Atheism: new religion?

[six45ive]

But- if you want it isolated and naked, here it is-

 

I can't think of an example of somebody who has committed an atrocity purely in their lack of belief in a god

 

And there's the second post of yours that I'm in agreement with. I'm

[onewheeldave]

First thing you've said where I'm in broad agreement with you but you're not saying anything that hasn't already been discussed indepth within the atheist community itself.

Personally I like to use both the 'carrot' and the 'stick'. Reason, evidence and logic where appropriate but rhetoric, spin and propaganda is a useful tool to set subliminal seeds of doubt into the believer's minds before the fertilizer of logic and reason enables those seeds to grow.

 

Interesting that you say it's been discussed in depth within the athiest communty- can you point me to any online discussion threads that cover it, I'd be very interested in having a look?

 

I'm a little alarmed though, that you mention "rhetoric, spin and propaganda " and not diplomacy. Rhetoric, spin and propaganda, though admitedly effective for getting people to think/do what you want, are, IMO, somewhat dodgy, for obvious reasons (manipulative).

 

Whereas, the one you don't mention, diplomacy, is very good for facilitating a genuine exchange of ideas and for minimising the pointless conflicts so often seen on threads covering this issue.

[six45ive]

Fair point- though it didn't need the rolly eyed smiley, that suggests that you consider me a bit thick.

 

To reword what I said then, evil is caused by combination of genetic factors and environmental factors other than religious belief.

 

Aaaannnnnndddddd we're back into disagreement mode again. So what you're saying is that religion has no effect on people who commit atrocities?

 

Because when it comes to environmental factors causing the level of mental/emotional stress necessary to cause a person to become evil, I beleive that things like sexual abuse, physical violence, being brought up in the constant presence of people who are themselves sociopathic and the like, are far, far, more likely suspects than religious belief.

 

The highlighted bit specifically is what religious belief causes and sanctions.

 

And of course, there's the observation that there are a hell of a lot of people with religious beleifs who, are not only not killers, but happen to be nice people- here's a link to an article on your man Dawkins website than backs that up-

 

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/643050-god-s-truth-believers-are-nicer

 

If you knew anything about richarddawkins.net you'd know that he posts lots of controversial info about atheists as well as theists that makes the stuff your posting look inadequate. The responses to articles like the one you linked to enable the reader to disentangle the article and show the reader where the article is flawed. It's that kind of self criticism and fine tuning of our scepticism that sets us apart from the lazier mindset of the theist and the willingly gullible.

 

 

 

 

You seriously don't see that as an attack!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????!!!!!!!!!

 

'go back to university'

 

I'm almost tempted to ask you for your definition of 'attack', but I won't.

 

Normally I wouldn't do this, but seeing as how you seem to have no sense of what rudeness is, may I suggest that you, similarly, go off and learn some people skills

 

I would do if I thought I was debating with a person. All I see from reading your posts however is not a person but a strawman.

[Cyclone]

Diplomacy is only useful in a situation where both sides stand to gain (or perceive to gain something). I'm not sure it applies when having a discussion about whether god exists or faith is rational, unless you have something to gain (like staying friends with the person) and they have something to gain (probably the same). If the objective is to just to discuss honestly though, why try to couch your phrases in ways that will avoid bruising the ego?

Propaganda is even less useful. Propaganda means using lies in order to convince. Get caught out using a lie and you've give up all credibility. Be honest throughout, or you have no moral high ground to make any argument from anyway and may as well just walk away.

[six45ive]

Interesting that you say it's been discussed in depth within the athiest communty- can you point me to any online discussion threads that cover it, I'd be very interested in having a look?

 

I thought you weren't interested in links but as you ask, here's just a couple that criticise the more scientific, in your face approach;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixVNtzc5RqI

http://www.youtube.com/user/skyzthelimi7#p/u/21/9uQVORqVwjo

 

I'm a little alarmed though, that you mention "rhetoric, spin and propaganda " and not diplomacy. Rhetoric, spin and propaganda, though admitedly effective for getting people to think/do what you want, are, IMO, somewhat dodgy, for obvious reasons (manipulative).

Whereas, the one you don't mention, diplomacy, is very good for facilitating a genuine exchange of ideas and for minimising the pointless conflicts so often seen on threads covering this issue.

 

I was assuming you understood that a part of diplomacy is being able to use rhetoric, spin and propaganda. They are simply subsets of the diplomatic process and are effective if used appropriately.

[flamingjimmy]

Ok, that's what i was after. You do consider 'irrational' to mean simply not based on rationality: that's clear enough, i'll bear it in mind from now on.

 

I suspect you don't really get the distinction I was making with the other definition of rationality?

I got the distinction, I just thought it was a silly pointless one seeing as I can't think of any situations where the second case really applies apart from when describing some silly-for-the-sake-of-being-silly tv programme like shooting stars. But then, you're probably more likely to call it surreal.

Just out of interest though, if you expressed a belief to me, and I replied with 'you're being irrational' would you not be offended?

I don't think so, perhaps in some exceptional cases, I can't think of a set of circumstances right now though.

 

and, can you appreciate that some believers, when faced with 'all religious believers are irrational' will take offence, that they'll take it as meaning believers are stupid?

If that is how they take it, then they probably are stupid, or at least ill-educated. And I don't really mind offending people, I won't go out of my way to do it, but I'm not going to let it stop me saying things I think need to be said.

 

I wouldn't pull you up. But I personally wouldn't call them irrational. In the case of moon landing conspiracys they do actually seem to put a hell of a lot of thought into their theories

 

And, in the way you've phrased it above, a lot of people would take it as meaning that they are irrational, whereas maybe you're really saying their beliefs on that particular issue are irrational?

