Shock and Awe
Offline So I am about half way through my first semester of college and one major thing that has surprised me is the amount of people that are still crazy religious. I kind of thought that going to college would let me meet more people who thought a little deeper about their religion and the existence of a god. But on the contrary I have meet only a few who are atheists and many who still just accept religion for what it is without ever thinking about it. Now I will say I have gotten in one debate with a someone who did believe in god that was very intelligent and had reasoning behind his belief. Although he had no answer to the question of free will and an all knowing god.
So my big thing is that I am surprised by the amount of people who just accept religion without questioning it, even at this level of higher education. It is like people are just completely brainwashed to believe it. I even had people in one class trying to tell me that this is a Christian nation and I literally about started telling them how stupid and ignorant they were for saying that. I guess this just goes to show how much of a reach religion has, it seems to just corrupt people's critical thinking when it comes to thinking about religion.
Science flies people to the moon, Religion flies people into buildings.
- Login to post comments
Proportionately, there probably *are* more in your college who are atheists than the general population. It may be, however, that for some particular reason, perhaps a nearby religious school or something of that nature, that you are seeing an anomalously high percentage of religious believers in your immediate surroundings. Perhaps, also, you simply haven't found the right cliques yet. Check out if you have an atheist or freethinkers group on campus, and if not, consider starting one. The CFI used to have some program for helping to organize student groups. May want to check that out.
Yep, that about sums it up. The vast majority of religious believers simply absorbed whatever their parents and surrounding community believed. It takes time to un-brainwash yourself, and many are never able to do it completely, even if they have PhDs or whatever.
However, you will find that the higher you go in education, the higher and higher the concentration of atheists is. Education definitely does take its toll on belief.
Once again, that about sums it up. Religion indeed has a very strong reach. It is pernicious and persistent and certainly does incorporate several defense strategies and techniques to either corrupt people's critical thinking, or to shut it off completely, or at least to isolate itself from being the subject of critical thought. You'll find many people at that level who employ what is called 'compartmentalization', where they have perfectly good reasoning skills when it comes to everything but religion; they keep their religion in a separate 'compartment' in their minds where they do not subject it to critical scrutiny. It's the only way to protect themselves from the painful cognitive dissonance that occurs when they even *consider* applying the logic and reasoning they've learned earlier in their education to the topic of religion.
One major problem is that most students never *actually* learn critical thinking skills early in life. They learn math and can do long division and multiplication by age 8, but they never get exposed to symbolic logic (for example) until at least late highschool, and usually not until university, *if* they are ever exposed to it at all. And yet, when you get right down to brass tacks, symbolic logic is no more difficult than multiplication or long division.
I'm actually currently working on tutoring kids as young as 8 how to do logic, as well as computer programming, in a class I'm starting up in my local community. It's starting small, but I see a lot of potential for it, and I have lots of ideas on how to present it to kids while at the same time making it fun and interesting to learn.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
This pretty much seems to be what I have encountered. It is really saddening to see how people can just blindly accept something with no factual basis. I am a part of the Honors college at my school and even here is seems prevalent. And here I thought that and honors college would have people who had stronger critical thinking skills and much better logic skills. Guess I was wrong in that assumption.
And a note on that class you are teaching, that sounds absolutely amazing. I would kill to have taken that class (not literally of course). I can't imagine how much easier some things would be now with that kind of class at that age.
Science flies people to the moon, Religion flies people into buildings.
The question is not whether you are a theist or atheist. The question is for what *reasons* you are a theist or atheist. I have encountered a few theists who were more rational than practically all atheists I've ever met. In many cases, atheists keep the fallacies of theists and just use another word than "God" (like "Nature" ). Absolute morality, Is-Ought-Problem, limits of inductive reasoning...I can only warn all atheists not to decide too quickly that they are much better than theists.
And a positive correlation between education and atheism does not change that. If the fallacy is not averted, then the intelligence may be superior, but the lack of wisdom stays the same.
You'll find that almost anywhere you go, unfortunately. Even if you go to somewhere like China where people are refreshingly free of the typical Western religious woo, there are other things (Chinese medicine, superstition, etc.) in the same place of where critical thinking is wanting. That is, you'll never find legitimate critical thinking among somebody of faith (unless the critical thinking is well on its way to eroding that faith already), but you'll rarely find it elsewhere either.
