Why Theists Get the Logic and Still Believe
I am an atheist. I used to be a Christian, and then I read the Bible, thought about it, and left Christianity. Soon after that, I examined the concept of “the supernatural” and became an atheist. Hearing my story would probably be interesting to some people, but apart from some minor variances, it’s no different from the stories of thousands of other “de-converts.” Most atheists are well versed in the logic necessary to rid the mind of religious delusions. What I want to discuss in this essay is the number of theists who fully comprehend the same logic, and yet remain theists. Clearly, this phenomenon should be of great concern to the freethinker who would like to see friends, family, and society in general rid themselves of the poison that religious thought injects into culture.
To begin with, let us briefly examine the reasons that people follow religion. Some people are afraid of death, and gain comfort from the belief that they will not really die. Others want some truth to help explain the pain and suffering they or their loved ones experience. Many people attend church for social reasons – Christianity is, after all, the biggest social group in the country. Many people accept Jesus into their hearts because they’re afraid of hell. Obviously, there are also many people who firmly believe that they have spoken to God, witnessed a miracle that only God could have performed, or felt a “presence” they believe to be the Holy Spirit within them.
All of these reasons, and many more, would be listed if you took a poll of believers. I submit that close examination will reveal that virtually all of these reasons can be reduced to fear. Some are easy. Fear of death, hell, pain and suffering, and the unknown are easy to understand, but what about the other reasons? Do people who have spoken to God also believe because of fear? I believe so. (I am ignoring mental disorders for this discussion.) The real question is, why would a person either try to hear God’s voice, or upon hearing a perceived spiritual voice, be inclined to believe it? The answer is still fear – most likely one of the ones I’ve already listed. Why would a person be inclined to believe that there is a supernatural force that performs miracles? Again, fear -- the fear of being in the position of needing a miracle would certainly make one more likely to believe in miracles.
I’ve left out one big fear, and it’s the primary focus of this essay. I noted earlier that many people attend church for social reasons. This fact is, I believe, the key to understanding why theists who understand the logical reasons for disbelief continue to profess belief.
For a moment, think about as many of your friends as you can. If you are a Republican, are most of your friends also Republican? If you are a Christian, do you spend most of your free time with other Christians? Here’s a nasty one. If you are white, are most of your friends white? Unless you are one of a few very rare personality types, or are forced into living in a culture that is not your own, you must admit that the majority of the people you surround yourself with are very similar to you. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this. It is built into the survival instinct, and is an intrinsic part of human nature. Also part of this survival instinct is the fear of being ostracized by the group. In the earlier days of the human species, exclusion from the group meant death in most circumstances. Even in more recent recorded history, there are many examples of places and times when banishment from a group would cause real mortal danger.
In America, this is no longer true, but the instinct remains. Most people, given the choice between conforming to the group and leaving the group, will choose conforming. This isn’t speculation. It’s scientific fact. Here, then, is the answer to the question I posed at the beginning. Why do theists who understand the logic of atheism remain theists? I suggest that it is fear of being ostracized.
If you are a Christian, think of everyone you know who is also a Christian. How would it feel to be hated and distrusted by all of them? Am I being overly dramatic? Sadly, no. A recent survey showed that a very large portion of U.S. citizens would rather see a homosexual president than an atheist one. Furthermore, they rated atheists as the least trustworthy group of people – lower than lawyers and politicians who profess faith in Jesus Christ. If you are an atheist, you know these facts from personal experience. It is fair to say that a rational person, given the choice between believing in a deity or joining the most distrusted and disliked minority in the country, will choose to believe in a deity and be part of the largest and most well-regarded social group in the country.
Am I suggesting that there are “believers” who don’t really believe and use Christianity for social status only? Absolutely. But I’m also suggesting that there are many people who clearly understand the reasons for not believing, and perhaps even grasp the inherent danger posed by modern Christianity, and subconsciously create layers of apologist theory to shield themselves from having to face the seemingly awful truth that would force them to abandon the comfort of the group.