 

Because I'm sure many a believer in Nessie can also be very rational in other areas of their lives?

 

I mean, if the presence of irrationality in one aspect of ones life makes one an irrational person, then I doubt there's a single rational person on this Earth.

Fair point I suppose, I guess I wouldn't call someone who kind-of is a Christian and only goes to church on Christmas eve (the typical Anglican it seems these days) an irrational person, or someone who held a wishy washy non-denominational deistic kind of belief. However anyone for whom their religion plays a major role in their lives and religious activities take up a significant part of their time, and definitely anyone who lets their irrational beliefs dictate important aspects of their life, I would label as irrational.

[six45ive]

And of course I forgot to add the famous clip of Neil De Grasse Tyson rebuking Dawkin's style (and Tyson was spot on in what he said) and Dawkin's brilliant response.

[onewheeldave]

Diplomacy is only useful in a situation where both sides stand to gain (or perceive to gain something). I'm not sure it applies when having a discussion about whether god exists or faith is rational, unless you have something to gain (like staying friends with the person) and they have something to gain (probably the same). If the objective is to just to discuss honestly though, why try to couch your phrases in ways that will avoid bruising the ego?

 

Diplomacy is useful when one side is trying to communicate effectively with another- in fact it's probably essential.

 

If communication is the goal, then avoiding speaking in a way which offends is absolutely vital.

 

If the goal is to belittle, insult or infuriate the other side, then diplomacy is not required and would be best avoided.

 

Propaganda is even less useful. Propaganda means using lies in order to convince. Get caught out using a lie and you've give up all credibility. Be honest throughout, or you have no moral high ground to make any argument from anyway and may as well just walk away.

 

I agree fully- I consider propaganda to be counter-productive: IMO, the last thing atheists need if they want to improve their somewhat dismall success rate in communicating their message, is propaganda- it may produce short term results, but, in the long run, will just make things worse.

[onewheeldave]

I thought you weren't interested in links but as you ask, here's just a couple that criticise the more scientific, in your face approach;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixVNtzc5RqI

http://www.youtube.com/user/skyzthelimi7#p/u/21/9uQVORqVwjo

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

Normally, for reasons given before, i don't follow links to videos, much preferring the info in text form.

 

On this occasion, i gave it a go and watched the first vid (Phil Plait).

 

Very interesting.

 

For a bit of background, I have to say that, in all my interactions with vocal atheists on threads like this over the years, I have not encountered a single one who didn't come across as arrogant, rude, superior, capable of effective communication or, who I thought had any chance whatsoever of getting their message across to a believer.

 

(Not that I usually mention that, in the interests of being diplomatic, but, here, it's relevant).

 

With each new thread/discussion, my opinion of vocal atheists has diminished- not that I like to generalise, but, when every single one you encounter backs it up, it's hard not to.

 

This Phil plait, in this video, is an eye-opener: he is basically addressing what I consider to be fundamental flaws in the typical vocal atheist approach.

 

It's unfortunate that it's a vid, so I can't use the quote function, but, for me, the key points were-

 

1. the sceptical movement is failing to get their message across

2. their message is a hard sell in the first place (i.e. no after-life, no comforting God etc)

3. the key is communication

4. many sceptics are not good at communication

5. (direct quote)- "what we need are diplomats"

 

He asks, what is the goal of the sceptical movement- because, if it is the communication of ideas, we are failing.

 

He asks how many of the sceptics in the audience used to have non-evidence based beliefs (e.g. UFOs, God etc) (most put up their hands) and, how many became sceptics as a result of being called stupid, or by being shouted at/insulted (no hands up).

 

He addresses the rudeness and ineffective hostile approach that is rife within the sceptical movement.

 

I think every sceptic and atheist should watch that video- if the sceptical movement had more people who could see what this man can see, then they'd be in with a half-decent chance of bringing about change for the better and make real inroads in their quest for a more rational world.

 

 

 

 

I was assuming you understood that a part of diplomacy is being able to use rhetoric, spin and propaganda. They are simply subsets of the diplomatic process and are effective if used appropriately.

 

Rhetoric, spin and propaganda are manipulation techniques based on lies and deceit- IMO, any sceptic using them in an attempt to deceive people out of their beliefs, should be ashamed of themselves.

[Cyclone]

Diplomacy is useful when one side is trying to communicate effectively with another- in fact it's probably essential.

 

If communication is the goal, then avoiding speaking in a way which offends is absolutely vital.

 

If the goal is to belittle, insult or infuriate the other side, then diplomacy is not required and would be best avoided.

 

 

 

I agree fully- I consider propaganda to be counter-productive: IMO, the last thing atheists need if they want to improve their somewhat dismall success rate in communicating their message, is propaganda- it may produce short term results, but, in the long run, will just make things worse.

 

I don't think that atheists have any sort of group goal to convince people of how their religious believes are incorrect. But lets assume that they do for a minute.

What makes you think that they're failing. The number of active religious people in this country has been falling for decades now, and most of the remaining ones who give a religion aren't really religious, although if questioned they may well still say that they believe in god.

That sounds like a slow, but steady, movement in the direction which you are suggesting atheists want to move society.

 

Diplomacy doesn't just mean speaking without causing offence, that's just tact, diplomacy is more than that.

 

di·plo·ma·cy

 

1. The profession, activity, or skill of managing international relations, typically by a country's representatives abroad.

2. The art of dealing with people in a sensitive and effective way.

 

tact/takt/

 

Noun: Adroitness and sensitivity in dealing with others or with difficult issues.

 

Maybe it's just a definition thing, but I see diplomacy as a larger set of skills that includes tact within them. A process of negotiation between two parties in order to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome.