the same fulfillment: we can assume that god is Zeus, or an invisible unicorn, that god is all-knowing or just that god is always one step ahead of us, that he is all powerful or just more powerful, and a bit mysterious, or even just toying with us, and still retain the same exact predictive power that all other ideas of god have.

Axioms about god rest upon our original axioms: that the world is in some sense understandable, that we exist, etc. What makes these axioms ultimately clumsy is that we do not need these axioms to predict or rationalize anything. We can begin to explain and predict everything in the world without needing elaborate assumptions. We only need the basics.

This last one is a part of a much larger text I wrote (feel free to use it whenever you want), called "Arguments Against Theism"

http://theheliotrope.wordpress.com/2007/04/29/arguments-against-god/

 

[plumjam]

Person dying = reduced social efficiency
Person dying = hurt relatives
Hurt relatives = reduced efficiency
Therefore, Murder = bad

That sorta stuff.

People who are senile, mentally handicapped, terminally ill, indolent, workshy = reduced social efficiency.
If reduced social efficiency's gonna be the reason you see a person dying as bad, then maybe the above groups should be murdered?
I get the impression your logical moral system would take up several thick volumes of symbols.

 

[plumjam]

Just like a hallucination.

just like life

Evidence ?

read Evelyn Underhill's Mysticism, and William James The Varieties of Religious Experience. Good places to start.

I'd say that people who have spiritual experiences are spiritual people to begin with, apart from rare exceptions.

Sometimes, yes. Due to living spiritually in past lives. Others make progress in this life.

 

[Belz...]

People who are senile, mentally handicapped, terminally ill, indolent, workshy = reduced social efficiency.

Exactly. "Logical" morality wouldn't necessarily appeal to us, being empathic beings ourselves. But the point is that you CAN create a morality based on something other than emotions.

If reduced social efficiency's gonna be the reason you see a person dying as bad, then maybe the above groups should be murdered?

Perhaps from that point of view, yes.

I get the impression your logical moral system would take up several thick volumes of symbols.

That's because you didn't get the reason for my remark.

 

[Belz...]

just like life

I guess you lost track of the conversation. Let me help you.

What I said is that experiencing something does not make it true. If I see a ghost, someday, I'll doubt my experience very, very much.

read Evelyn Underhill's Mysticism, and William James The Varieties of Religious Experience. Good places to start.

Purification, eh ? Well, as I said, believers are much more likely to have experiences that confirm their beliefs. The more fanatic the better, in fact.

 

[plumjam]

Exactly. "Logical" morality wouldn't necessarily appeal to us, being empathic beings ourselves. But the point is that you CAN create a morality based on something other than emotions.

Granted that it would be possible to create a 'morality' that wasn't based on emotions. But what would it be based on instead? Social efficiency has been tried to some extent by nazism, and the results were abhorrent (by the standards of our emotion-based system)
Note that I don't state that our system is created by emotions, only based on them.
So there are emotions underlying it all, and then on top of them there are discussion, moral debates, ethical philosophy, laws etc..
So at the stage of creating a system then, yes, there is a place for systematisation, reason etc...
It's just that if you get rid of the foundation of emotion the whole structure will over time cease to be a moral system at all.

 

[Suggestologist]

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.

Right, just because you feel loved by someone, doesn't mean that that person loves you.

Emotions can be wrong.

 

[Belz...]

Granted that it would be possible to create a 'morality' that wasn't based on emotions. But what would it be based on instead? Social efficiency has been tried to some extent by nazism, and the results were abhorrent (by the standards of our emotion-based system)

Godwin aside, I never said it would be a GOOD system. You said that morality was based on emotion. It clearly doesn't need to be.

 

[Suggestologist]

I don't know about tactics, but so far as argument is concerned, I've so far used what I've come to call "axiom reasoning" to out-argue any point someone might make of value in access to truth vs a scientific method.

Well, this type of answer is a bit too nerdy, logical, cold, doesn't address what people will lose if they change their minds, etc.

Could you translate this into something more emotionally based?

I mean this type of argument is all over YouTube right now. And most arguers there, talk like zombies in my opinion. They need to talk like people. With a full and genuine range of emotion.

With an interesting emotionally relevant lead in question or story.

"Have you ever been in love with someone and thought they loved you back? I mean, you were just so stupidly in love. And you were sure you were going to have so much fun at the next party. But they ended up leaving that party with someone else. Emotions are wonderful, but they can deceive you."

 

[plumjam]

I guess you lost track of the conversation. Let me help you.

What I said is that experiencing something does not make it true. If I see a ghost, someday, I'll doubt my experience very, very much.

What you're saying, really, (if I understand you right) is that the less an experience happens the more right we have to question its validity.
The only reason you'd question seeing a ghost so much is that it's either never happened to you, or only very rarely... plus your (probably justified) belief that it also happens very rarely to other people.
People who have this belief tend towards a consensus-driven world view, which tends to dismiss and discredit the unusual and anomalous.
I don't subscribe to this worldview... because these unusual and anomalous phenomena have persisted throughout known human history, cross culturally.
I feel they demand better treatment than just outright dismissal.

Purification, eh ? Well, as I said, believers are much more likely to have experiences that confirm their beliefs. The more fanatic the better, in fact.

well you've created a catch 22 there, haven't you... so the believer can never 'win'.
it would be just like me saying... "well, scientists are much more likely to conduct experiments... and the more fanatic the scientist, the more likely."

 

[plumjam]

Godwin aside, I never said it would be a GOOD system. You said that morality was based on emotion. It clearly doesn't need to be.

so your argument is like this:
without emotion we could create useless and damaging moral systems

 

[Apology]

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.

Sometimes really good, logical posts get left behind in the rush to refute other posters. Good job, Bokonon.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

so your argument is like this:
without emotion we could create useless and damaging moral systems

You, plumjam, put forth the claim that moral systems are derived solely from emotion.

I put forth examples of work that show that morals could be derived from an evolutionary outgrowth.

Belz... put forth an example that shows that morals can be derived from logic.

In both cases you have then attempted to create strawmen and move the goalposts. You're not fooling anyone with these antics. Stop it.

 

[joobz]

What you're saying, really, (if I understand you right) is that the less an experience happens the more right we have to question its validity.
The only reason you'd question seeing a ghost so much is that it's either never happened to you, or only very rarely... plus your (probably justified) belief that it also happens very rarely to other people.
People who have this belief tend towards a consensus-driven world view, which tends to dismiss and discredit the unusual and anomalous.
I don't subscribe to this worldview... because these unusual and anomalous phenomena have persisted throughout known human history, cross culturally.
I feel they demand better treatment than just outright dismissal.

What do you mean by better treatment?

 

[Foster Zygote]

His point was that moral systems evolved purely for reasons of survival and reproduction. Your question here then is illogical.

So the answer is "no".

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

So that guy who hears God whispering "kill them all" really is hearing god's voice.

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.

I was once a born again Christian so your assumption that I have never had any spiritual experiences is erroneous, but not surprising as I've seen you leap to a number of convenient conclusions. Your "you can't believe because you don't believe" is just another version of the "you will believe if you believe" tautology. It offers no support of the validity of your claims.

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..

Again, you are assuming things about me that are incorrect. I have investigated the spiritual hypothesis, as have many other atheists I know.

 

[articulett]

Social/moral systems evolve in many social animals--basic game theory... you start out giving others the benefit of the doubt and respond in tit for tat fashion... others avoid doing bad, so it doesn't come back to them... dopamine is released when you do good, cheaters are punished, give when you have (not just for the dopamine rush), but also so that others will give to you when you don't have-- a social insurance policy... it evolved because it maximizes benefits for those in the social group and protects them from out group attacks (strengths in numbers.)

I don't see how people can be so retarded to think that morality comes from religion... they all cherry pick what they want from their assorted religions anyhow... and dogs don't run around murdering and indulging in the sort of things humans imagine they'd do without religion... most animals don't in fact. Humans are the only animals with such vicious warring... and the only animals that kill in the name of god or some other higher power (males more than females, I might add.).

Where are all these good, moral religious people. I think their morality may exist in their heads like their gods. Statistically, secular societies are healthier... but I imagine religious people think those that believe whatever sect they've been brainwashed with are the super duper best people of all. I find plumjam vapid. I can't tell if his religion made him that way or if he was just to daft to think his way out of it. But boy is he ad advertisement for not inflicting it on children and passing on critical thinking tools.

 

[articulett]

The hijackers were hearing Allah's voice... and they were successful (may even be enjoying sex in the afterlife if their sect is true)-- so god must have been answering to Allah that day.