Any atheist who has debated a Christian has seen the layers of circular logic necessary to answer even the simplest question of faith. For example, examine the question of an all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful deity. Did this deity know before he created the universe that he would create literally billions of people who would not profess Jesus as their savior and would therefore be tormented for eternity for not believing a book riddled with inconsistencies and improbabilities? The correct answer is “yes,” but try to get a Christian to say it. Once we establish this, can we describe this being as “good?” Obviously, the answer is “no.” This being would be so atrociously evil that we would have to put Hitler on the list of “pretty ok people.” At least Hitler’s torments only lasted minutes for the lucky ones who got the gas chambers, and years for those forced to endure medical experiments and grotesque abuse in the concentration camps. Again, many Christians have a ready-made answer – “We cannot understand the ways of God. Good doesn’t have the same meaning for him because he is love.” This is obviously circular logic, and is nonsense even if we accept it. If God is truly beyond human comprehension, how do you know that he is good, or bad, or anything, for that matter? The answer to this – “Because he told me.” If you respond by asking if that doesn’t mean that God has given us the means to understand him, you’ll just get more circular logic. Eventually, most Christians, when backed into a corner, will resort to saying something like, “Well, you just have to have faith, and I can’t make you believe, but I do.” In other words, “You’re right. I don’t have any reason to believe this, but I do, despite the logic that has defeated my arguments.” Faith, by definition, then, is believing something despite all evidence to the contrary. Many Christians will balk at that definition, but it’s true. Not only is there no evidence that the Christian god exists, there’s no evidence that any god exists. None! Even so, they will believe this book of myths that tells them that God made the earth, populated it with people who were predestined to sin, sent himself down to the earth to be sacrificed to himself so that people who believed that he had done this bizarre thing would be saved from a place of eternal torment designed by God for the people who were predestined not to believe such rubbish.
If this seems ludicrous and possibly even insane, it’s not. Believing that all Christians are insane would be, well, insane. This is where the issue of social pressure becomes paramount. It is much easier to postulate that many people will accept the circular logic if they can convince themselves that A) Christianity makes them feel good, so it’s ok if it doesn’t make sense, or B) Everybody believes it, and it doesn’t do any harm, or C) It’s too scary to think about leaving Christianity, or D) It isn’t worth bucking the system because it wouldn’t change anything for them to leave.
All of these reasons are hedges for the real reason – they are afraid to be ostracized. This fear is so pervasive that their subconscious will not even allow them to consider the possibility that not only are they wrong personally, but that our entire culture is wrong for basing so much of its morality on an ancient fairy tale.
The question for atheists who would like to see change is this: “How do we, as atheists, help to create an environment conducive to de-conversion?” I don’t have all the answers to this, and I hope that this essay will spark discussion. I do have some suggestions, though. First and foremost, it is important for the potential de-convert to see that there is a large group of freethinkers who will happily welcome her to “the group.” She needs to see that not only will her social life not end by leaving religion, but that she will have a strong support group that will be loving and fun and permanent. The best first step in this direction is for atheists to “come out of the closet.” We as a group should be proud of ourselves, and should display our disbelief to anyone who cares to look.
Second, it is important for the potential de-convert to be drawn away from religious influences as much as possible. Think of it this way. It’s a lot easier for a man to think about religion in a critical way if everyone around him has already done it, and seems no worse for wear. The more a theist can retreat to the religion that enslaves him, the more he will want to remain a slave.
Third, and possibly most controversial, I believe theists need to be exposed to embarrassment for their beliefs. Factually, their beliefs are ridiculous, and this needs to be pointed out clearly and often. Logically, their beliefs are nearly insane. This needs to be drilled home at every opportunity. This is difficult, because it’s hard to separate the person from the belief. Remember, we’re talking about people who can understand the logic, but are resisting because of social pressure, so we’re not talking about idiots. I think it’s crucial to remember that the beliefs are stupid. The people are just victims of a mass movement to believe in stupidity. Educate them in the same way you would someone who had never been taught history. (Because many of them are people who heave never been taught history!) Remember the mantra: Build up the person, tear down the belief.
{edit: I've already received criticism on this one on my livejournal, but I stand by it. First, let me emphasize that these steps are in chronological order. If you start making fun of their beliefs before they're attached to your group, yes, they will run away as fast as they can. Second, if you think I said we should make fun of Christians, go back and read it again, and again if necessary until you see that I didn't say that. Nowhere in the paragraph did I say we should belittle the people. We should belittle the beliefs and do our best to point out that it's a shame that a person with enough intelligence to be an atheist would believe such silly things! Tear down the belief, build up the person!! I don't know how I can say it any more clearly.}
I think one of the biggest mistakes made by atheists when debating Christians is that they overlook the simple fact that all the logic in the world will not overcome the fear that pulls Christians back into the fold. It takes a two-pronged approach to successfully pull a sheep out of the flock. First, they need to be exposed to the illogic of their belief. Second, and more importantly, they need to be shown that there is another side of the fence, and that it’s greener – not just from an intellectual standpoint, but from the all-important social standpoint. They need to know that they will not be alone if they choose to leave. They need to know that even if they lose many, or even all of their friends and family, they are not alone, and they will be accepted and loved. In fact, they will be loved based on the intrinsic value of their life, not on their acceptance of someone else’s system of beliefs and morality. There is freedom in atheism, and theists need to be shown how amazing it is to be free.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Hambydammit's blog
- Login to post comments
I think (though I could be
I think (though I could be wrong) that when he said you were missing the point it's because your objection seems to be that our sarcastic, caustic, and snarky manner of debating and spreading our message is going to insult more people than it converts. It's going to turn more people away than it turns people toward.
Well, this misses the point in that the point is not to convert. At least not that I'm aware of. If we can pull off some conversions along the way, that's just bonus.
It's more about uniting people who are already atheists and then drawing attention to ourselves so that atheists who are "in the closet" will see that it's okay to be openly atheist. They will have a community where they feel welcome in their position.
It's a tough feat to accomplish though because, unlike theistic communities, we're not exactly united by a common idea or a common practice. We're united by a lack of something.
Quick analogy: A community of boating enthusiasts have boating to do and talk about. A community based on enthusiasm about not boating is much harder to maintain. I can't remember who said it, but it was said that establishing an atheist community is like herding cats.
If we piss off some theists, then so be it.
If some theist-leaning moderates are pushed away rather than toward, than so be it (even though that would be stupid since the RRS does not represent atheism as a whole, which is a mistake theists make by trying to view our non-belief based on their belief).
Mostly we want the atheists, the closet atheists, and the atheist-leaning moderates.
The point is that atheists (us) want the rest of the country/world to know we exist and to recognize us as having a legitimate view with just as much right as any other. We want to do away with the stereotypes (I've lost count of how many times I've seen a theists accuse atheists of having no basis for morality or that they are only atheists because "god let grandma die" etc).
Conversion is not the issue.
BUT
After saying this, I also acknowledge that any other atheist might have a different motivation.
That's why it's like herding cats.
There are multiple goals, every atheist is different, and every atheist is going to try (or not try) to make a difference in a different way.
A herd of atheists probably does look disorderly if view from the right angle, but it moves---however sporadically---in a general direction.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
- Login to post comments
Quote: I think one of the
It's about time you people started to understand that.
Did you notice the date I
Did you notice the date I posted this essay?
It ain't for a lack of tryin' ... as they used to say in Lower Alabama.
It's a tricky situation for us rational folks. On the one side, we can't beat them because they don't understand science and logic. On the other, we can't beat them because they're too afraid to try to understand science and logic.
And then there are the strange ones like you who consciously decide not to be logical because you think life's more fun that way... but then, wouldn't that be pretty logical, granting that desiring a fun life is rational?