Case in point: I wouldn't pay too much attention to Athene up there though ^ it's just a bunch of meaningless hot air. It has already been demonstrated that this person does not accept logic, so whatever cross he or she is trying to bear seems to derive from some form of megalomania. Of course that's not proof that he or she won't accidentally make a valid point, but the chances are better gleaning something meaningful from alphabet soup.
We have to get used to being largely alone, or taking the effort to seek out exceptional company. Is the effort worth it? I think so. Given that nearly everybody in the middle class is expected to go to university these days, though, that won't be much of a filter for you. All I can suggest is that you seek out free thinking groups... which is exactly what you seem to be doing here.
So, welcome
You have yet to show me a clear example of this irrationality you find commonly associated with atheism. Apart from yourself of course...
I am not even quite clear from the way to phrased it whether you regard those items (Absolute Morality, etc) as examples of irrational beliefs of Atheism or, or rejection of such things as the irrationality.
They don't quite all fit in the same category, to me.
Absolute Morality is an unsupportable assumption, and I am not aware that many Atheists would fo along with it.
Is-Ought is another fallacy, normally recognized by Atheists, in my experience; just because something happens in a certain way in a natural setting, in the 'state of nature', does not make it 'right'. It is not actually a Problem, it is a fallacy.
The Limits of Induction usually refers to a flawed attempt to dismiss induction as a valid approach to knowledge, and the argument is usually based on simplistic misunderstanding of the nature of empirically based knowledge. There are atheists who fall on either side of that one, it is a little trickier.
It would be appreciated if you could clarify.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
It's a mental condition!!! Anyway, there is a site called atheistnexum in case you don't already know of it. It's set up somewhat like facebook and myspace. You can decorate your page, add music and pics, and recieve and make friend requests. There are also lots of groups on there that discuss everything from music you like to handling a disabled family member. Somewhat like support groups although I don't think there is much interaction on there. Or at least the ones I joined.
If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.
Insulting me is neither an acceptable excuse nor a functioning cover-up for a lack of valid arguments. So what's the use in trying?
Well, I am. Of course, there are topics which are more probable to expose such an attitude. Human rights is a good one for this belief: There are surprisingly (or shockingly) few atheists who would agree that this idea are a construct, a mere agreement of a society. Many atheists believe that they exist independently and were rather discovered than established. And that anyone who questions them by reducing them to a culture-dependent idea is doing evil in their opinion. I was rather surprised myself when I experienced this, for the gap between "There is absolute morality" and "There is absolute morality, and it is what my god says" is quite small. The big leap consists in accrediting an "objective" moral authority; attributing this authority to a god is a tiny step compared to that. Therefor, these atheists are practically no different to me than theists of that kind.
Try debating with atheists on carnivorism and animal rights. Anything that has to do with naturalness will provoke this fallacy, but while sexuality and reproduction are good baits too, questioning the personal diet usually works best.
Please clarify?
It was just a comment, I was not trying to achieve anything other than expressing my current reaction to some hangups you seem to have, within a generally clear and rational world-view.
If you cannot handle that level of remark easily, you may have real problems interacting with many others on this site, and with many of the visitors we get.
Have to take your word for it that you encounter many atheists like that. Just not my experience, either where I live, or on the 'net.
Now this where you lose me.
"carnivorism and animal rights" are a separate area, not really related to Atheism in any obvious logical way.
Neither are sexuality and reproduction, except as far as attitudes there are often clearly linked to religious belief.
It is deductive arguments, not inductive ones which are clearly limited, to me.
Deduction is only useful in avoiding more obvious fallacies and contradictions.
Induction, especially with rigorous treatment of probability estimates (eg Bayes theorem), is the ONLY way to get some useful estimate of what is likely to be true.
The fallacy, when Philosophers and other simple-minded folk try to say induction doesn't work, is the assumption that things need to be proved or disproved, even the validity of the argument mode itself, which explicitly misses the whole point of the empirical/inductive approach, which is also at the fundamental base of science.
But as i said before, this is a more contentious area, even among atheist, because there are more complex issues involved.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Oh, don't worry. There is this saying with the speck in our neighbour's eye and the plank in our own, and why should I have a problem with people debasing themselves? Feel free to write as you consider it appropriate for your intellect and personality. I don't think your decision in that matter has really something to do with me anyway
Same goes for Blake who seems to suffer painfully under the inability for not being fit to hold a candle to me. His desperation is so large that he feels compelled to warn others of deciding for themselves whether my points are valid in their eyes. For if they thought so, he would either have to degrade that other user too, or seek the fault in his own person. And if that happened too often...let's just say some illusions are quite fragile
On an interesting sidenote, it's not unusual for me to see atheists act more frantically and condescending to others than moderate theists. Atheists define themselves through opposition to theism, and if you take away theism as an enemy, in far too many cases there is hardly anything substantial left as personality, thoughts, values. People who are clinging to a concept of the enemy aren't free without this enemy, but instead disoriented and empty. Ever wondered why god-believers don't all turn atheists? This is one important reason.
Also, don't confuse that empty desperate anger with a fierce debating style, funny teasings or intelligent polemic. There's a difference, and that difference is wit. On the other side, you need some of the wit in the first place to recognize it at all...damn the chicken and the egg!
Then you might want to try it the other way if you're really interested in it. Go to an atheist forum, claim that you're a theist (without repeating the popular fallacies!) and question absolute morality harshly. The bias the aggressive ones of the atheists have towards you will encourage them to speak from the heart rather than from the brain (assuming that they hadn't done this anyway). If you want to increase the chances further, pick a topic like determining the right age of consent - something that is very strongly tied to culture and age, yet firmly rooted and fervently defended as personal conviction. Sexual topics are quite suitable for getting irrational responses in general, by the way, and a calm rational perspective on deviant preferences infuriates them only more.
Oh, if you demand a logical connection between irrationality and atheism in addition, then that would be only irrational reasons to be an atheist. These reasons exist, too, and I've encountered them many times. They are basically the same as the ones for theism, like blind inheritance, pubertal rebellion, wish to fit into a social group, longing for a feeling of superiority, substituting an actual personality with dedicating oneself to fight an enemy, compensation and revenge for personal humiliation etc. Only the craving for immortality and stuff falls short, which can be interpreted either way.
But I wasn't thinking of these motives. My approach is a different one: The rational reasons for being an atheist are quite easy to grasp (despite many atheists failing at them). So they could simply repeat what a somehow smart guy has preached them, and they would appear that smart, too. But is that enough? As I said before, I draw the line somewhere else. An atheist who simply substitutes "God" for "Nature" or other words is practically no different from a theist to me. Why should he?
Therefor, as I already said in my first posting in this thread: My distinction is not "atheist" vs. "theist", it is "rational" vs. "irrational". And if you value the former distinction over the latter, you should ask yourselves why. But only if you really want to answer that question to yourself. Stupidity and ignorance, as original poster named it, doesn't end with being an atheist...
Atheists don't substitute "Nature" in for a "God." Yes we use natural and physical laws and observations to come to conclusions. We don't just say "God did it", we use science and empirical evidence to prove what we see and why we think the way we do. There is a big difference in that most atheists I know want to see some sort of evidence before believing something. However theists will accept something if it comes from their church or god without question. They don't assume that they are wrong, they assume that they are right and try and force people to prove them wrong and this is incorrect. In science you don't approach a hypothesis with the question "Why am I right?" No you approach it with the question "What makes this wrong?" And the moment you find something that proves your theory incorrect then you move on and try and make a new one that encompasses this new finding. That is one big difference between an atheist and a theist that you don't seem to grasp.
Science flies people to the moon, Religion flies people into buildings.
That was a very intemperate and somewhat polemical response to my post.
I can see so much in your post that demonstrate the 'faults' you are railing about - talk about the speck in your neighbour's eye....
Many people from here report going to a Theist forum and encountering far more intemperate responses to even mildly questioning comments, and early banning, than experienced or observed at any Atheist site.
You seem at times to inhabit some strange mirror alternate reality.
I do agree that the primary issues should really be Rationality vs Irrationality, and many Atheists, in my Reality at least, are indeed primarily rational, and are indeed atheist precisely as a result of applying rational analysis of some sort to the religious doctrine and dogma they have grown up with. Typically, they initially report trying to rationally justify their belief when confronted with doubt or someone outside their church pointing to problems with the belief system.
I do indeed value rationality as the primary ideal, but atheism is another dimension to my world-view, not purely sub-servient to 'rationality'. And of course Atheism only deserves to be treated as an identity in itself because of the dominance in so many societies of the most prominent example of irrationality, ie religious belief. This is why there is this so common coupling or association between those two dichotomies - Theism vs Atheism, Rationality vs Irrationality.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Uhm...no. You are talking about scientists, not about atheists. They are not synonymous; the assumption that atheists vs. theists equals rationality vs. irrationality is simply empirically and semantically incorrect. There are *many* atheists who commit exactly that substitution. Now just in case you might be tempted to say that such people aren't "real" atheists (an answer I have often heard), that won't work. In order to avoid the fallacy of "No real Scotsman", one would have to define the term "atheist" in regards to content. And then we would find that it does not lose a word about the reasons for disbelief or the alternative basis for reasoning and viewpoints.
One might want to include that into the definition of atheist like "Only the atheists who are atheists for the right reason are true atheists!", but that would change the meaning of the word. Besides, Science does not actively deny gods, so antitheists (who are a subset atheists) leave the borders of science, just as theists.
How do you mean that remark about "me not seeming to grasp"? If it is a harmless comment on a possible mistake I might have made in your opinion, then that's okay and you can ignore the following. Otherwise I'd have to draw a line now:
Why is pretty much every self-declared atheist I've spoken with here so insecure? So far, every single one failed at quite basic points at grasping logic, science, atheism, theism etc., but instead of asking themselves whether the own concept is correct, they are very eagerly concluding that anyone who thinks different must be wrong. Many theists are more reflective and rational than that! Someone who really has something of a scientist wouldn't react to this with anger and hate, but with humility and curiosity. Normally, there are quite some of this raging kind on every atheist site, but here I haven't spoken with even one person who acts different. Well, I guess in a social group were such a behavior is considered witty or stalwart or at least normal, this will hardly ever change.
I'm now decisively asking anyone who is too insecure of the validity of his viewpoints and who tends to express that (most probably justified) insecurity with ingroup-outgroup-degradation to refrain from answering to me. I wouldn't ask for this if it were only one or two people, but there's a whole bunch of these people here. And don't anyone tell me I should accept that tone. The last person who taunted me for not being able to handle such remarks complained a little later how my use of smileys were so offensive to people like him
@ BobSpence
On the contrary, that was far too polite and substantial as an answer
If you gave up your double standards, you would see this. You want to flame like a internet tough guy, but can't stand even the mildest response to that. Why don't you simply lay it off at all and encounter me solely on an intellectual basis, without giving in to the primitive urge of derogating? If you are genuinely interested in arguments, you don't even have to fear that I could be superior. The best that can happen is that you learn. Alternatively, you can keep hiding behind veiled or open insults and complaints to retreat under loud blustering whenever you run out of arguments. It's your choice. So, when you want to act like an adult, then your next response (and everyone following after that) won't contain something childish along "YOU STUPID!" or "YOU'RE WRONG AND I'M RIGHT!" or "MOM, SHE IS MEAN TO ME, WAAAH!". It either consists of silence or a calm clever argument. Hell, it may even be a calm stupid argument - as long as you are interested in the debate, that's no shame. And if your personality doesn't allow you to narrow your retorts to that, then please don't answer to me at all. Because as far as I can see, this forum has no ignore list... 
If you don't want to see, I can't force you to open your eyes. At best I can answer honest, unprejudiced questions. If you have them, then ask. If not, then don't.
Are you prepared for the possibility that the "strange mirror alternate reality" might be the real world and your image of it massively distorted?
Well, ask a theist why he doesn't believe in other gods, and he will often argue quite similar to the "rational" atheist. Basing the own viewpoints on rationality is less of an ability, but rather a decision. However, the only real rational base for atheism is applying Critical Rationalism, and this only works for atheism which is not antitheism. So how many non-antitheist atheists are there? And how many of them have understood and are referring to Critical Rationalism (not by the name, but by the content)? The one's I've met I can count on one hand. All the other apply rationality where it suits them, but discard it were it doesn't support the favored result. I don't see them as rational persons, but even if we do: How many? Do you even belong to them yourself? If not, why?
Students away from home for the the first time are very insecure. Religion feeds on human insecurity.
I think the more you stay around, you'll start to see more freethinking people.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I would say any simple ideology feeds on human insecurity. Therefor, people who long for a simple "Friend-or-foe?"-worldview don't just have following a theist religion as an option...