Poe's Law and Atheist Parodies

[Phase Inverter]

From time to time I encounter, on skeptical forums, people posing as freshly "converted" atheists thanks to the recent popularity of authors such as Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. They are quickly exposed as theist trolls and begin posting the same refuted arguments that all the regulars have seen time and time again. Another example of this would be The Loser Letters (http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=NDYzNg==).

Often, in these cases, Poe's Law is invoked, which states:

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

In other words, No matter how bizarre, outrageous, or just plain idiotic a parody of a Fundamentalist may seem, there will always be someone who cannot tell that it is a parody, having seen similar REAL ideas from real religious/political Fundamentalists.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law


Here's my question on the issue: When it comes to atheists, is Poe's Law valid?

Now, I realize that Poe's Law only requires that SOMEONE be capable of mistaking a parody for the real thing. That really opens up the possibilities, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to exclude from "SOMEONE" those people who have never actually experienced "the real thing."


Some issues that come to mind are:

Is there a such thing as Fundamentalist Atheism? All the parodies I've seen of atheism have been Straw Man atheists. The people who can't spot the parody are basing their knowledge of "the real thing" on what their preacher tells them about atheists.

If a theist were to accurately present the definition and the rational behind atheism while posing as an atheist, would it still be considered a parody? How would it be humorous?

These are just some thoughts and questions that popped into my head recently concerning this issue. I may be overlooking something here, that's why I'm starting this discussion. What are your thoughts on atheist parodies? What outrageous statements have you heard theists make that they (presumably) thought would go unnoticed as typical atheist jargon?

[Civilized Worm]

"Fundamentalist Atheism" seems to me to be a meaningless term - what are the fundamentals of atheism? - but there are plenty of atheists that are idiots and/or jerks.

[UnrepentantSinner]

As a friend of Nathan Poe on another forum, rationalwiki needs to change it's wording as it originally applied to Creationists. That said, any over the top parody of any position will, without smilies or something else to give it away, be taken seriously by someone.

[Mobyseven]

One word: Rael.

[Phase Inverter]

That said, any over the top parody of any position will, without smilies or something else to give it away, be taken seriously by someone.


There's always someone, isn't there? But, my point was that over-the-top parodies of atheists are more easily believed by someone who has only been exposed to Straw Man atheism.


Hi. I'm an atheist. Since I don't believe in God, I have no absolute morality. It's all about me and whatever feels good at the moment. I'm going out to rape and pillage now.
Yup. Typical atheist. Just like the ones my preacher warned me about.



As a friend of Nathan Poe on another forum, rationalwiki needs to change it's wording as it originally applied to Creationists.


I tried looking up the original post on christianforums.com, but it appears to have been taken down.

[Phase Inverter]

One word: Rael.


I don't get it.

Rael or RAEL may refer to:


Race car driver Claude Vorilhon, now known as Raël, who founded and leads the Raëlian Movement.
The Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley
Rael, the character from the album The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway released in 1974 by the band Genesis
Rael, the title of a song on the album The Who Sell Out released in 1967 by the band The Who
Rael, a character in the Star Trek: The Original Series episode Wink of an Eye

[Mobyseven]

I don't get it.

First one in the wiki. Rael is the founder of the Raelian Movement - basically a atheistic messianistic UFO cult. They're atheists, and believe you me that Poe's Law applies to them.

[Egg]

"Fundamentalist Atheism" seems to me to be a meaningless term - what are the fundamentals of atheism? - but there are plenty of atheists that are idiots and/or jerks.
Well, I think the beliefs of someone who most of us would generally agree to be a 'Fundamental Christian" don't necessarily bear much resemblance to how many Christians would describe the actual fundamentals of Christianity. In a way, "Fundamentalist" has taken on a meaning of its own, which I think is probably the same meaning used when someone talks about "fundamental atheists".

With the growth in popularity of the 'new' atheist authors, it could be said that there are atheist fundamentals being laid down, at least among certain atheists who follow those writers with an almost religious zeal and appear to quote the authors like fundamental Christians quote scripture rather than think for themselves.

I think, for instance, that it would be fairly easy to parody an atheist in their late teens who has just read some 'new atheist' literature and now thinks he has the ammunition to make his Christian friends look more stupid than him. It would probably more a kind of 'cringe' humour, but I suspect it could be hard to tell from the real thing if it was done well.

[UnrepentantSinner]

There's always someone, isn't there? But, my point was that over-the-top parodies of atheists are more easily believed by someone who has only been exposed to Straw Man atheism.

Yep. Just like someone will believe an over-the-top parody of a take your pick - Creationist, fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, environmentalist, Conservative, mysoginist, Star Trek fan, etc. etc. Poe's Law doesn't apply only to fundamentalist Christians or, as it was originally stated, to Creationists.

I tried looking up the original post on christianforums.com, but it appears to have been taken down.

It may have been lost in a database crash (as we've had here a number of times) but if you'd like me to contact him via PM on CF and post his comments here (I don't think he's a member) just ask.

[Phase Inverter]

They're atheists, and believe you me that Poe's Law applies to them.
...I suspect it could be hard to tell from the real thing if it was done well.
Yep. Just like someone will believe an over-the-top parody of a take your pick - Creationist, fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, environmentalist, Conservative, mysoginist, Star Trek fan, etc. etc. Poe's Law doesn't apply only to fundamentalist Christians or, as it was originally stated, to Creationists.


Well, like I said in the OP

These are just some thoughts and questions that popped into my head recently concerning this issue. I may be overlooking something here, that's why I'm starting this discussion.


I guess that since my exposure to atheists is limited to this forum, a few other skeptical forums, youtube, and interviews with Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. I have yet to encounter an atheist arguing for atheism that was so wacky that it seemed like it was parody. I have seen atheists using poor arguments but I guess that's not the same thing.

[Phase Inverter]

It may have been lost in a database crash (as we've had here a number of times) but if you'd like me to contact him via PM on CF and post his comments here (I don't think he's a member) just ask.


Not necessary, since, even though the Law was originally applied to creationists, it seems that 1) there can always be "someone" who, with all sincerity, has the wackiest take on any position and 2) no matter how over-the-top a parody is there is always "someone" who will mistake it for the real thing.

Although one "someone" out of 7.6 Billion is all it takes to prove the Law, I still tend to think that Fundamentalist Christianity / Creationism is much easier to "Poe" than atheism.

[UnrepentantSinner]

PI, I say this as an atheist... you're new here. Even on this forum you will see atheists who seem like doppelgangers of fundy parodies of atheists if you check the appopriate subforums.

On actual atheist forums - this is a skeptics forum, not an atheist forum - you could probably see many more where people go all over-the-top and say crazy stuff and their fellow atheists applaud them or decry them because the actor matches their opinions or preconcieved notions.

[Mobyseven]

PI, I say this as an atheist... you're new here. Even on this forum you will see atheists who seem like doppelgangers of fundy parodies of atheists if you check the appopriate subforums.

On actual atheist forums - this is a skeptics forum, not an atheist forum - you could probably see many more where people go all over-the-top and say crazy stuff and their fellow atheists applaud them or decry them because the actor matches their opinions or preconcieved notions.

And suddenly, a new example dawns on me... :cool:

[Phase Inverter]

...Although one "someone" out of 7.6 Billion is all it takes to prove the Law...


I meant "6.7 billion" but it seems the window of opportunity to edit a post has past. :o

[GreyICE]

Didn't Piggy start a 400-page thread or thereabouts demonstrating exactly how annoying and illogical fundamentalist atheists were?

The point of the thread was something along the lines of "I don't think that the concept of God makes any sense, therefore it proves God doesn't exist."

[quixotecoyote]

Didn't Piggy start a 400-page thread or thereabouts demonstrating exactly how annoying and illogical fundamentalist atheists were?

The point of the thread was something along the lines of "I don't think that the concept of God makes any sense, therefore it proves God doesn't exist."


More along the lines of 'any gods which are honestly believed in are either incoherently defined or provably false.' You can find a strong echo of that thread in the 'you cannot prove or disprove the existence of god thread' which is currently ongoing.

[Phase Inverter]

Didn't Piggy start a 400-page thread or thereabouts demonstrating exactly how annoying and illogical fundamentalist atheists were?


Was it his intent to "demonstrate exactly how annoying and illogical fundamentalist atheists are" or did the argument he was making turn out to be the demonstration?

[Phase Inverter]

You can find a strong echo of that thread in the 'you cannot prove or disprove the existence of god thread' which is currently ongoing.


Yeah, that one went off on a tangent from the OP, didn't it. :boggled:

[GreyICE]

Was it his intent to "demonstrate exactly how annoying and illogical fundamentalist atheists are" or did the argument he was making turn out to be the demonstration?

Number 2. It went something along the lines of "Everyone has a different definition of God, therefore none of them are correct."

Only spread out over 20 pages and with absolutely no brevity or coherence.

[quixotecoyote]

Number 2. It went something along the lines of "Everyone has a different definition of God, therefore none of them are correct."

Only spread out over 20 pages and with absolutely no brevity or coherence.

No it didn't. See previous post.

[GreyICE]

No it didn't. See previous post.

Which, despite many people repeatedly pointing out that his statements were an illogical basis for asserting that God as a concept was provably false, did not stop him from claiming exactly that.

As for the "You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God" thread, that one is completely retarded too because despite theists best arguments, if God was real he could prove his existence quite easily.

The current page of the thread demonstrates this quite nicely, containing one mathematical statement that is flat wrong (The even integers and the integers are the same size, they're the same order of infinity) and a whole bunch of complete nonsense.

[Mobyseven]

Number 2. It went something along the lines of "Everyone has a different definition of God, therefore none of them are correct."

Only spread out over 20 pages and with absolutely no brevity or coherence.

I don't agree with Piggy's position, but you're summary of his argument is unfair and incorrect. His position so far as I can tell is that every definition of god is either so poorly defined as to be meaningless, or provably non-existant.

I don't agree, but it's a significantly better argument that you give him credit for - I feel that it is mostly true and quite useful...just not for the conclusion he assigns to it.

[GreyICE]

I don't agree with Piggy's position, but you're summary of his argument is unfair and incorrect. His position so far as I can tell is that every definition of god is either so poorly defined as to be meaningless, or provably non-existant.

I don't agree, but it's a significantly better argument that you give him credit for - I feel that it is mostly true and quite useful...just not for the conclusion he assigns to it.

The amount of difference between "There is no coherent definition of God in any current religion" and "God does not exist" is so large that the jump was absurd in the extreme.

[Mobyseven]

The amount of difference between "There is no coherent definition of God in any current religion" and "God does not exist" is so large that the jump was absurd in the extreme.

But that's not Piggy's position. There are two points: That the definition of god believed in are provably non-existant; That the definition of god believed in is incoherent and meaningless.

I agree that a jump to, "God can not exist," (Piggy's position, as I understand it, as a 'strong atheist') is unwarranted, but there is much to be said for the point that until one presents a coherent definition of 'god', it is pretty meaningless to say that 'god exists'.

[GreyICE]

But that's not Piggy's position. There are two points: That the definition of god believed in are provably non-existant; That the definition of god believed in is incoherent and meaningless.

I agree that a jump to, "God can not exist," (Piggy's position, as I understand it, as a 'strong atheist') is unwarranted, but there is much to be said for the point that until one presents a coherent definition of 'god', it is pretty meaningless to say that 'god exists'.
Piggy pretty much went further. I attempted to hash out a coherent definition of God, and each time he simply stated that no such definition was possible, because people had at some point believed something different.

In fact he didn't even manage to hash out a reasonable argument to use against agnosticism.

Yes, I would say that thread is a pretty fair definition of how remarkably annoying fundamentalist atheism is.

[Moochie]

Well, I think the beliefs of someone who most of us would generally agree to be a 'Fundamental Christian" don't necessarily bear much resemblance to how many Christians would describe the actual fundamentals of Christianity. In a way, "Fundamentalist" has taken on a meaning of its own, which I think is probably the same meaning used when someone talks about "fundamental atheists".

Yes, "fundamentalist" is regularly used pejoratively, whoever it's applied to.

With the growth in popularity of the 'new' atheist authors, it could be said that there are atheist fundamentals being laid down, ...

Who would be saying this? What "atheist fundamentals" are you referring to? What's "new" about thinking from a position of requiring evidence for claims made by others?

... at least among certain atheists who follow those writers with an almost religious zeal and appear to quote the authors like fundamental Christians quote scripture rather than think for themselves.

Aren't you being a mite uncharitable here? Does it occur to you that for some, reading the likes of Dawkins and Harris may be a defining moment in their maturation as rational thinkers? Are you suggesting that atheists aren't allowed to get excited?

I think, for instance, that it would be fairly easy to parody an atheist in their late teens who has just read some 'new atheist' literature and now thinks he has the ammunition to make his Christian friends look more stupid than him. It would probably more a kind of 'cringe' humour, but I suspect it could be hard to tell from the real thing if it was done well.

It looks to me that these so-called "Loser Letters" were written precisely for an audience of gormless teens, who may be influenced by their author's unsubtle attempt at "with it-ness."

Can you think of any other reason why a person might read books that question one's beliefs, other than to "make his Christian friends look more stupid than him"?


M.

[Egg]

Yes, "fundamentalist" is regularly used pejoratively, whoever it's applied to.



Who would be saying this? What "atheist fundamentals" are you referring to? What's "new" about thinking from a position of requiring evidence for claims made by others?
The "new atheists" isn't my expression and while I'd agree much of what they write isn't particularly new, their books would be pretty short if all they did was reject religion based on lack of evidence.

How about "we're all atheists about most gods, I go one god further", "for good people to do evil takes religion", "those with a moderate faith are providing the climate in which extremism thrives", "bringing up children in a religious environment is child abuse" and other such beliefs that are often repeated for some examples of possible "new atheist" fundamentals?



Aren't you being a mite uncharitable here? Does it occur to you that for some, reading the likes of Dawkins and Harris may be a defining moment in their maturation as rational thinkers? Are you suggesting that atheists aren't allowed to get excited?
In the same way that many fundamental Christians wouldn't fit the parody, I'd imagine you're right about plenty of atheists.


It looks to me that these so-called "Loser Letters" were written precisely for an audience of gormless teens, who may be influenced by their author's unsubtle attempt at "with it-ness."

Can you think of any other reason why a person might read books that question one's beliefs, other than to "make his Christian friends look more stupid than him"?

For sure, but I was talking about the ones who do just that.

[articulett]

I agree that fundamentalist atheist is a meaningless term... how can you be a fundamentalist about what you don't believe in? Are there fundamentalist non-astrologists? Fundamentalist non-scientologists? It's a silly term used by the faithful to imagine that they are being repressed when others don't defer to whatever their magical beliefs are.

If you've been brainwashed to believe that faith is ennobling and the key to salvation, then you must brainwash yourself to also believe that lack of faith is bad and that those who don't have it are evil and bent on destroying your precious gift of faith.

Faith needs the platitudes of other believers to stay alive--and they need to shun the non believer or fear them. The atheist treats all faiths the way the faithful treat the myths and woo they don't share. This forces them to vilify the atheist lest they be forced to examine whether he/she has a case--hence the myth of the "militant" or fundamentalist atheist. Believers seem to only be "open minded" when it comes to their special woo which they've been convinced is true. And they aren't really open minded... since no amount of evidence will sway them... no amount of analogies with similar claims made by people of faiths they don't believe in. They just claim to themselves they are so they can further vilify the one who doesn't defer to their woo.

If it was any other woo that such people weren't deferring too-- the term fundamentalist and militant would not ever be used. People have just been taught to protect faith by hearing what isn't there in the words of atheists, because they NEED them to be bad... it's the same straw man as the inane claim that "science" is just another faith. When I hear that I always think, "man, that person has been really brainwashed by the 'faith in faith' meme (as described by Daniel Dennett)". I know they'd recognize the apologetics if it was a Scientologist or water diviner using such a lame technique to confirm the beliefs they want to have, but I am astounded at how poor such people are to seeing confirmation bias in themselves. Of course you can't fix a bias that you want to keep so you can feel "chosen", "saved", "righteous", "special", "more moral", or "divine".

Believers have been truly militant (using devices of torture) over the eons to try to force people to believe or defer to belief. What atheist is doing such militant things trying to get others to "not believe". Using words is not militant? Mocking magical thinking is not militant either.

I just shake my head glad that I have escaped the mental miasma of ever propping up some delusion because some invisible man wants me to believe it. Believers who proffer these inanities and straw man atheist claims seem to live in a world of spun platitudes, delusions, and indignation that bears no bearing on objective reality or evidence. It is childish... "good guys" and "bad guys".

No matter how you try to convince yourself that there can be something "fundamentalist" about non belief in things that are indistinguishable from delusions-- the evidence is not there. You need a dogma to be "fundamentalist" about-- atheism usually involves the denial of "sacred dogmas" or "divine decrees". There are no fundamentals involved in not believing in something.

[Mobyseven]

Piggy pretty much went further. I attempted to hash out a coherent definition of God, and each time he simply stated that no such definition was possible, because people had at some point believed something different.

That wasn't my understanding of things, but I'll admit that I didn't follow the thread for a great deal of time - it seemed to be heading very much the travelling in circles way - so I may have missed what you're referencing.

In fact he didn't even manage to hash out a reasonable argument to use against agnosticism.

How about, "agnosticism, as commonly defined, is a self-contradictory nonsense statement that confuses an epistemological position with an ontological one, and thus winds up as being nothing more than a fashionable label that means nothing"?

Mind you, "agnosticism" in the purely epistemological sense is fine - hence why I describe myself as an 'agnostic atheist' (though even that lacks the nuance required to explain what I actually believe and don't believe in).

[Mobyseven]

The "new atheists" isn't my expression and while I'd agree much of what they write isn't particularly new, their books would be pretty short if all they did was reject religion based on lack of evidence.

How about "we're all atheists about most gods, I go one god further", "for good people to do evil takes religion", "those with a moderate faith are providing the climate in which extremism thrives", "bringing up children in a religious environment is child abuse" and other such beliefs that are often repeated for some examples of possible "new atheist" fundamentals?

Er...no.

For one...

"we're all atheists about most gods, I go one god further"

...is a statement about rejecting religion based on lack of evidence. For the same reasons as most people reject the existance of the majority of gods - lack of evidence - I reject the existence of all gods.

For two...

"for good people to do evil takes religion"

...is a statement that most 'New Atheists' would probably disagree with - it is not religion, but faith based systems of worship (whether it be worship of god or the government, or something else) that cause this, of which religion is but one example.

For three...

"those with a moderate faith are providing the climate in which extremism thrives"

...is not a fundamental of 'New Atheism' by any means. To suggest that it is is to be unintentionally deceptive. More than that, however, it is not by any means something that is taken on faith - there are very good arguments in support of the statement, which must be dealt with rather than merely pronouncing it a dogma of atheism.

For four...

"bringing up children in a religious environment is child abuse"

...is again, not a fundamental of 'New Atheism'. Many people disagree with this statement, and even Dawkins himself (to whom it is often attributed) has not actually advanced that argument, instead advancing the much less controvertial (or at least it should be) "bringing up children in some religious environments can be more harmful than some types of child abuse".

[articulett]

I wish those using straw man definitions of atheists would use the actual quote about religion and child abuse.

It IS abusive to threaten anyone with hell-- especially young trusting children. I think the Dave Allen clip was humorous, but clear as to why this is so. You're entitled to your opinions, Egg, but it's dishonest to twist the opinions of others to suit your vilification purposes and you've been told this repeatedly. Is there any actual atheist that said what you have quoted them as saying: "bringing up children in a religious environment is child abuse"-- much less a cabal of "new atheists" (plural)? If so, it should be easy to cite your source. I think you are clearly hearing people say things that they have never said in order to foster your own prejudices and feelings of moral superiority.

[Egg]

Er...no.

For one...

...is a statement about rejecting religion based on lack of evidence. For the same reasons as most people reject the existance of the majority of gods - lack of evidence - I reject the existence of all gods.

For two...

...is a statement that most 'New Atheists' would probably disagree with - it is not religion, but faith based systems of worship (whether it be worship of god or the government, or something else) that cause this, of which religion is but one example.

For three...

...is not a fundamental of 'New Atheism' by any means. To suggest that it is is to be unintentionally deceptive. More than that, however, it is not by any means something that is taken on faith - there are very good arguments in support of the statement, which must be dealt with rather than merely pronouncing it a dogma of atheism.

For four...

...is again, not a fundamental of 'New Atheism'. Many people disagree with this statement, and even Dawkins himself (to whom it is often attributed) has not actually advanced that argument, instead advancing the much less controvertial (or at least it should be) "bringing up children in some religious environments can be more harmful than some types of child abuse".

You're taking what I'm saying out of context. I'm talking about fundamentalism in the same way it's used about religion and not so much in reference to the "new atheist" writers themselves, but in reference to a certain type of atheist with a chip on his shoulder repeating such writings, often not even in their correct context, who might be parodied in such a way as to be largely indistinguishable from the real thing.

The fundamentals associated with Wahhabism or right-wing YECs are not what most would regard as the actual fundamentals of Islam or Christianity, yet these will usually be the ones given the "fundamental" label. In the same way, an atheist who at times is anti-religious to the point of irrationality isn't following the same fundamentals that define atheists which as Articulett has just argued may not even necessarily exist.

Another example might be someone insisting that the atrocities committed under communism were for reasons other than atheism and yet citing the crusades and the inquisition as evidence of the evils of faith. It's just the same kind of double standard we see in some religious fundamentalists' thinking.

Being an atheist doesn't somehow automatically free people from irrational dogmatism.

[Mobyseven]

You're taking what I'm saying out of context. I'm talking about fundamentalism in the same way it's used about religion and not so much in reference to the "new atheist" writers themselves, but in reference to a certain type of atheist with a chip on his shoulder repeating such writings, often not even in their correct context, who might be parodied in such a way as to be largely indistinguishable from the real thing.

That I can understand. It wasn't however, what your original post sounded like it was referring to, and I'm sorry that I misunderstood you.

The fundamentals associated with Wahhabism or right-wing YECs are not what most would regard as the actual fundamentals of Islam or Christianity, yet these will usually be the ones given the "fundamental" label.

Well, I don't know about that. What are the fundamentals of Islam or Christianity?

For all the things people say about how fundamentalism is 'twisting' religion and whatnot, there seems to be very little that justifies that assertion. 'Fundamentalist' religion is no more wrong about what the fundamentals are of the religion that anyone else...because, quite frankly, they're all based on factual inaccuracies. They might be unpopular 'fundamentals', and they might be extreme or unpleasant fundamentals...but that doesn't make them the wrong fundamentals.

In the same way, an atheist who at times is anti-religious to the point of irrationality isn't following the same fundamentals that define atheists which as Articulett has just argued may not even necessarily exist.

Except that there really aren't any fundamentals that define atheists - I'll concede one, actually: That to be an atheist one has to lack a belief in god.

That's it. Beyond that, it doesn't matter - you can be an 'agnostic atheist', a 'strong atheist', you can even be a member of a wacked out UFO cult, and you'll still be an atheist so long as you lack a belief in god.

Another example might be someone insisting that the atrocities committed under communism were for reasons other than atheism and yet citing the crusades and the inquisition as evidence of the evils of faith. It's just the same kind of double standard we see in some religious fundamentalists' thinking.

No, it's not - because the atrocities committed in communist regimes were for reasons not pertaining to atheism, and the crusades and the inquisition were a direct consequence of religion and faith. That's not a double standard: That's reality.

Being an atheist doesn't somehow automatically free people from irrational dogmatism.

Never said it did. In fact, it was me who brought up the Raelians.

[Egg]

I wish those using straw man definitions of atheists would use the actual quote about religion and child abuse.

It IS abusive to threaten anyone with hell-- especially young trusting children. I think the Dave Allen clip was humorous, but clear as to why this is so. You're entitled to your opinions, Egg, but it's dishonest to twist the opinions of others to suit your vilification purposes and you've been told this repeatedly. Is there any actual atheist that said what you have quoted them as saying: "bringing up children in a religious environment is child abuse"-- much less a cabal of "new atheists" (plural)? If so, it should be easy to cite your source. I think you are clearly hearing people say things that they have never said in order to foster your own prejudices and feelings of moral superiority.

Fair enough, if we're going to be pedantic, I shortened the quote to save time. I thought it would cover the general meaning.

Here's a list (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/freethinking/) of 500 people who think it should be illegal to bring children up believing in religion. Did I seriously misrepresent them in the way I tried to cover such views with a short quote?

That said, I would remind you of the title of the thread. We are talking about parodies.

[articulett]

No these are people who want to:

"make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16."

In the same way it's illegal to marry them off or wrong to define them by their parents politics or tell them that they will burn in hell if they draw a picture of Mohummed.

Most people are all for teaching kids about religion... but it is abusive to tell them they must believe this specific one is true or "have faith" or they will burn forever. It's very abusive, because children evolved to trust those in charge.

You're mischaracterizing the position in order not to hear the value in what is being said. As it is, anyone can tell their kid any kind of scary stupifying crap all in the name of religion-- and it's off limits for discussion. Some of these kids will grow up and want to blow themselves up for their beliefs-- and you along with them. Your atheist bigotry supports that thinking and our inability to scrutinize such things or stop it.

It's easy to parody a group of people that feel saved for being able to believe an unbelievable story... it's not really easy to parody those who question faith as a means of knowledge.

[Mobyseven]

Here's a list (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/freethinking/) of 500 people who think it should be illegal to bring children up believing in religion. Did I seriously misrepresent them in the way I tried to cover such views with a short quote?

Yes. And you are misrepresenting them still.

[Egg]

No these are people who want to:

"make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16."

In the same way it's illegal to marry them off or define their politics or tell them that they will burn in hell if they a picture of Mohummed.

Most people are all for teaching kids about religion... but it is abusive to tell them they must believe this specific one is true or "have faith" or they will burn forever. It's very abusive, because children evolved to trust those in charge.

You're mischaracterizing the position in order not to here the value in what is being said. As it is, anyone can tell their kid any kind of scary stupifying crap all in the name of religion-- and it's off limits for discussion. Some of these kids will grow up and want to blow themselves up for their beliefs-- and you along with them. You're atheist bigotry supports that thinking and our inability to scrutinize such things or stop it.

The details from the creator of the petition:

"In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought."

Actually the reasons I would be against such a law are nothing to do with the "atheist bigotry" which you suppose I have. Parents will always teach their children the same things that they believe, because strangely enough they believe that those things are true. I think the state has no business stepping in with this kind of thought control just like it shouldn't be illegal for parents to teach their children that God is just a myth.

[articulett]

In the UK religion is put on the birth certificate of the infant I believe and most schools have compulsory religious education. Or at least that is the way it has been in the past. It creates an artificial divisiveness and people are forced to "opt out" of religion rather than "opt in"-- not really a choice. If religion has so much to offer, no one ought to worry about this law, right? Kids will freely choose it at 16 when they can think for themselves... if they want to. Currently kids have compulsory religious education in school with the option of opting out at 16.

[articulett]

Indoctrination involves teaching kids "beliefs" as divine truths that they must believe --usually to be "saved" and "moral". It usually involves atheist bigotry like you promote and fear of non-belief. It tells trusting kids that you can "know" something via faith. That is a lie.

Telling kids what various people believe or what Mom and Dad have chosen to believe is not the same as indoctrinating kids. We both chose to quote the same piece... and yet you still see "bad stuff" that just isn't there. You continue to argue that it's good to believe in "belief". Where's the evidence?

Never mind. We know you don't have any. And it's not the topic of this thread anyhow. It's just part of your quest to build up your beliefs about atheists so you can feel better by having faith in whatever it is you have faith in.

I've yet to see such types "evolve". Your parody is a straw man... not a parody. Your faith seems to be affecting your reasoning ability along with your sense of humor.

If this is the best you've got... then there really is no atheist equivalent of poe's law.

[articulett]

The details from the creator of the petition:

"In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought."

Actually the reasons I would be against such a law are nothing to do with the "atheist bigotry" which you suppose I have. Parents will always teach their children the same things that they believe, because strangely enough they believe that those things are true. I think the state has no business stepping in with this kind of thought control just like it shouldn't be illegal for parents to teach their children that God is just a myth.

No ability to understand shades of grey, eh? Blame the immature thinking brought to you by those who indoctrinated you. How about teaching them, "mummy and daddy believe this because we were indoctrinated to... other people believe this because their parents told them it was true... many people believed these myths because humans make up explanations for things they don't understand..." etc. Pass on beliefs and customs and beliefs and customs-- not magical higher truths and salvation plans!

Per your reasoning-- anything goes in the name of faith because the parents really, really believe it... Fred Phelps, homosexual hatred, aspiring to be a suicide bomber, polygamous clans, prayers instead of medicine, Sylvia Browne's woo, Scientology, Jonestown-- all of it-- unquestioned-- because how dare anyone question "faith". You don't get to keep some faiths free of scrutiny because they are the woo you have been indoctrinated to protect.

I tell my students and son that most people believe whatever the people they trust told them is true and that atheists are people who don't feel there is sufficient reason (or evidence) to believe in any gods. Simple.

[GreyICE]

How about, "agnosticism, as commonly defined, is a self-contradictory nonsense statement that confuses an epistemological position with an ontological one, and thus winds up as being nothing more than a fashionable label that means nothing"?

Mind you, "agnosticism" in the purely epistemological sense is fine - hence why I describe myself as an 'agnostic atheist' (though even that lacks the nuance required to explain what I actually believe and don't believe in).

I'd say that that argument is nicely skewered with "You don't need to hold a position statement on whether something exists if your position statement is you just can't know." Or, in other words, "You're being unnecessarily wordy with your false dichotomy."

[Mobyseven]

I'd say that that argument is nicely skewered with "You don't need to hold a position statement on whether something exists if your position statement is you just can't know." Or, in other words, "You're being unnecessarily wordy with your false dichotomy."

A ontological position is unavoidable - the 'default' position is always non-belief. This is not a false dichotomy, it's confusing an ontological statement with an epistemological statement. The epistemological position may have many shades of grey, but the ontological position is as black and white as they come: Existence or non-existence.

If someone tells me they, "Don't believe in god, but don't NOT believe in god," they are asserting a nonsense statement, a logical contradiction. That's not a false dichotomy, that's the way logic and beliefs work.

It is important, when dealing with questions like these, not to focus so hard on the shades of grey that one forgets what black and white look like when they see them.

[GreyICE]

A ontological position is unavoidable - the 'default' position is always non-belief. This is not a false dichotomy, it's confusing an ontological statement with an epistemological statement. The epistemological position may have many shades of grey, but the ontological position is as black and white as they come: Existence or non-existence.

If someone tells me they, "Don't believe in god, but don't NOT believe in god," they are asserting a nonsense statement, a logical contradiction. That's not a false dichotomy, that's the way logic and beliefs work.

It is important, when dealing with questions like these, not to focus so hard on the shades of grey that one forgets what black and white look like when they see them.

You have decided to eliminate shades of grey with a sledgehammer. The position "we don't have enough data to comment on God's existence" is perfectly valid.

Saying that position is not available is false dichotomy. You've created a binary choice.

[articulett]

Maybe-- but either you believe in demons or you don't, right? You either believe that invisible undetectable forms of consciousness can exist or you don't.

Believing in god is indistinguishable in regards to veracity as the belief that space aliens are visiting earth. But most people are not "on the fence" about such things. The same should be true of god because the evidence is equal.

I know that some people like to think of agnosticism as some middle ground-- but it's not-- You may be apathetic about whether there is an invisible entity that wants you to believe in him... or you may have defined him so poorly that god means anything you want it to be... but being on the fence about "god" is as logically goofy as being on the fence about astrology.

[Dragon]

Fair enough, if we're going to be pedantic, I shortened the quote to save time. I thought it would cover the general meaning.

Here's a list (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/freethinking/) of 500 people who think it should be illegal to bring children up believing in religion. Did I seriously misrepresent them in the way I tried to cover such views with a short quote?

That said, I would remind you of the title of the thread. We are talking about parodies.
Before you relied on that petition you might have taken the trouble to check some of the "signatories" -
Pollyanna?
Dr (I am god) Dawkins?
Atheists Are Gay?
wonder if it is worth my while to?

- hmmm

[Civilized Worm]

In the UK religion is put on the birth certificate of the infant I believe and most schools have compulsory religious education. Or at least that is the way it has been in the past. It creates an artificial divisiveness and people are forced to "opt out" of religion rather than "opt in"-- not really a choice. If religion has so much to offer, no one ought to worry about this law, right? Kids will freely choose it at 16 when they can think for themselves... if they want to. Currently kids have compulsory religious education in school with the option of opting out at 16.


Religious education is not education in any particular religion but rather educating children about the many different religions of the world, where they came from and what they say. This objective look at religion and the many different forms it takes has probably led to many children thinking about their own religion more rationally. Richard Dawkins supports this form of religious education and hope to see it taught in US schools. In fact it was learning about the existence of other religions that first led him to doubt his own.

[articulett]

Yes. I do too. I was trying to illustrate how you can teach about religion with indoctrinating or labeling a child with religion. My understanding was that at least in some cases in the UK, religious education was mandatory including "chapel" and prayers-- and kids could not opt out. That would be a violation in a public school in the US. Apparently it is (or was) common in UK private schools (which are the equivalent of public schools here?--or something like that).

Our free schools are public and secular. Our private schools cost money but may be religious and indoctrinate. Homeschooling is known to home grow some particularly strong religiously indoctrinated/scientifically ignorant kids in America. Parents can force their kids to be indoctrinated... this should, of course, be illegal. It is illegal in a public school here.

[GreyICE]

Maybe-- but either you believe in demons or you don't, right? You either believe that invisible undetectable forms of consciousness can exist or you don't.

Believing in god is indistinguishable in regards to veracity as the belief that space aliens are visiting earth. But most people are not "on the fence" about such things. The same should be true of god because the evidence is equal.

I know that some people like to think of agnosticism as some middle ground-- but it's not-- You may be apathetic about whether there is an invisible entity that wants you to believe in him... or you may have defined him so poorly that god means anything you want it to be... but being on the fence about "god" is as logically goofy as being on the fence about astrology.

Not really. You're conflating two things that don't necessarily work together.

A general statement of belief or non-belief in God is on the same level as belief or non-belief in intelligent lifeforms on other planets - 'aliens,' if you will.

The statement "Aliens are visiting earth" is a positive statement about the actions of said intelligent lifeforms. It posits certain inevitable concepts. They need a way to travel here from another star system. Limited to lightspeed, that's a pain. They need to have gone undetected in their approach. They need to be able to survive interstellar distances with no real difficulty. They need to then have detected us (pretty much inevitable) and decided to not interact with us. Furthermore, for them to be evident to the believers, they need to have specifically interacted with the believers in such a way to make their existence obvious, but avoided general observation.

This is SO unlikely, stupid, and generally logically confounding, that it's absurd. The appropriate analogy for this belief is Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and so on and so forth. The space aliens are doing something, and they are doing it in such a way that it is completely evident to true believers, but completely unconvincing to the general population, and leaves no tangible evidence.

Agnosticism is analogous to saying "well, there might be intelligent life somewhere in the galaxy, but I really doubt it's doing what you say it's doing."

[Mobyseven]

You have decided to eliminate shades of grey with a sledgehammer. The position "we don't have enough data to comment on God's existence" is perfectly valid.

That position is perfectly valid only if the following are accepted as perfectly valid:

We don't have enough data to comment on Bigfoot's existence.
We don't have enough data to comment on the existence of unicorns.
We don't have enough data to comment on the existence of leprechauns.
We don't have enough data to comment on the existence of x, where x is an object or entity for which no evidence exists and which does not have any true explanatory power.

By refusing to accept that the default ontological position is one of non-existence, one creates a situation whereby it is impossible for one to say that anything does not exist. Moreover, by saying "We don't have enough data," one is not making an ontological statement but an epistemological one.

By asserting 'agnosticism' (as is popularly defined) is to assert a logical contradiction: ~p & ~~p. It is a nonsense position, as it confuses the epistemological question of how certain we can be in our beliefs with the ontological belief position itself. If you want to know whether or not a self-described 'agnostic' is an atheist or a theist, one need merely ask the question, "Which god do you believe in?" If the answer is, "None," then that person is, by definition and inescapably, an atheist.

Saying that position is not available is false dichotomy. You've created a binary choice.

"False dichotomy, binary choice!" Oh, for Ed's sake, do you know how damn annoying it is to read that again? It's like whining in written form. No, it's not a false dichotomy, and I haven't created any binary choices. The choice is binary precisely because it is a true dichotomy. I'm all for pointing out the shades of grey, but only when they actually exist. It's just annoying when someone incorrectly insists on creating shades of grey where they don't exist and don't belong.

[GreyICE]

That position is perfectly valid only if the following are accepted as perfectly valid:

We don't have enough data to comment on Bigfoot's existence. Yes we do. We have extensively explored the planet, and mapped all of the potential habitats of a man-sized creature. Moreover, though the number of species we name continue to grow, the discoveries of new, large mammels have fallen off.

If this was 600 BCE and we had mapped, say, maybe 500 square miles of the planet's surface, we wouldn't have any ability to comment on bigfoot's existence (just as we had, at that time, no ability to comment on the existence of Elephants, Pandas, Zebras, Dragons, Chimeras, Giraffes, Crocodile, or any other species of large animal)
We don't have enough data to comment on the existence of unicorns.
We don't have enough data to comment on the existence of leprechauns.
See above.
We don't have enough data to comment on the existence of x, wherex is an object or entity for which no evidence exists and which does not have any true explanatory power.
God has explanatory power regarding how the universe came into being - it created it.

As for "True explanatory power" is that anything like a "true Scottsman?" Whatever it is, I'm thinking it doesn't own a kilt.

By refusing to accept that the default ontological position is one of non-existence, one creates a situation whereby it is impossible for one to say that anything does not exist. Moreover, by saying "We don't have enough data," one is not making an ontological statement but an epistemological one.Correct. It is an epistemological statement. However, the epistimological statement informs the ontological one, if you wish to keep saying "It's not a position on whether or not something exists, but whether or not we can know it exists" and then treat the two entities as dissimilar.

If you wish to debate this, consider the statement: 'We cannot determine the cardinality of the infinite set of real numbers (yes this is inspired by the other thread).'

Epistemological or ontological?


By asserting 'agnosticism' (as is popularly defined) is to assert a logical contradiction: ~p & ~~p. It is a nonsense position, as it confuses the epistemological question of how certain we can be in our beliefs with the ontological belief position itself. If you want to know whether or not a self-described 'agnostic' is an atheist or a theist, one need merely ask the question, "Which god do you believe in?" If the answer is, "None," then that person is, by definition and inescapably, an atheist.
Which theory of gravity do you believe in?


"False dichotomy, binary choice!" Oh, for Ed's sake, do you know how damn annoying it is to read that again? It's like whining in written form. No, it's not a false dichotomy, and I haven't created any binary choices. The choice is binary precisely because it is a true dichotomy. I'm all for pointing out the shades of grey, but only when they actually exist. It's just annoying when someone incorrectly insists on creating shades of grey where they don't exist and don't belong. Are you a Republican or Democrat?

Do you believe or disbelieve Newton's theory of gravitation?

[articulett]

I'm not going to go off on the agnostic apologetic derail; it's off topic anyhow. Most skeptics don't believe in things which are indistinguishable from the stuff humans are readily fooled about-- this includes invisible entities with divine powers. If it's indistinguishable from a delusion or so incoherent that you cannot tell what the heck someone "sin" or is on the fence about-- then it is woo in my book. I don't care if it makes sense in someone's head. I care about whether it makes any objective sense.

Yes, I know all the people who imagine themselves fence sitters love to imagine themselves more moral as they promote their "fundamentalist atheist" delusion-- but nobody but them seems to be buying it.

As much as believers and fence sitters would like to believe in "fundamentalist atheism"-- I see it as yet another delusion to prop their imagined moral superiority which they believe comes from their "faith" or fence sitting or protection of the "faith in faith" meme.

The answer to the OP is "no". The same answer given when people accuse science of just being another faith.

In the rational world being on the fence about one invisible immeasurable entity is the same as being on the fence about all of them-- demons, hobgoblins, unicorns, sprites, incubi, etc. There is no way to distinguish one from another after all-- and no way to distinguish any of them from delusions/misperceptions of such.

[Egg]

Yes. And you are misrepresenting them still.

If there's a difference it's a pretty subtle one and in terms of the topic we're discussing, would it really be so unlikely to hear the sort of atheist I was referring to use the words I used?

To actually quote Dawkins, himself: "Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of bringing them up Catholic in the first place".

What's the big difference between "bringing them up Catholic" and "to bring children up believing in religion" other than one is specifying Catholicism?

[articulett]

He's comparing the religious mental manipulations with the harms of priests physically abusing children... it's not the same as saying "bringing up children in a religious environment is child abuse". Moreover, it's an opinion with evidence in support of it. It's not a tenet that must be believed or a fundamental of faith.

You do understand the difference between opinions as to whether something is harmful to children and beliefs that doctrines require of the faithful, right? And that would be apropos to this thread-- right?

Fundamentalism has to do with tenets or creeds or authoritarian approach to the fundamental teachings of something...

There are good reasons why one might hold the opinion that telling their kids that God killed his kid for them is abusive... or why telling them that they needed to believe this or suffer forever is abusive.

There's not really a good reason to tell kids that a wafer turns into the actual body of Jesus just like there is not a good reason to tell kids that god wants them to die fighting his battles or that God hates fags or that god disallows blood transfusions.

See the difference?

[Autolite]

I am not sure that it's possible to make a parody of Atheism. Atheism is simply the acknowledgment of reality. I've heard jokes directed at Atheists like "An Atheist funeral is the deceased getting all dressed up and having no-where to go". I find the joke humorless but not because I'm insulted but because it's a simple statement of a fact. It's like saying "2+2=4" in a joking fashion. How do you make Atheism "funny"???

[epeos76]

He's comparing the religious mental manipulations with the harms of priests physically abusing children... it's not the same as saying "bringing up children in a religious environment is child abuse".

Oh, come on. The quote suggests that bringing kids up Catholic does more harm than physical abuse does. There isn't a lot of room for interpretation. The conclusion is that parents who bring their kids up in a religious environment have done them "more lasting harm" than if the parents had allowed the kids to be physically abused.

But why dance around equivovating about what Dawkins thinks? Do you think religious instruction is general harmful to kids? Do think it is a serious harm?

Why would it be embarrassing if Dawkins had said flat out that religion is a form of child abuse?

[articulett]

Yes, I think religious indoctrination, though humorously depicted here: jxo81Ok9Urk is abusive... I think you make really poor use of young trusting brains when you tell them that the most honorable thing they can do is to have "faith" and obedience to some invisible man and his spokesperson on earth (or burn eternally). I think that it's sick that we can pretend like it's fine to tell kids these bizarre things as though they are "higher truths". I think it's wrong to tell anyone that you can "know" anything true through faith, because it makes them vulnerable to every one who can convince them they have access to some divine truth. I wish nobody had done so to me.

So yes-- I think it's twisted... I think the clip is humorous... but like Poe's law-- indistinguishable from actual experiences... it all very likely happened just as he said. And if you wouldn't want some Muslim or Scientologist teacher indoctrinating your kids with their heartfelt beliefs you shoudn't be encouraging anyone to indoctrinate their kids with "beliefs" dressed up as "higher truths" that they will be rewarded for "believing in"... if it isn't right for them, then it isn't right for any kid-- for the same reasons!

It is easy to parody religion because they are crazy... the whole PZ cracker debacle is whacked!--kidnapping Jesus-- ??? If you weren't so brainwashed you'd be agog. You have to have serious blinders on not to be. But there is nothing in atheism that is like that... there are twisted versions that theists proffer about what atheists think... but they are not actual reflections of what atheists think. I'm sure not every atheist shares my opinions about religion... but that's the thing about not believing in something--there is NO belief that anyone is required to share to be an atheist! Our disbelief in your god is the same as your disbelief in Scientology. No more. No less. And none more "fundamental".

[epeos76]

Then we have at least one example to support Egg's characterization. I doubt you are alone. So why are you arguing with Egg over his correct perception that there are atheists who think religious instruction is a form of abuse?

As far as self-parodying atheist tirades, how about the "critique" of christianity put forth by certain 9-11 truthers?

[articulett]

Religious indoctrination.

Dawkins and I and most atheists are all for kids learning about the various beliefs people hold... just not teaching them that there is one truth they must believe or be punished forever.

That's a logical belief. You can parody it and twist it to pretend we want to go into homes and confiscate kids saying their bedtime prayers, but that is clearly not happening... whereas, if you can imagine a crazy thing in religion... it's happening somewhere...

You just end up with all sorts of wacky when you ennoble the idea that it's good to believe a unbelievable unevidenced story-- especially when you promise salvation and tell people they are better than others for believing it... more so when you tell them that horrible things will happen to people who don't believe and/or that people who don't believe are horrible!

Get it? If not, blame faith for making your mind a little slow in the critical thinking department. It seems you and Egg aren't even clear on what Poe's law is, so whatever you are trying to argue, just sounds tangential. You seem to be trying to convince yourself that there is a valid equivalent of Poe's law for atheists, but it doesn't sound like anyone feels you have made a coherent case for such. Where is an actual atheist parody that is indistinguishable from actual atheist "fundamentals"? Where is and actual atheist "tenet" that is as crazy as what young earth creationists accept on faith?

If you think it's abusive for people to raise their kids to be suicide bombers because they really really believe it-- then you understand Dawkins actual opinion. It's not "whacked"--it's the product of intelligent thought--not a faith based tenet. If you need to twist it so that you imagine he's trying to kidnap your kids and force them to not believe whatever myths you've decided to tell them, you have a straw man-- not a parody. If you cannot tell the difference, you aren't qualified to answer the OP, because you don't have the understanding necessary to answer it.

You, instead, are coming across like GreyICE-- You have a strong belief in the atheist straw man-- but you have no evidence in support of the OP.

[epeos76]

Religious indoctrination thenis teaching kids that a particular religion is true, is it? It's a distinction without a difference, as far as Egg's point goes Articullet.

Egg is correct, you and some other atheists think that teaching a child that any particular religion is true is a form of abuse. Some of you apparently think it does more harm than physical abuse.

Again, why quibble with Egg over his perfectly correct perception? I don't see you as someone who is embarrassed to hold that position.

[GreyICE]

Yes, no one else thinks this way.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,911,Atheists-split-on-how-to-not-believe,Jay-Lindsay-AP,page4

One sign of fundamentalism - the fundamentalist refuses to accept any criticism from anyone within 'the cause' and persists in defining anyone who critiques their actions as being 'apologists' or 'enemies' of their movement.

If you can't accept criticism, you're a fundamentalist.

[quixotecoyote]

Yes, no one else thinks this way.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,911,Atheists-split-on-how-to-not-believe,Jay-Lindsay-AP,page4

One sign of fundamentalism - the fundamentalist refuses to accept any criticism from anyone within 'the cause' and persists in defining anyone who critiques their actions as being 'apologists' or 'enemies' of their movement.

If you can't accept criticism, you're a fundamentalist.

If you don't like chocolate pudding or use velcro instead of shoelaces, you're a fundamentalist.

Come on everyone, let's make a list! Everyone gets a definition!

[andyandy]

In the UK religion is put on the birth certificate of the infant I believe and most schools have compulsory religious education. Or at least that is the way it has been in the past. It creates an artificial divisiveness and people are forced to "opt out" of religion rather than "opt in"-- not really a choice. If religion has so much to offer, no one ought to worry about this law, right? Kids will freely choose it at 16 when they can think for themselves... if they want to. Currently kids have compulsory religious education in school with the option of opting out at 16.

As has already been pointed out previously to you, religious education is not the same as religious indoctrination. Religious education simply means learning about religions - notice the plural. I can't think of any greater way of challenging belief than educating children as to the vast panoply of different beliefs that people hold. The absolute worst idea would seem to be to ban all religious discussion from the classroom and to leave the only exposure that children have to religion to parents who could then indoctrinate their children with impunity. All sceptics should embrace the dissemination of knowledge and understanding as a means of combating irrationality.

The education syllabus, being as it necessitates the discussion of a large number of gods, has at its heart "why this God and not others?" probably the most corrosive question for the strongly religious. Given that the UK is a far more secular country than America, maybe a bit of religious education might do you some good. :)

[Mister Agenda]

Oh, come on. The quote suggests that bringing kids up Catholic does more harm than physical abuse does. There isn't a lot of room for interpretation. The conclusion is that parents who bring their kids up in a religious environment have done them "more lasting harm" than if the parents had allowed the kids to be physically abused.

But why dance around equivovating about what Dawkins thinks? Do you think religious instruction is general harmful to kids? Do think it is a serious harm?

Why would it be embarrassing if Dawkins had said flat out that religion is a form of child abuse?

It depends on what sort of religous upbringing is involved. Most of it is not harmful enough to rise to the level of abuse, IMO. It is certainly arguable, however, that cases where someone has murdered or committed suicide over their religous beliefs, their religous indoctrination may have been equivalent to abuse. . It is even arguable that the same would be true of the many people who have neuroses related to their religous upbringing. And I think that someone who got the same kind of upbringing but turned out 'okay' was still abused. Just teaching your children to be gullible followers, OTH, doesn't quite rise to the level of actual abuse in my book, and certainly is preferable than them getting molested.

So I don't think in general that religous indoctrination is a serious harm to children, but I think it sometimes rises to that level. I also think some parents are physically abusive to their children for religous reasons.

It wouldn't be a problem for Dawkins to say that...maybe inaccurate, as his point was about religous indoctrination of children rather than religion as an institution, but not a problem, as long as he doesn't seek to protect children from their parent's religous teachings by force.

There's a difference between thinking something is bad and thinking that it's appropriate to bring out the guns and night sticks to stop it. If parents lose the right to screw up their kids, there won't be anyone left to raise them at all.

[GreyICE]

If you don't like chocolate pudding or use velcro instead of shoelaces, you're a fundamentalist.

Come on everyone, let's make a list! Everyone gets a definition! Sure. Mine is "If you can't accept criticism of your beliefs or your presentation of your beliefs and insist on defining anyone who acts or thinks differently from you as an enemy, you're a fundamentalist."

Yours can be "You don't like chocolate pudding."

Oh and by the way, if you define rape of children as equivalent to sending them to Sunday School, yes, you do get to sit there and watch while everyone makes fun of you.

Come on, we'd all be jumping over any theist who said that raping children was less harmful than raising the kid atheist. Even if he was being misinterpreted, we'd still jump all over him. You swing that 180 degrees, and...

[quixotecoyote]

Sure. Mine is "If you can't accept criticism of your beliefs or your presentation of your beliefs and insist on defining anyone who acts or thinks differently from you as an enemy, you're a fundamentalist."

Yours can be "You don't like chocolate pudding."

Oh and by the way, if you define rape of children as equivalent to sending them to Sunday School, yes, you do get to sit there and watch while everyone makes fun of you.

Come on, we'd all be jumping over any theist who said that raping children was less harmful than raising the kid atheist. Even if he was being misinterpreted, we'd still jump all over him. You swing that 180 degrees, and...

You know Dawkins was misinterpreted but you still want to criticize him. What warped sort of view are you promoting?

[GreyICE]

You know Dawkins was misinterpreted but you still want to criticize him. What warped sort of view are you promoting?

I don't particularly think I am badly misinterpreting him. He was equating the long-term harm that rape does with the long-term harm of religious upbringing.

As I said, if any priest said the same about an atheist upbringing, we'd be all over him, even in context.

[epeos76]

@ AndyAndy,

Oh, there is a clear distinction between teaching about the beliefs of competing religions, and teaching that a particular religion is true. It is nonetheless a complete red herring with respect to my point.

The point is simply that some athiests - including Articullet! - do indeed think that teaching a child that a particular religion is true is a form of abuse. Some - including Dawkins! - think it may cause "more lasting harm" than physical abuse.

There is no reason to muddy the waters on that point. If Dawkins' observation is sound, then it doesn't fulfill Poe's law (because it is not ridiculous), and atheists are in no danger of having to laugh at other members of the clan. Whether anyone holds that position or not is a separate question. It is a matter of fact.


With respect to the OP, how about the 9-11 related "debunkings" of Christianity? Everything in there pass the straight face test for you?

[epeos76]

There's a difference between thinking something is bad and thinking that it's appropriate to bring out the guns and night sticks to stop it. If parents lose the right to screw up their kids, there won't be anyone left to raise them at all.


I don't really disagree with what you've said here. In a different thread, I might make a case for rationally discriminating between religious beliefs, but I think we're pretty much on the same page, and it well tread ground.

At the same time, there is a moment when it's appropriate to bring out the guns and the night sticks. Sexual abuse of a child is one such in my opinion. An argument that religious indoctrination may be more harmful than physical abuse is IMO not really different than an argument that religious indoctrination may belong in that category.

[Mobyseven]

Yes we do. We have extensively explored the planet, and mapped all of the potential habitats of a man-sized creature. Moreover, though the number of species we name continue to grow, the discoveries of new, large mammels have fallen off.

If this was 600 BCE and we had mapped, say, maybe 500 square miles of the planet's surface, we wouldn't have any ability to comment on bigfoot's existence (just as we had, at that time, no ability to comment on the existence of Elephants, Pandas, Zebras, Dragons, Chimeras, Giraffes, Crocodile, or any other species of large animal)
See above.
God has explanatory power regarding how the universe came into being - it created it.

As for "True explanatory power" is that anything like a "true Scottsman?" Whatever it is, I'm thinking it doesn't own a kilt.
Correct. It is an epistemological statement. However, the epistimological statement informs the ontological one, if you wish to keep saying "It's not a position on whether or not something exists, but whether or not we can know it exists" and then treat the two entities as dissimilar.

If you wish to debate this, consider the statement: 'We cannot determine the cardinality of the infinite set of real numbers (yes this is inspired by the other thread).'

Epistemological or ontological?

Which theory of gravity do you believe in?
Are you a Republican or Democrat?

Do you believe or disbelieve Newton's theory of gravitation?

I'll let the utter stupidity of this post stand for itself, quite frankly. I've discussed this topic to death on this forum with people who, quite frankly, were a damn site smarter and more polite: I've absolutely no desire to waste my time with someone who can't tell the difference between a political position and an ontological position; who thinks he's smart because he throws out names of fallacies like 'No True Scotsman' without actually stopping to pause and evaluate his own moronic position; who thinks that every dichotomy is a false dichotomy.

[Mobyseven]

As I said, if any priest said the same about an atheist upbringing, we'd be all over him, even in context.

What if he was right?

[articulett]

Religious indoctrination thenis teaching kids that a particular religion is true, is it? It's a distinction without a difference, as far as Egg's point goes Articullet.

Egg is correct, you and some other atheists think that teaching a child that any particular religion is true is a form of abuse. Some of you apparently think it does more harm than physical abuse.

Again, why quibble with Egg over his perfectly correct perception? I don't see you as someone who is embarrassed to hold that position.

Do you think it's abusive to tell kids that hurricanes are caused by homosexuals?
Do you think it's abusive to tell kids that Americans are the cause of all evil?
Do you think it's abusive to tell your kid that what god loves most is someone willing to die in a holy war for him?
Do you think it's abusive to tell kids atheists are evil and that people who don't believe as they do will burn in hell for ever?
Do you think it's abusive to let a kid die because you believe a blood transfusion would make them go to hell?
Do you think it's abusive to tell a young girl that god has told his prophet that she must marry this old man and give himself to him heart, body, and soul or perish for her lack of faith?
Do you think it's abusive to raise your kid in Jonestown?
Do you think it's abusive to indoctrinate your kid with Scientology or Sylvia Browne's churches teachings?
Do you think it's abusive to tell your kids that dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to test your faith?
Do you think it's abusive to let a kid die because you believe god wants you to prove your faith by praying rather than seeing a doctor?

If you think any of these are abusive how do you justify that it's fine to indoctrinate kids with whatever their parents believe? Why should you get determine which are the good beliefs and which are bad? If someone shoved these ideas in your kid's head without your consent, wouldn't you speak up? And yet, you think it's fine for other parents to do so? You must if your position is that parents should have utter freedom to indoctrinate their kids with whatever they really really believe is true.

Everyone thinks there beliefs are the right true ones that will reward them in the afterlife. Everyone who believes that faith is the key to salvation is at risk for abuse by those who can convince them they have access to the correct faith. When you argue for your right to indoctrinate your kids as you believe you also support the right of those raising kids to think god wants them to grow up and be a suicide bomber.

The fact that you don't understand this, shows quite obviously that you want your version of faith protected because you believe it's better or righter or less abusive. But there is no method for anyone to objectively say one magic story is better or truer than another. Don't you see?

So yes, it is abusive to tell your kids that there is a divine truth they must believe in order to be saved-- and most religions do teach that-- or rather "indoctrinate" that belief as a "higher truth"... of course, they don't agree on these divine truths but they all think these divine truths trump mortal laws and common sense and that they are worth doing anything for (after all-- eternity is at stake). Moreover, there is no evidence that anyone has any access to any divine truths-- or even that such things exist. That is something all kids ought to know--don't you think? And all kids ought to learn that faith is not a means of knowing anything verifiable or objectively true... it's just a way to feel like you know something true-- something you cannot verify by anything other than feelings. This understanding helps immunize them from scam artists, deluded people, and cults.

So, getting back on topic... not that some people ever understood the topic-- that is why it's easy to parody "belief in belief".... Kissing Hanks Ass is really a great parody of many beliefs. It's not a straw man, because it has all the elements of "faith in faith".

But just as it would be hard to parody someone who didn't believe in astrology... you can't really parody people whose only defining characteristic is that they don't believe in any invisible entities one might describe as "gods".

There are no fundamentals to non belief in gods just as there are no fundamentals to non belief in demons or non-belief in psychic powers. The fact that you continue to "not get this" makes it obvious to the majority that you are trying to convince yourself that your straw man view of atheism has some basis in fact and thus is somehow equivalent in regards to Poe's law. But you don't even seem to "get" Poe's law... you just seem mad that it exists and so you are doing the weird goal post moving that people do when they say "science is just another faith". You don't want any religion but your own brand to be considered when considering religion as a whole or institution-- You're fine with calling that other stuff abusive-- but you want some brands of woo shielded from that scrutiny so you pretend that people hold a position they do not hold while refusing to admit you hold an identical position to all the woo you find untrue and bizarre and "out there" and abusive.

You're just miffed when your woo is tossed in the same judgment/mockery pile as just another example of "faith in faith". That's an apologist in my book.

[GreyICE]

What if he was right?

Well, being a skeptic, I'd say I've seen plenty of documented evidence from psychiatrists, social workers, state workers, and other organizations, of the effect of pedophilia and childhood sexual abuse on children.

To say that they were right about the effects, I would need to see some pretty convincing evidence along those lines. Anecdotal? Not going to cut it.

By the way, I don't think your ontological nonsense is as strong as you think it is. Also, I'm sorry, but saying something has no 'true' explanatory power and just dangling it is a huge problem. You're basically running out a controversial position and then giving yourself an escape clause. If you dislike this being noted, just don't do it. State what you mean, and if you feel that it leaves open the possibility of misinterpreting it, explain what you mean. Don't run out something you think can be misinterpreted, and then wait for minsinterpretations because you aren't explaining yourself.

[President Bush]

Claiming design to be a good analogy for evolution used to make me wonder if this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94834) OP might have been a parody posted by a troll fundy just to see how far it would go.

[Zelenius]

The best atheist parodies I've witnessed didn't so much involve ridiculous arguments in favor of atheism or the "slogans" from the "new atheist" authors, but rather focused on certain extreme stereotypes of atheistic psychology. I mean "best" in terms of being convincing, or emotionally powerful, as opposed to humorous and obvious.

Basically, a clever believer(of which religion I'm not sure) pretending to be an atheist would claim to be morose and depressed over the godlessness of their life. They will talk about how utterly "meaningless" and "pointless" the universe and human existence is without God. They will also focus on being obsessed with death and especially their own mortality, how they are depressed over their finite existence, and how death is the end and there is nothing after - every breath you take is one step closer to death. We learn and work and love our entire lives, only to lose everything in the end as if it all meant nothing, they'll say. A dark, bleak, meaningless, horrible existence it is being an atheist they will claim, where we are born simply to die.

As depressing as some of this sounds, it is kind of funny the lengths people will go to make atheism look bad. In many ways this is more a parody of extreme nihilism rather than atheism, but believers often deliberately confuse the two. Atheism is different from nihilism, although a good many nihilists are also atheists or at least start out as atheists; there's no reason a committed god-believer can't be a nihilist, although they seem to be rare. Of course, most atheists are not severely depressed and some are quite happy. Also, atheism doesn't necessarily mean not believing in an afterlife; I've met many atheists who seem to believe in some version of an "afterlife", although most do not it seems. Unfortunately, I've known some atheists who come a little too close to the parody I just described, so if you see something like this, it is possible you may be witnessing a severely depressed atheistic-nihilist, and not a parodist, unfortunately(and for the record, I've known plenty of deeply religious Christians, and a few Muslims, who are extremely depressed as well).

[articulett]

Yes... I love the fake atheists... or the "I used to be atheist but..."

They are pretty easy to peg because when you ask them what they were before they were an atheist and why they became an atheist, they don't answer... or they give theist straw man answers (I was mad at god... wanted to sin... yada... ) don't sound like any atheists I know or anyone who really took the time to think themselves towards such a conclusion. The atheists I know sound very cogent regarding what they used to believe and how they reasoned their way to atheism. I don't know any actual atheists that have such a unreasoned approach to their conclusion... to most atheists, believing in god again would be like believing in Santa again... that unlikely and ridiculous.

We get a lot of dishonesty here of that kind... lots of creationists who pretend they are not creationists (just "skeptical" of evolution or "skeptical of the skeptics"). They give themselves away though because... well... they sound so similar to each other... and so... daft and incoherent to the rest of us.

You'll see... after a while you just get a feeling when you're dealing with one... they are very disingenuous and show a profound lack of curiosity in current developments in science and a curious inability to comprehend the answers to their questions--in fact, they get angry at the answerer or deny that you answered them. If conversation isn't working, check if the other person shows signs of decent dialogue with others... if not, then you don't have to assume it's you (as they will imply.)

But I agree... it is funny to see the believers "play" the atheist (or skeptic)-- or drum up the belief in their straw man version of atheism that doesn't look anything like the atheists I know as they spin the simultaneous delusion of their own moral superiority (for which there is never any evidence.) I'm sure you can find some of those right here in this thread.

[articulett]

Well, like I said in the OP




I guess that since my exposure to atheists is limited to this forum, a few other skeptical forums, youtube, and interviews with Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. I have yet to encounter an atheist arguing for atheism that was so wacky that it seemed like it was parody. I have seen atheists using poor arguments but I guess that's not the same thing.

Raelians may be described as typical wacky futuristic cults akin to Heavens Gate and Scientology... they are not typical atheists... and they believe that "Rael" their leader as something akin to divine powers like L.Ron Hubbard and Marshall Applewhite.

You could use them as a Parody for wacky space cults... not so much as a parody of atheists.

Mosts atheists lack a belief in all all sorts of "divine truths" or space visitors... but you can call yourself an atheist and still have some pretty wacky new age type of beliefs and the like. But that is not a "tenet" of atheism-- more of a small subset that is far from representative.

[Zelenius]

"I used to be an atheist..." I've met way too many of these types too, far more than atheist parodists. Of course, almost all of them are dishonest about having been an "atheist".

The thing is, Christians often say the same thing about atheists who were once Christian. They often claim that atheists who were Christians weren't "real" Christians, they "didn't believe or worship in the right way", or that "they were expecting all the wrong things from God", etc.

One thing that really bothers me about many believers is their extreme dishonesty. As if their god-belief gives them license to be dishonest; funny, shouldn't atheism make people more dishonest and unethical(according to them anyway)? Granted, many of them may not even know they are being dishonest, since they have enormous difficulties telling the difference between fact or fiction, and fact or opinion.

This seems to be linked to their extreme credulousness and wishful thinking and otherwise sloppy thinking. Lie to yourself, lie to others, the "truth" is subjective or the truth is whatever you want it to be. "Lying" in the service of "faith" becomes a good thing it seems. Hence, a lot of people who should know better falling for "psychics" who say nothing extraordinary.

I cannot think of a better first hand, recent experience of this extreme dishonesty than from this financial message board I used to frequent. This message board was dedicated to a small, speculative tech stock. The Christian fundamentalists on the board were crazy about the stock, promoting it to everyone, claiming it was going to be "the next Microsoft", so if you buy in now you'll be very rich in a few years. And oh boy did they flaunt their biblical literalism(always leaving out the part about a rich man not getting into heaven), sometimes even asking everyone to "pray" for the stock.

Occasionally, bad news would leak out about the company, and things started to look suspicious(aside from it having been speculative to begin with). The fundies were always the biggest defenders of the company(although most enablers/defenders/promoters were not religious), vilifying and slandering its critics. The critics(called "bashers" by the company's shareholders) were generally a more skeptical bunch, I cannot remember any of them flaunting their religion, if they even had a religion. Although I started out as a supporter and investor of the company, I was often skeptical and later became very critical of the company, and sold my investment without a loss.

Eventually, the company was delisted by its exchange, was investigated by the SEC and was exposed as a scam. The shareprice went down over 97% from its high. The company has almost no employees, and several former employees were charged with fraud. The company itself was charged with fraud by the SEC; it seems almost everyone is suing them.

The company still exists, along with its message boards. Incredibly, almost all of the same dishonest promoters of the company are still on these message boards claiming the company is going to "turn around", and the shareprice will go up, while sometimes flaunting their fundamentalist Christianity(there is also an astrologer among them). It really is a "great investment" they'll tell everyone, never mind the SEC investigation, the fraud charges, the two evictions, all their extreme failures, or the fact that they have no revenues whatsoever! It seems that many of them believe that selling your shares is a sign of moral weakness, hence why they are holding on to their over 90% loss.

Occasionally I drop by to make a post to warn people about the company, or to make fun of the idiots who lost money who are still promoting the scam stock, since it seems they may try to revive and screw some more people. I get vilified by the idiots on the board(not all of them are fundamentalists, but many of them are). Another one of the skeptics who helps warn people on the board is a fellow atheist, who is hated for his honesty and accuracy, and because he didn't lose money on the stock either. Although we don't "flaunt" our atheism, we weren't shy about it either when the subject came up. The know-it-all investment geniuses who told everyone to buy the scam stock before it went down over 97% also happened to be "experts" on the "evils" of atheism, and would occasionally attack atheists using ridiculous straw-man tactics. Some of them even have the gall to try to convert us to their way of "thinking".

It was a very amusing as well as educational experience. I get the impression that something that is central to the fundamentalist mindset is the fear of changing one's mind; once you make up your mind to believe something, you show "weakness" by changing it. It doesn't matter if its a stock, or if it is about God, or creationism or super-patriotism. Some of them seem so dumb and clueless that I sometimes suspect an atheist is doing a parody of a Christian fundamentlist(I swear its not me!). It seems that the more clueless they are, the smarter they think they are(the occasional infighting is hilarious, as the smarter fundies try to get the dumber ones who have no credibility to shut their big mouths).

And again, I believe many of these people may not even "know" they are being dishonest, since their minds lack the ability to distinguish between fact and fiction.

[articulett]

Yes... once you get people to believe that faith is ennobling-- salvation worthy, then "believing in" things and showing that faith becomes more important than what is true. Incoherent platitudes stand in for evidence.

It's been interesting to watch the interplay at Pharyngula involving "cracker gate"-- and how wacky people get in order to sustain the "high" of feeling like they are in on special truths.

I don't know if such folks are aware of their dishonesty or not either... But lying for god is alive and well (see this months e-skeptic http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/ ) I get a little peeved with them because it just gets so maddening after a while

... we have a few here... when you sense you found one-- set your expectations very low and engage them for entertainment purposes only. I don't know if they are theists or not... a lot of times they'll be vague or even claim not to believe--but I refer to them as "the apologists"... because their answers always sound... smarmy... like the "courtiers reply"-- they miss the point again and again-- http://richarddawkins.net/article,463,The-Courtiers-Reply,PZ-Myers

Some of them are long time forum members... don't let them bully you into thinking their seniority means something around here. If you are having trouble communicating with them-- chances are the majority feel similarly.

(BTW, I think you'll find the courtiers reply an excellent parody of apologists... since we are on the topic of parodies).

If you find yourself in crazy miasma land with questions that provoke responses to tangential stuff-- suspect the type you've come to know and love from you

[UnrepentantSinner]

Basically, a clever believer(of which religion I'm not sure) pretending to be an atheist would claim to be morose and depressed over the godlessness of their life. They will talk about how utterly "meaningless" and "pointless" the universe and human existence is without God. They will also focus on being obsessed with death and especially their own mortality, how they are depressed over their finite existence, and how death is the end and there is nothing after - every breath you take is one step closer to death. We learn and work and love our entire lives, only to lose everything in the end as if it all meant nothing, they'll say. A dark, bleak, meaningless, horrible existence it is being an atheist they will claim, where we are born simply to die.

Such a parody would fail as a Poe though because every atheist would see right though it immediately. The key to a Poe worthy parody is to be over the top, but not so much that it's obvious right away.

[Silentknight]

"I used to be an atheist..." I've met way too many of these types too, far more than atheist parodists. Of course, almost all of them are dishonest about having been an "atheist".

To further. I've noticed that these people then go on to try to convince atheists to convert to Christianity-- using methods that would never have converted them if and when they were really atheists: random quotes from scripture, threats of eternal damnation / the apocalypse, strawman attacks on evolution, accusing atheists of having no morals, and everyone's favorite, those idiotic proofs of God's existence. Seriously, have arguments like those ever convinced anyone who didn't already believe in them? "I used to be an atheist, just like you, until I was told I'd go to HELL if I believed in evolution instead of Jesus." :mgduh

[Zelenius]

As for the main point of this thread: Yes, indeed, Poe's Law can apply to atheist parodies. Whether or not "fundamentalist" atheism can exist is beside the point, in my opinion(I personally find the idea totally ridiculous. However, it certainly seems possible, and I've met maybe 1 or 2 atheists who fit this description).

Even poorly done atheist parodies will often be believed by some of the more slow-witted, simple minded of the Christian fundamentalists.

I've been arguing on message boards with Christian fundamentalists and creationists for YEARS now. I haven't done so for a long time, due to the fact that it is basically pointless arguing with unreasonable people and dealing with the same silly "arguments" ad infinitum.

While some fundamentalists are highly intelligent, and well-educated, too many of them seem to be in the average or below average intelligence range, which explains in part their lack of reasoning skills.

I've noticed that a lot of them seem to have problems with irony or sarcasm. Since parodies are related to this, this sub-type of the fundamentalist will often believe parodies are the real thing, even the poorly done parodies. They similarly do not understand contradictions, or at least don't think they are such a big deal. So many of them are Republican conservatives yet do not see any conflict with the super-capitalism they favor and Jesus' key teachings. As I said in an earlier post, so many fundamentalists are almost pathologically dishonest, but they may not even know they are being dishonest, since they have trouble distinguishing fact from fiction.

The way I see it, the fundamentalist doing the parody is usually the more clever type of fundamentalist, and he's exploiting the gullibility of the less sharp fundamentalists.

All this talk of parody is intertwined with the intelligence and education of believers in my opinion(and of non-believers as well), which is why I've focused on it so much. Let's face it, it takes some smarts to do a very good, convincing parody, especially a Christian literalist doing an atheist parody(however, I find it way too easy doing Christian fundamentalist parodies). It is a fascinating subject to say the least, the connection between intelligence and faith, and we are aware of the studies on IQ/education level and faith so I need not mention them. I must admit that I am far more fascinated by highly intelligent, well educated SINCERE(meaning they actually believe) fundamentalist Christians than the less intelligent, poorly educated ones. I can't understand the former, but I can understand the latter.

[articulett]

Shermer studies those types... Why People Believe Weird Things and How We Believe look at that. It appears that smart people who believe irrational things do so by because they are better at rationalizing away discrepancies--these people tend to define the arguments for all those under them looking for a reason to "believe in" whatever it is they want to believe in.

I always think of this "parody" when I feel I'm in a coversation with one:


Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome

In this curious form of aphasia, the subject is unable to distinguish between a discussion and a contest. The subject approaches any online forum as a sort of playing field, and attempts to "win" the discussion by any means necessary. The rules of the imaginary contest are apparently clear to the individual as he or she will often point out when others break them, but when asked to outline these rules the individual is reluctant, perhaps not wishing to confer an "advantage" on any "opponents." The conditions for winning are similarly difficult to pin down, although in some cases the individual will declare himself the winner of a discussion that, to all others, appears to be ongoing.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2007/06/alttext_0620

I guess I see them as spinning a delusion for themselves under a pretense of engaging in dialogue. They ask insincere questions or make allegations designed to prove some point to themselves, I suspect, rather then further the discussion.

And I think they ARE really blind to it... but to me, I've seen it so much that it becomes transparent. It's what my sig link is about. I think atheists are good at goofing on other atheists... they'll say "let's go eat babies" or something... because we know theists believe that atheists can't have morals and must be evil-- (of course, theism must push this view because it has no evidence to prop up it's beliefs-- so it makes people fear and hate those that threaten the alternative.)

It's a clever meme really. To believe that good things come from faith-- you just need to focus on all the bad stuff and claim that it comes from lack of faith.

I don't know any really smart fundamentalist Christians... but I do know some smart theists... I know many more brilliant atheists... though they make up a much smaller percentage of the world as well as a smaller percentage of the people in my life. I was in a gifted program as a kid, and the majority of those I kept track of, became atheists in adulthood. It's a small sample, to be sure--but telling, none the less given that atheists are a small percentage of the population and none were atheists in childhood.

[articulett]

To further. I've noticed that these people then go on to try to convince atheists to convert to Christianity-- using methods that would never have converted them if and when they were really atheists: random quotes from scripture, threats of eternal damnation / the apocalypse, strawman attacks on evolution, accusing atheists of having no morals, and everyone's favorite, those idiotic proofs of God's existence. Seriously, have arguments like those ever convinced anyone who didn't already believe in them? "I used to be an atheist, just like you, until I was told I'd go to HELL if I believed in evolution instead of Jesus." :mgduh

Yeah... the normalbobsmith.com hatemail has tons of that... it always makes me laugh.

You're going to be sorry when you die! Satan is going to anally rape you! Did you ever think "what if you are wrong"?

Of course the spelling and syntax is always much more incoherent.

[PixyMisa]

As has already been pointed out previously to you, religious education is not the same as religious indoctrination. Religious education simply means learning about religions - notice the plural.
I hope this is true now; it certainly wasn't when I went to school (Australia, 70's and 80's). At that time, you were CofE by default, so I got an hour of religious indoctrination each month. Fortunately, when I was 12 I realised that it was all fairy tales, but there was no balance, no comparitive study, no actual education involved at all.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Even poorly done atheist parodies will often be believed by some of the more slow-witted, simple minded of the Christian fundamentalists.

As will poorly done Christian parodies by slow-witted, simple minded atheists.

[Zelenius]

Double post

[Zelenius]

Thanks for the advice, Articulett. I'll look out for them. This place would probably get a little boring if everyone here was a skeptic or an atheist. Comic relief is always appreciated.

Who is more common here anyway, Christian fundamentalist types, or the "new age" believers?

Some "new age" believers are as hostile to organized religion as atheists, but they believe in many of the same "weird" things fundamentalists believe in. This is especially true when it comes to the war against evolution. Even Deepak Chopra endorses "intelligence design", which, come to think of it, isn't surprising. An excellent example of fundy dishonesty is when they claim "intelligent design" is not a form of creationism. Yeah right.

Sometimes I don't know if they are being dishonest or just stupid. Is claiming there "must be an afterlife" because the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy means that the "life" energy of a human will never get destroyed, a form of dishonesty or stupidity?

I need a good laugh, is there a "Chopraisms" thread around here or a website for that?

[articulett]

We have all types of woo here... truthers (conspiracy theorists are pretty awful)... but we have a constant variety... I deal mostly with creationists... and lots of apologists... they think of themselves as middle of the road diplomats but they really cover for religious woo (or think it should be treated differently than other woo) and engage in proffering the atheist stereotype (they might call atheists god haters or hear criticism of faith as criticism of the faithful, for example... and they tend to imagine themselves as smarter and as having more expertise than anyone else seems to imagine.)

We have tons of really smart and brilliant people here too... but they rarely give advice... they are usually humble in fact... we have experts in most every field eager to share what they know with anyone who is actually interested... but we also have those who are sure they have something to teach and nothing to learn. Currently we have a new agey type woo in the "defining god thread"... (and always creationists who lie about being creationists in the "atheists do not know..." thread.)

The new agey guy is new... beeksc1 ... we have some homeopaths here too. Maatorc is a big new age woo, but he might be on suspension right now... and I saw a bunch on the thread involving the "hard problem"-- about the supposed "hard problem" involving consciousness that supposedly materialism can't address. (But they are weirdly incoherent... I wondered if I sounded that incoherent when I went through my new agey phase after leaving religion). It's a "hard problem" for the daft and those who need to believe in dualism... but not for our neurologists who post here. Unless you want to deal with monisms, epistemology, "qualia" and allusions to quantum mechanics.... you may wish to avoid such threads, however.

As I said, there are lots of really brilliant people here too. But the "woo" and "apologists" just seem very sure they have a lot to teach without having any seeming awareness as to what they might learn (see my sig article They are loud and omnipresent (probably trying to convince themselves by convincing others.)

All the avatars have a link so if you see a poster that intrigues you or you think might be a woo you'd like to look at more, you can just see their other posts. The language awards in the forum community also has cool posts and a little arrow next to the quoted persons name that will lead you to the thread where the quote came from.

[Moochie]

I hope this is true now; it certainly wasn't when I went to school (Australia, 70's and 80's). At that time, you were CofE by default, so I got an hour of religious indoctrination each month. Fortunately, when I was 12 I realised that it was all fairy tales, but there was no balance, no comparitive study, no actual education involved at all.

Ha! The nuns who taught me in country Victoria, Australia during the late 50s and early 60s actually used the word "heathen" to describe Buddhists and other nontheistic religions. And they used all the ghoulish, gothic language to describe what would happen to those who "abandoned god" to follow such religions. It was as if each of them were on a personal jihad to root out any and all thoughts one may have had about anything nonCatholic. Funny, if it wasn't so damned sad.


M.

[articulett]

Thanks Moochie and Pixy... that's what I had heard and what I believe Dawkins was responding too... it seems like indoctrination was the rule and it took a lot to opt out--

this IS abusive to children who trust the authority figures in their life-- not everyone is smart enough or brave enough to think their way out. And society has to live with the adults these kids become-- whatever crazy myths they've come to accept as higher truths.

[Zelenius]

It's been a few years since I've debated any creationists. Have they come up with any new arguments against evolution?

Back when I was debating them, their favorite argument was the one about how evolution "violates" the Second Law of Thermodynamics(SLT). No matter how many times you explain the law to them and tell them that the earth is not a closed system, they wouldn't budge, and would insist it does violate it. They consistently fail to understand that the Second Law in no way whatsoever suggests there can't be localized decreases in entropy, even though the general trend is increasing entropy. I would often point out how, by using their "logic" about how evolution "violates" the SLT, that an air conditioning system also "violates" the SLT - the room is cooled down and the entropy in the room is thereby decreased. How can this be without divine intervention?

After having that dismissed their comeback usually involved something about information theory, and about how evolution reflects "new information" being created. This supposedly "new information" somehow "violates" the Second Law, or maybe the First Law of Thermodynamics too. It even "violates" common sense, or other physical laws according to the creationists. A bunch of times I even debated the minutiae of information theory with them(After studying up on the subject. Don't ask me why, but it was kind of humorous), but I forget most of it now, and I forget what other comebacks they staged from the crazy, irrelevant details of information theory. They often think they've "won" when they lead you into a complicated semantic maze based on information theory, computer science and thermodynamics; from this position they would ask all kinds of weird, confusing questions which I couldn't(or no one else) could answer.

My science is a little rusty. If I got anything wrong, please let me know.

[articulett]

These are the main ones creationist arguments: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

We get variations all the time... but it's all the same stuff-- reworked-- no answer ever pleases a creationist... the questions are insincere. People will try to present it like they just thought of it or like they are truly scientifically curious...the ones here usually deny being creationists but you can tell they are because they ask questions not to understand stuff-- but rather to imply whatever they want to believe is true... and they pretend you haven't answered your questions when you have... they show a decided lack of curiosity or even understanding of current information involving evolution-- and I think that's because they get hung up on some thing that they need to believe science doesn't know in order for their god to be true... you can usually peg which of the 5 main straw men they are going for...

Plus, the more effort you go through to give them a detailed and careful explanation along with links and so forth, the nastier they will be to you. Why? Because they want to believe there is no good answer-- their questions are designed to imply that conclusion.

The more you talk to a woo the more confused you become... we sort of parody them on the some of the threads in the forum community-- whereas our best posters can explain fairly complicated stuff so most anyone can understand. The woo tend to use pieces of big words and phrases that somehow impressed them or convinced them that the argument they heard was valid... they will put others down as a means of building themselves up-- they have "imagined expertise" on all sorts of subjects though no one seems to think they are experts-- and they never ask anyone else what their expertise might actually be. We have a lot of scientists and very smart people here-- but the the biggest woos seem to imagine themselves as smarter than everyone else-- they are their own favorite posters, it seems. After a while, they just sort of all sound the same.

Creationists are particularly fun to do parodies of... because they have literally been made stupid and arrogant by their faith-- and it is glaring. But it's probably just best to ignore them... the management tends to frown upon calling a troll a troll. They win ego points by getting the last word in a conversation... Chances are, the people you find trollish... are considered trolls by many. We just don't have any rules against trolling here.

There are some posters that are very clever in dealing with trolls... when you see them... study their method... I recommend Lothian. When you get a woo, think of "parody" and use them for entertainment purposes only. It's very rare that one will evolve. They are not here to learn and share knowledge... they are here to prove something or other to themselves by imagining that they've considered the situation skeptically because they've discussed it with skeptics.

[Moochie]

Thanks Moochie and Pixy... that's what I had heard and what I believe Dawkins was responding too... it seems like indoctrination was the rule and it took a lot to opt out--

this IS abusive to children who trust the authority figures in their life-- not everyone is smart enough or brave enough to think their way out. And society has to live with the adults these kids become-- whatever crazy myths they've come to accept as higher truths.


It occurs to me that the nuns back when I was a kid probably did more to turn their charges away from religion than anything else. But lest there be any doubt about the connection between religious indoctrination and child abuse -- I don't need any evidence. I (and my siblings and many others I grew up with) am and are the evidence.

I had thought things had changed and that they'd toned down their methods, but after seeing Jesus Camp I realize that while some may be preaching a gentler, kinder Christianity, in a gentler and kinder way, others are even worse than the nuns who taught me.

The only religious education I'd want for any children is in the context of history education, so that they could gain an appreciation of the role religion has played, and continues to play, in the affairs of humans.


M.

[Zelenius]

Creationists seem to lack the ability to recognize and control their biases. Their extreme biases about the world are derived from: vitalism, dualism, anthropocentrism, and a general anti-science bias. Of course, they will claim that science is biased, science is anti-religion, or anti-God and or it is a religion.

Truth is, science never set out to try to disprove God, or vitalism, or dualism. On the contrary, modern science owes much to God-believers like Newton, Gauss, Darwin(in his early career) and other scientists who were theists or deists of some sort. That these ideas have either been disproven or at least seriously compromised is due to the vast accumulation of evidence in favor of scientific materialism/monism, not an active campaign against them. Some skeptics I know often wish there was a soul or a god, but being intellectually honest, admit the evidence is against it.

[articulett]

Me too, Moochie. My parents didn't heavily indoctrinate me... I was raised Catholic... but just the idea that life was a test for our ETERNITY and we were being judged on some weird rubric involving faith-- and that this loving god KILLED his kid because of my (??) sins caused a LOT of angst in me. I BELIEVED it-- I figured the adults in my world must know what the hell they were talking about after all.

I think it's creepy that parents can tell trusting kids such awful things and not realize how damaging it can be.

I posted this earlier jxo81Ok9Urk

Is it parody? Not really... because I was told a very similar story... It is funny, but it's also wrong... it bothers me that people don't seem to intuit why it's wrong to tell kids anything so long as you really believe it and you think it protects them from hell.

This is exactly why Poe's law exists. How or what could be the equivalent in atheism? Atheists tend to teach their children that beliefs are beliefs... not higher truths they must have "faith in". What extreme thing could someone do in the name of not believing in something? RSL doesn't believe in psychics... so he (gasp) dares to go to her show-- Randi tests those making wild claims... They are giving people money and saying "do what you claim to do"-- but that isn't extreme. People are trained to hear extreme when anyone dares to questions faith... when they dare to declare that the emperor is naked. Religion has a vested interest in people hearing such offense while ignoring the real abuse like that cavalierly mocked in the video.

It boggles the mind, for example, when I see people trying to equate the actions of PZ Myers (Pharyngula) and the kid (Webster Cook) who tried didn't eat his communion in front of the congregation with the manhandling and threats from the faithful based on the silly presumption that blessed crackers have magical properties.

Religion so often seems to make societies full of people who get worked up over delusions and superstitions while missing the message of those who would clue them into the real and useful truths that are much better than the holy lies. They are so busy making non believers into bad guys while blinding themselves to their own dishonesty and the dishonesty of those proffering "higher truths" and supposed "divine wisdom".

Dawkins is always seen as some extreme atheist... and I think that's so funny... think of the extreme theists-- the Pope, Osama Bin Laden, The Mormon prophet, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, etc. One is a great scientist who has taken some of the most profound knowledge we humans have come to amass... and taken it further... teaching so many-- and the others intimidate and frighten people with supposed claims of divine truth.

It would be laughable that some would try to equate the two if it wasn't so very common-- and it wasn't so very resistant to logic. The holier than thou cannot seem to possibly imagine that they might have a bias. And most atheists who were once religious KNOW that they had exactly such a bias--so it becomes very easy to see it in others.

I once could have been convinced that atheists were "extreme" and immoral and so forth. I'm embarrassed to have been raised thinking this.

ETA--exactly Zelenius... there are a lot of people who call themselves agnostics or deists or even atheists that have the same prejudices/biases. They think they are on the middle ground of two equal sides. But there is only one side to truth. And an infinite number of sides to opinions, beliefs, etc. Such people think they cannot be biased if they deny being biased! A few of us call them "apologists" around here. They claim to be atheists, but they seem strongly afflicted with the "faith in faith" paradigm and use the same straw men to encourage a bias against atheists. I think it makes them "feel" morally superior... in the same way that the faithful need to feel like they have a "salvation worthy" gift that makes them moral.

To me, their conversation always sounds like it's to build up their own view of themselves in their heads and not further understanding on the topic. They want their opinions to be taken as "facts" while fighting straw man versions of other peoples' supposed claims. You seem to have a good eye for it.

Sometimes I stop and I think, what is that poster's goal in saying what they are saying? Why am I engaging in this discussion? If they are trying to "win" a mind game--and I'm trying to engage in dialogue to further understanding... then my continued conversation with them, will frustrate me-- and continue to allow them to spin their egotistical view of themselves. They need to have the last word to win and will "troll" as long as someone will play (my opinion). But the facts just keep being the facts whether people understand them or not.

Some people really truly WANT to believe there is a Poe's law equivalent for atheists just as some want to believe that science is another faith. Their spinning helps them convince themselves that such is true-- but it serves no purpose for me or the truth. Such people are usually very bad at even distinguishing an objective fact from an opinion or belief, I find.

[epeos76]

For the record, I'm not under the impression that atheism and theism are logically equivalent positions. A reasonable theism has to fit in the gaps left by better verified knowledge, and that means, among other things, explaining why it should be spared Occam's razor, reconciling past claims to a much broader role, and explaining its relationship to competing theisms that pass the same test.

Atheism doesn't suffer from any of those logical problems. But people remain people. If you believe that a bunch of people identifying themselves around an intellectual position are exempt from the usual group dynamics simply because they don't believe in god, then you have some explaining to do.

[Moochie]

I posted this earlier jxo81Ok9Urk

Yeah, I watched it at the time. I was going to chide you for posting the link because I ended up watching all the other Dave Allen stuff, too. :)

I love him and saw most of his shows that were broadcast here, in Australia. He made a couple of series here, for a local network. I think he has relatives here, but I'm not sure.

He's one of the few comedians who've made me laugh until I literally cried -- Billy Connolly's another. Their take on religion -- particularly Catholicism -- is spot on, I think.


M.

[articulett]

For the record, I'm not under the impression that atheism and theism are logically equivalent positions. A reasonable theism has to fit in the gaps left by better verified knowledge, and that means, among other things, explaining why it should be spared Occam's razor, reconciling past claims to a much broader role, and explaining its relationship to competing theisms that pass the same test.

Atheism doesn't suffer from any of those logical problems. But people remain people. If you believe that a bunch of people identifying themselves around an intellectual position are exempt from the usual group dynamics simply because they don't believe in god, then you have some explaining to do.

Luckily no one is claiming that.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

It is no more an "intellectual position" than a lack of belief in astrological influences. Theists and apologists do seem bent on defining it as more than that, however.

[articulett]

Yeah, I watched it at the time. I was going to chide you for posting the link because I ended up watching all the other Dave Allen stuff, too. :)

I love him and saw most of his shows that were broadcast here, in Australia. He made a couple of series here, for a local network. I think he has relatives here, but I'm not sure.

He's one of the few comedians who've made me laugh until I literally cried -- Billy Connolly's another. Their take on religion -- particularly Catholicism -- is spot on, I think.


M.

Agreed... we share a common sense of humor. Billy Connolly is exellent. I have a special fondness for making fun of Catholicism; it is particularly liberating for this former Catholic girl to laugh at the superstitions that once filled my childhood with fear, guilt, and angst.

Nobody meant to "abuse" me... but I know that I could never inflict such a thing on my own child--and I do think it's wrong to do it to others though I force myself to bite my tongue again and again when I witness such indoctrination. Most kids don't seem harmed... unless you consider growing up prone to magical thinking to be harmful. Religions do instill a prejudice against non-believers--they have to, to keep the faithful fraithful.

It feels good for me to laugh at the pompous stupidity that once I was afraid to even question... and I'm thankful for those that helped skewer the sacred cows so I could find my way out.

[epeos76]

Maybe you can find an atheist to explain to you how, even though atheism is at heart a simple lack of belief in gods, it can nonetheless be an intellectual position. Maybe that helpful atheist can also explain to you how it's possible for an idea to become a badge of identity and membership in a particular community, even for an observation as inherently neutral and innocous as atheism.

It's the kind of thing that might happen if a series of public intellectuals suddenly became popular for advocating a particular idea. It might happen even if the intellectuals' advocacy and popularity were 100% well deserved.

Of course, this wouldn't transform the nature of that observation. If it's true, it remains true. Lots of people might still adopt it without the slightest interest in the club-building aspect.

I believe the OP was specifically addressing people attracted primarily by the usual social forces that attend the sudden, public popularity of an idea. It's worth considering, because, without care, those social dynamics can be antithetical to skeptical thinking.