Anyway, for as long as this has been up, it's gotten precious few responses. (This is usually how I know I've hit a particularly sensitive nerve... when they don't even bother to attack me.) Neither atheists nor theists like to deal with the reality of theist fear.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Hambydammit wrote: Did you
Yes, I did, and my comment sort of came off the worng way. What I meant was, the people here should have taken it to heart by now, and I feel they haven't. I think that this website has a lot of potential to free people from their fear of atheism. I feel very badly for those who are paralyzed into believing by fear. Creating a supportive community in which people can feel free to question their beliefs and in which they can feel comfortable calling themselves "atheist" is important to combating that fear. I think that the Freethinking Anonymous board is especially important for such an endevour. The sad truth is, I think that most of the "Rational Content" on this site - all the essays deludedgod and todangst and company take time to write - are mostly all for naught. The people who are intended to be the readers of such essays are usually too far gone into delusion to be redeemed by them. And the people who are merely afraid don't need to be argued against. They just need to be supported. But that's just my way of looking at things.
I would tend to think that desiring a fun life at the expense of refusing to submit to an objective reality would be considered irrational.
We've all taken Roosevelt's words to heart, I suspect. Fear is indeed a tough monster to battle. It poses much more of a threat to rational minds than any impotent theology that Christianity offers could ever dream to.
Quote: Yes, I did, and my
That's really... logical... of you. I agree completely. I agree that too many of the atheist posters here forget that there are people on the other side of the posts. Sometimes, all of us fall into the trap of arguing a particular point when there's this great big elephant standing in the room. Maybe it's a deficiency in the personality types that tend towards skepticism. I don't know. I do my best to hear the arguments behind the arguments when reading theist posts.
I need to revise this essay a bit. I'm feeling pretty motivated to do it now. I think I can make it more powerful.
I strongly disagree. The type of person I was writing this essay about is actively involved in the church. There are millions of people who attend church on holidays and weddings, and who give lip service to religious belief. These folks are not tied into the social structure as strongly as the devout theists. Many have simply not bothered to think about some of the essay topics.
In fact, the fringe theists are the ones I'm most interested in winning over. If all of the fringe theists disavowed their allegiance to religion and the church, that would be an amazing coup for us. Realistically, I believe that within a few decades, it's possible to influence millions of quasi-theists.
That's what I'm talking about. I picture us being here for both dyed in the wool delusional theists and marginal theists who simply haven't thought about it. Different tactics for different targets.
I suppose it all depends on how important you think objective reality is.
This might be the most profound thing you've written.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
First of all, before I even
First of all, before I even say anything else, I just want to remark that the quote feature on this template is ugly as hell, so I'm just going to italicize stuff that I'm quoting.
Moving on:
That's really... logical... of you.
We do what we must, and call it by the best names.
Maybe it's a deficiency in the personality types that tend towards skepticism.
Sounds very plausible to me.
I strongly disagree. The type of person I was writing this essay about is actively involved in the church. There are millions of people who attend church on holidays and weddings, and who give lip service to religious belief. These folks are not tied into the social structure as strongly as the devout theists. Many have simply not bothered to think about some of the essay topics.
But the thing is, those people don't need to become experts on cosmology in order to reject religion. They don't need to educate themselves in the study of proteomics in order to subscribe to evolution. They don't need to read 10,000-word essays about the incoherency of the term supernatural in order to become materialists. Don't get me wrong, the stuff that they churn out is incredible, and it's absolutely great to read. But they've got their audience all wrong. A lengthy essay filled with logical and scientific jargon isn't going to convince people that theism isn't the way to go. It's going to scare and alienate them.
That's what I'm talking about. I picture us being here for both dyed in the wool delusional theists and marginal theists who simply haven't thought about it. Different tactics for different targets.
The chances of you converting the utterly deluded are slim-to-none. At best. Fred Phelps is never going to convert. Neither are the Hovinds. Neither are any of the theists who actively support them. You think old Wanky boy is ever going to go "You know, Sapient and those guys are right, I'm going to become an apostate right away!"? He isn't. Some people are just too far gone. But by trying to fight with them, you guys are scaring away some of the ones who aren't.
Good points. I admit that
Good points. I admit that the kind of "rational assaults" that tend to be employed here and elsewhere are not exactly going to persuade a Christian-thinker (substitute the more general "theist" if you wish) to deconvert to atheism. In most cases, they'll probably just feel attacked and try to retaliate.
The fear of ostracism, as opposed to just fear of eternal punishment, is a good point as well. Just considering my own deconversion experience, I didn't seriously begin to question my faith until the following requirements were met:
1) I learned that some already long-time friends that I highly respected were skeptical.
2) I stopped attending my parents' church. (A significant step, since most of the people there knew me since childhood. It wasn't frowned upon, since I continued attending at another church, but just separating myself from that tight community was extremely important, I think.)
3) I investigated, and I thought.
I think if anyone is going to deconvert, they are probably only going to do it if they feel like it is THEIR idea---not by being backed into a corner and told that they will be branded with the "stupid" iron if they refuse.
For that reason, I really appreciate anyone who debates via the Socratic method. I don't usually use the method myself, but I've experimented with it out of curiosity, and it really does seem to work a lot better! By simply asking questions, you can lead your opponent to the conclusions you want them to get without actually pounding the conclusions into their skull. If they stumble upon the conclusions via their own reasoning, they feel like they've arrived their on their own, and so when they see the contradiction, they have no choice but to conclude that they have contradicted themselves. They have not been attacked; they've simply been asked; and they've simply found insufficient answers.
However, I don't think this should be any kind of yield sign to the tactics of the RRS. In my experience on this site, I take some debates more seriously than others. If a person seems open-minded, I'll debate them nicely. If they seem like a fundie that is only here to preach and not to listen, I'll take a more gung-ho approach. The RRS, to me, isn't so much a giant deconversion machine as much as it is a political machine for raising awareness. Sure, there will be those who say we're too insulting and maybe go overboard at times, but it gets us attention, and it has been working (see Blasphemy Challenge).
So yeah, I think I agree with you, and I think there are different debate styles depending on what you're trying to accomplish.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Just a clarification on
Just a clarification on something I said:
Not claiming to speak for the RRS or its mission statement here. Just stating what about the RRS has attracted me.
Done.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Thanks for the personal
Thanks for the personal anecdote. That illustrates exactly what I'm talking about.
I have to make the point clear: I don't think we should stop debating and writing essays. People that are not being attacked directly are watching these debates. People are quietly watching how stupid the theists look when they flail about, ad hom-ing and deflecting from the real questions, committing every logical fallacy in the book.
We never know when there might be a lurker out there who just needs that little extra shove. We never know who might hit on that last little objection they have and let them make the last step.
As for me, my motivations here are largely political, but at a grassroots level. I don't believe politics changes from the top down. I want to change the base. I believe that getting people out of religion will make politics better, and that everyone in the country will have a better life.
Besides that, I just want to help individuals get out of religion. I know what an enormous change for the better it made for me, and I want others to experience it. That's why I'm so adamant that everyone here, atheist and theist, is respectful of everyone who shows willingness to ask questions.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Archeopteryx: The RRS, to
Archeopteryx: The RRS, to me, isn't so much a giant deconversion machine as much as it is a political machine for raising awareness. Sure, there will be those who say we're too insulting and maybe go overboard at times, but it gets us attention, and it has been working (see Blasphemy Challenge).
The Blasphemy challenge, is, I hesitate to say, a complete and total sham of an attention-seeking tactic. I see it as being something of the "Dean Scream" of atheism. I mean, it's nice to know that there are other atheists who (dis)believe as strongly as you do, and feel the strength in numbers, but the majority of theists (Christians in particular) are very off-put by the whole thing. It's a valiant attempt at creating curiosity into the atheist rationale, but it falls short. Theists can imagine being atheists, sure. They can imagine not believing. But even if they didn't believe in all the hooey, they couldn't imagine themselves lashing out at the hooey for no apparent reason. When they see all these videos of atheists taking extreme (from a theist's point of view, at any rate) measures to disavow religion, they think "I could never fit in with those people. I could never be such a strong atheist." It alienates them, pure and simple.
And if the RRS is merely a political front in support of secularism, then why not drop the whole "fighting religion" spiel and take up a "fighting religious politics" one?
Hamby: I have to make the point clear: I don't think we should stop debating and writing essays. People that are not being attacked directly are watching these debates. People are quietly watching how stupid the theists look when they flail about, ad hom-ing and deflecting from the real questions, committing every logical fallacy in the book.
On the contrary, most theists aren't fluent in debate. They don't recognize fallacies, and they haven't taken any formal logic classes, so even when fallacies are pointed out to them, they are still at something of a loss. The fact that theist after theist shows up thinking that, even though they are using the same arguments as the last five guys, they will succeed where everyone else failed is a testament to this. How many times have you seen a topic that says "Hey guys, I've been reading the boards for a few weeks now and I thought I'd say [insert fallacious argumentation here]."?
So the plan of RRS is roughly as follows:
1. Use controversial assertions and deliberate antagonism to rile up theists, so that they will come to this site.
2. Beat them over the head with rational arguments until they leave.
3. Hope that someone else was watching.
It's, at it's very best, a juvenile and poorly thought out plan, and it's going to do more harm than good to the cause of fighting fear. And Hamby, I seem to recall you having a philosophy about what should be done with things that cause more harm than good.
Actually, I think that my biggest critique of this site (and the squad itself) is its lack of organization. There is no plan. There is no philosophy. There is no specific goals (here I mean goal in the formal sense, i.e. a specific and quantifiable objective to be met by a certain deadline, not in the colloquial sense.) RRS seems to me to be content in riding the wave of atheism's newfound media attention. I mean for goodness sake, even the IDers have the damn Wedge Document. You guys have squat.
All of this sounds a bit harsh, and I probably wouldn't deny claims of my being overly critical, but I think I've been around here for long enough for you guys to know that I have nothing against you. You are intelligent people, and you have a lot of great things happening here. I just think you could do a lot better.
Quote: The Blasphemy
I didn't realize you had access to the traffic statistics. Funny that the ones I saw completely contradict you.
Your ability to say the point while missing it is astonishing.
You must have missed the videos where people thanked us for giving them the courage to come out. You know, those kids who had been professing theism, but didn't really believe it. I'm sad to learn that the challenge was useless. They'll be sad to know, too, now that they're out.
Are you incapable of understanding the concept of accomplishing multiple goals?
Has it never occurred to you that politics reflects culture, not the other way around? (In simple language, if 95% of a country is atheist, you're not going to get many born again presidents elected.)
Ending religion IS changing politics. Duh.
You don't read anything I write, do you? You haven't noticed that I explain the fallacies in great detail, or that I've written a series of essays explaining what debate is?
And all this time, I looked at all the different IP addresses and thought that it was new theists who had never been here before, and hadn't bothered to read the whole site before posting. Silly me.
Yeah, you're right. If they say they've read it all, they must have. You can tell from their answers.
Fair enough.
Well, sometimes, yes. If they are trolls, they usually leave. Sometimes they stick around for quite a while. Sometimes (gasp!) they even learn something. Sorry if I'm happy if even one person deconverts. I'll try to think of bigger goals. What would you suggest?
Um... dude. We know who's watching. We can see exactly how many people look at threads. If we want to, we can deliver flowers to their front door.
Oh, I forgot. You just assume you know everything that goes on.
Yeah. That's why Richard Dawkins, Richard Carrier, Margaret Downey, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and about a dozen other high profile atheist activists endorse us. All those juveniles! They don't know anything about getting people interested in atheism... After all, they've only sold millions of books, won high profile legal battles, and organized the biggest atheist convention ever.
I certainly do. So, why don't you use your extensive knowledge of our traffic, and your intimate knowledge of all the private messages that the mods and core members get, and prove that we're doing a bad thing.
Yeah, you know that because you hang out with us all the time and hear what we're doing behind the scenes.
I don't guess you've been reading the Rational Alerts. You haven't noticed that we've been fighting Kent Hovind's ID bullshit legally, or that we have a movie coming out next year, or that we are the most popular atheist website, or that we organized Atheistvolunteers, or that we made national media on ABC, or that we debated the president of Liberty University.
I guess you think all that stuff just sort of happens. Nobody has to work 18 hours a day for all that...
You've been around long enough for me to know that I have nothing against you. You just never contribute anything to the site. Not squat. You bitch and moan about this or that, but you admit that you don't care about truth or logic. You just jam threads up. I mean, at least theists are trying to prove something. You're just trying to prove how much you don't care about...um... something. You're just wasting bandwidth and you don't have a plan.
So make with the suggestions for plans. It's not as if we don't have six hours a day left. What's your big plan, Mr. Critical?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Hambydammit wrote: I
Standing around in a chicken suit yelling "look at me!" isn't going to convert people to my agenda. It might make them stop and stare, but it immediately puts them on the defensive.
I addressed why this is a bad tactic in the "RRS 3-step plan to conversion." Putting Christians off may seem like a good idea, because it gets them to come here, but extremist views tend to alienate the moderates. And really, I could say the same of you: you write an article about fighting fears, and how logic isn't enough on it's own as a conversion point, and yet you still sit there and continually argue in support of RRS's tactics of rational arguments at the exclusion of all others.
For example, politcal apathy is and has been on the rise in the United States of America for some time now (easily demonstrable by voter turnout). Why? Because both parties have alienated the self described moderates (which make up the majority of the American voting population) by becoming more and more extreme in their platforms. It happens in a cycle: because independents are usually prohibited from voting in national party primaries, the candidates who are elected lean more away from the moderate group. This causes more more fringe moderates to feel alienated from the party. They either leave the party, or become apathetic towards primary elections, meaning that only the more extreme political activists vote in primaries, leading to more extreme candidates being nominated, further alienating and frustrating the independent moderates.
I imagine that most of those "kids" would have come out once they became independent of their parents/immediate family. Obviously I can't make that assertion, but it seems likely to me.
Yes, ending religion will change politics. But religion doesn't need to be ended in order for politics to change.
Point conceded (not the point that I don't read anything you write, but the point that you do in fact go to great lengths to explain fallacies and debate).
That's another series of things that is wrong with this place. Blatant and rampant uses of sarcasm aren't attractive. It's embarrassing sometimes, to watch the RRS debates and see how easily they are outclassed by their opponents in terms of communication abilities. I would advise public speaking classes.
Deflection. My ideas hove nothing to do with your lack of them. I'm not the one trying to wage a war against religion here.
Um... dude. We know who's watching. We can see exactly how many people look at threads. If we want to, we can deliver flowers to their front door.
Oh, I forgot. You just assume you know everything that goes on.
Yes, they have done all those things. You've had a debate with the infamous Ray Comfort on NBC, gotten sued by that loony psychic wannabe, and are in the processes of filing suits against Hovind and Co.. Personally, I get the distinct sense that there are two different leagues here, and that RRS is still in the minors.
If there are things you'd like to share with me in order to demonstrate that my assumptions are wrong, then please do that. So far, you've made nothing but vague gestures to the effect that I am not seeing the man behind the curtain.
Again with the sarcasm. It won't do. Please, please, PLEASE show me that I'm wrong. I'd love nothing more than to see that RRS is much more organized and mobilized than I suspect. My criticisms here aren't meant to thwart the efforts of RRS. You seem to be under the impression that they are.
I've noticed quite a bit, but most of the things I've noticed are reactionary, rather than planned-ahead. Operation Sread Eagle (remember when I was talking about being juvenile?) is no exception.The whole idea of the Rational Response Squad makes it reactionary, and not activist.
Of course I have a plan. The plan just has nothing to do with proving anything. And if you really think I'm a waste of bandwidth, then ban me.
As I am not the creator, operator, and administrator of a website proclaiming a devotion to political and cultural activism, I am not the one who needs to be making plans for it. You are once again deflecting. I'm truly sorry that I've apparently struck a nerve, because I now realize that any chances of reasonable and friendly discussion I had have now been entirely thwarted. As such, I'll bow out of the discussion (I'll still be reading, however). My own failings have turned it into a fruitless labor.