Skeptical Communication: Soft VS Hard Approach

[athon]

The one thing in common most of us have here is that we all like to believe we have the confidence to thinking critically and skeptically about all areas of our life, regardless of social context or personal affections. This, in some ways, defines what we mean by being a 'skeptic'.

Beyond that, our backgrounds differ radically, from those who were once hard core believers to others who were fence sitters, never confident in being skeptical yet knowing that some things commonly believed just didn't feel right, to people who were born independent and fully critical of all new information.

I'm curious to know how people feel towards the two extremes of skeptical communication. By communication, I mean forms of media which aims to make people aware of skeptical positions towards one or topics or aware of crtical thinking skills in general. And by extremes I mean the approaches communicators take to achieve this goal.

One extreme is the 'Softly' approach, which endeavours to display sympathy for the audience's position and demonstrate in a sensitive fashion where some forms of thinking in given contexts are problemsome. I would define Carl Sagan as a 'soft' or 'sympathetic' communicator.

The other end of the spectrum is the hard approach, where the communicator displays some form of negative emotion, be it anger, pity, spite or irritation, towards those who hold some beliefs or think in a non-critical fashion. Some might argue that Dawkins is a hard or non-sympathetic communicator.

Of course there are those that pepper the spectrum in between, and it tends to rely on context as well. However, for the most part, which form of communication works best, do you think?

The soft approach might possibly achieve more 'conversions' of fence sitters than the hard line, yet the latter might well inspire the choir in its preaching, making waves that reach further and ultimately create an atmosphere where more people are willing to speak out. This is pure speculation, as I have no figures on either, but it's worth considering.

Thoughts?

Athon

[Hokulele]

Depends on the audience, and depends on the topic. I picked "Neither". For example, the approach I would take to someone who has received a spam e-mail with some dubious claims would be very different from how I would treat someone claiming that the World Trade Center was brought down in a controlled demolition(!?). The first case would definitely benefit from a soft approach, well, at least unless they have brought the same darn issue up for the umpteenth time. The latter case would deserve nothing better than a firm dismissal.

The only reason I might say that the soft approach is better, is that in my experience, I have met many more of the former type of person than the latter.

[Boo]

I went with context as well. That said when people in my daily life bring up most things woo I tend to make hard statements as opposed to equivocal or questioning type responses. I'm fairly open about what I think and how I look at the world. Most everyone at work knows about this forum and that I don't believe in ghosts, etc. A few have decided that it's best not to bring up those topics around me because I will openly contest what they say by asking for what proof they offer to support their statements.


ETA: I work in a profession that should be characterized by critical thinking and is fringed by some of the worst kind of woo. By education and training my cow-orkers already are able to think critically, to a certain degree, and by questioning them in a direct manner I try to challenge them to apply those skills in other areas.


Boo

[TTLer]

The one thing in common most of us have here is that we all like to believe we have the confidence to thinking critically and skeptically about all areas of our life, regardless of social context or personal affections. This, in some ways, defines what we mean by being a 'skeptic'.

Beyond that, our backgrounds differ radically, from those who were once hard core believers to others who were fence sitters, never confident in being skeptical yet knowing that some things commonly believed just didn't feel right, to people who were born independent and fully critical of all new information.

I'm curious to know how people feel towards the two extremes of skeptical communication. By communication, I mean forms of media which aims to make people aware of skeptical positions towards one or topics or aware of crtical thinking skills in general. And by extremes I mean the approaches communicators take to achieve this goal.

One extreme is the 'Softly' approach, which endeavours to display sympathy for the audience's position and demonstrate in a sensitive fashion where some forms of thinking in given contexts are problemsome. I would define Carl Sagan as a 'soft' or 'sympathetic' communicator.

The other end of the spectrum is the hard approach, where the communicator displays some form of negative emotion, be it anger, pity, spite or irritation, towards those who hold some beliefs or think in a non-critical fashion. Some might argue that Dawkins is a hard or non-sympathetic communicator.

Of course there are those that pepper the spectrum in between, and it tends to rely on context as well. However, for the most part, which form of communication works best, do you think?

The soft approach might possibly achieve more 'conversions' of fence sitters than the hard line, yet the latter might well inspire the choir in its preaching, making waves that reach further and ultimately create an atmosphere where more people are willing to speak out. This is pure speculation, as I have no figures on either, but it's worth considering.

Thoughts?

Athon

Athon:

The "softly" approach of atheist rebuttal to religion is akin to acting like a battered spouse in an abusive relationship. Walking on eggshells is what victims do in the presence of abusive partners. Totally dysfunctional.

The "hard" approach is more reasonable and effective. I mean, it's obvious that all religious people suffer from a disease, a virus, a delusion - an illness they purposefully pass on to their own children! Sick!

We should indeed harshly ridicule and mock people who believe in religion, and people who promote respect for religion. They are diseased, deluded people and when they come to this forum they invite such derision.


.

[Piscivore]

We should indeed harshly ridicule and mock people who believe in religion, and people who promote respect for religion. They are diseased, deluded people and when they come to this forum they invite such derision.

:oldroll:

[Ducky]

Athon:

The "softly" approach of atheist rebuttal to religion is akin to acting like a battered spouse in an abusive relationship. Walking on eggshells is what victims do in the presence of abusive partners. Totally dysfunctional.

The "hard" approach is more reasonable and effective. I mean, it's obvious that all religious people suffer from a disease, a virus, a delusion - an illness they purposefully pass on to their own children! Sick!

We should indeed harshly ridicule and mock people who believe in religion, and people who promote respect for religion. They are diseased, deluded people and when they come to this forum they invite such derision.


.

I think you'll find that approach will not be very effective to reach large audiences. Insulting your audience is a marketing nono, and this really boils down to marketing. Those that watched the nixon/kennedy debate generally liked the appeal and appearance of Kennedy as well as his demeanor, and those that listened to it generally thought Nixon won the issues. Whether you like it or not, getting the audience to feel comfortable enough to listen and keep their interest is most of your battle. This is why I think Sagan's death is a huge loss. He could present a mountain of information in a way that was appealing, fun, and approachable. I would dare say he reached more people than someone who is insulting and obnoxious.

[Hokulele]

I think you'll find that approach will not be very effective to reach large audiences. Insulting your audience is a marketing nono, and this really boils down to marketing. Those that watched the nixon/kennedy debate generally liked the appeal and appearance of Kennedy as well as his demeanor, and those that listened to it generally thought Nixon won the issues. Whether you like it or not, getting the audience to feel comfortable enough to listen and keep their interest is most of your battle. This is why I think Sagan's death is a huge loss. He could present a mountain of information in a way that was appealing, fun, and approachable. I would dare say he reached more people than someone who is insulting and obnoxious.


I would agree with everything Ducky said (as usual) and add Stephen J Gould's name to the mix. When discussing the theory of evolution with people who have questions regarding the evolution/creation debate, I usually put his works out there, as they are very good at explaining the basic concepts of evolution, without being demeaning to people of faith.

[Normal Dude]

Athon:

The "softly" approach of atheist rebuttal to religion is akin to acting like a battered spouse in an abusive relationship. Walking on eggshells is what victims do in the presence of abusive partners. Totally dysfunctional.

The "hard" approach is more reasonable and effective. I mean, it's obvious that all religious people suffer from a disease, a virus, a delusion - an illness they purposefully pass on to their own children! Sick!

We should indeed harshly ridicule and mock people who believe in religion, and people who promote respect for religion. They are diseased, deluded people and when they come to this forum they invite such derision.


.

Approaches like this are completely counter-productive.

[Ducky]

I would agree with everyting Ducky said (as usual) <snip>

There's medication to fix that....

[Hokulele]

There's medication to fix that....


Sadly, the blinding headaches, 15 pound weight gain, hair loss, incontinence, sudden decrease in libido, and large scaly patches on my back that came as side effects weren't worth it.

[TTLer]

I'll say it more clearly for the cheap seats:

Religious belief is totally indefensible, especially when parents purposely infect their children.

Religion is a virus, and those that promote or defend religion are mentally ill, sick, deluded and diseased people.

Re the OP, I affirm we need to apply the hard approach if we are to become a more secular (therefore better) society in the future.

[Ducky]

I'll say it more clearly for the cheap seats:

Religious belief is totally indefensible, especially when parents purposely infect their children.

Religion is a virus, and those that promote or defend religion are mentally ill, sick, deluded and diseased people.

Re the OP, I affirm we need to apply the hard approach if we are to become a more secular (therefore better) society in the future.

It seems unsurprising to me that you didn't discuss the points I brought up, given your stance. This could be a good object lesson in what I was talking about, however, if you would actually discuss the thoughtful responses put forth.

As an aside, everything you said in your post can be found on dominionist christian sites that would prefer the US become a theocracy. Insulting rhetoric gives little substance to a discussion.

[JoeEllison]

What I find is that the hard-core believers will attack any skeptic, regardless of their approach, so catering to those poor brainwashed folks is a lost cause. I say communicate in whichever way feels most natural to you. Sincerity, passion, and integrity never go out of style.

[Ducky]

What I find is that the hard-core believers will attack any skeptic, regardless of their approach, so catering to those poor brainwashed folks is a lost cause. I say communicate in whichever way feels most natural to you. Sincerity, passion, and integrity never go out of style.

This is good advice, I would also add moderation, just for the sake of one's own ulcers. Passion is wonderful, but unchecked passion can cause a fast burnout in the persuit of endeavors.

[JoeEllison]

This is good advice, I would also add moderation, just for the sake of one's own ulcers. Passion is wonderful, but unchecked passion can cause a fast burnout in the persuit of endeavors.
Well, no yelling and screaming... that defeats the purpose. :p

What I've noticed, though, is that no matter how calm and rational you are, the believers will always accuse you of being angry and foaming at the mouth. They resemble the current crop of political reporters who follow "scripts" when talking about certain politicians, and lie and make things up when the facts don't fit the script. In the same way, the most soft-spoken and genteel skeptic will be treated like Sam Kinison on a 3-day coke binge.

You can see it here on an almost daily basis. Someone will post some fringe idea or conspiracy theory, and instead of just calling the person a wackjob, people will politely ask for evidence, and suggest that there's no basis for the belief. The person will immediately complain about being unfairly attacked and insulted, even though there are no attacks or insults to be found.

[Foolmewunz]

Depends on the audience, and depends on the topic. I picked "Neither". For example, the approach I would take to someone who has received a spam e-mail with some dubious claims would be very different from how I would treat someone claiming that the World Trade Center was brought down in a controlled demolition(!?). The first case would definitely benefit from a soft approach, well, at least unless they have brought the same darn issue up for the umpteenth time. The latter case would deserve nothing better than a firm dismissal.

The only reason I might say that the soft approach is better, is that in my experience, I have met many more of the former type of person than the latter.

Well, I picked "neither", also. I can't understand the "somewhere in between" option, though.... seems that "Neither" is the same, really.

Anyhow..... As to those poor souls who receive spam emails, that also depends. If said person asks about the claim (which many do because they know I'm a skeptic), even if they're obviously leaning toward believing it, I'll try to explain without getting riled. But if they follow the spammers instructions and just forward it to me and forty others, I'll take 'em down with the entire recipient list in copy.

My worst reaction was the "Chinese eat fetuses" spam that someone distributed within the company. I went nuts on the woman who sent it out, and a right-to-lifer then went nuts on me in turn. I made lot of enemies that week!

[Hokulele]

<snip>

You can see it here on an almost daily basis. Someone will post some fringe idea or conspiracy theory, and instead of just calling the person a wackjob, people will politely ask for evidence, and suggest that there's no basis for the belief. The person will immediately complain about being unfairly attacked and insulted, even though there are no attacks or insults to be found.


And maintaining that calm front can be even more persuasive to the onlookers who may not have made up their minds yet, both on-line and IRL. :)

[JoeEllison]

And maintaining that calm front can be even more persuasive to the onlookers who may not have made up their minds yet, both on-line and IRL. :)

Right... but on the other hand there is no need to tone yourself down based on the attacks of people who are very clearly biased against you no matter what you say or how you say it.

[Normal Dude]

I'll say it more clearly for the cheap seats:

Religious belief is totally indefensible, especially when parents purposely infect their children.

Religion is a virus, and those that promote or defend religion are mentally ill, sick, deluded and diseased people.


The ironic thing is that you really don't sound any different than the religious fundamentalists. Does this not bother you?

[Foolmewunz]

I'll say it more clearly for the cheap seats:

Religious belief is totally indefensible, especially when parents purposely infect their children.

Religion is a virus, and those that promote or defend religion are mentally ill, sick, deluded and diseased people.

Re the OP, I affirm we need to apply the hard approach if we are to become a more secular (therefore better) society in the future.

(So I reckon we can figure out the 1 vote for "hard approach".)

So how active do we have to get? Do we have to go hunt 'em down and track 'em back to their nests like vampires and kill them in their sleep, or is merely insulting them on the internet sufficient?

You do realize, of course, that you just referred to a number of people on the JREF forums as "mentally ill, sick, deluded and diseased..."?

Somehow I think your "therefore better" society would remind me a little too much of Cambodia under Pol Pot.

[Hokulele]

Right... but on the other hand there is no need to tone yourself down based on the attacks of people who are very clearly biased against you no matter what you say or how you say it.


Actually, there may be a need. If the topic is one that does have a large contingent of fence-sitters who may be watching or reading the discussion, demeanor can play an important role. Please re-read Ducky's first reply to TTLer. Of course, if the conversation is considered ludicrous by the vast majority of non-participants in the first place, or if there is no other audience, by all means, fire away!


ETA: Foolmewunz, the person to whom you are responding may have been the "beat into submission" response. ;)

[TTLer]

Well, no yelling and screaming... that defeats the purpose. :p

What I've noticed, though, is that no matter how calm and rational you are, the believers will always accuse you of being angry and foaming at the mouth. They resemble the current crop of political reporters who follow "scripts" when talking about certain politicians, and lie and make things up when the facts don't fit the script. In the same way, the most soft-spoken and genteel skeptic will be treated like Sam Kinison on a 3-day coke binge.

You can see it here on an almost daily basis. Someone will post some fringe idea or conspiracy theory, and instead of just calling the person a wackjob, people will politely ask for evidence, and suggest that there's no basis for the belief. The person will immediately complain about being unfairly attacked and insulted, even though there are no attacks or insults to be found.

Indeed, JoeE, well said! This fits my hypothesis about the soft skeptic approach resembling the victim role in an abusive relationship. The victim (meek skeptic/unsure atheist) tries repeatedly to engage the abuser (religious person) with polite reason, but gets thumped every time by the abuser, who always turns the situation by claiming the victim role...

[JoeEllison]

Actually, there may be a need. If the topic is one that does have a large contingent of fence-sitters who may be watching or reading the discussion, demeanor can play an important role.

I'm not saying that demeanor is irrelevant, I'm just saying that you need to be careful to pick people who you trust to tell you if your demeanor is way off. Someone who is convinced that we're all going to Hell is probably not the person whose opinion you should seek.

[rustytunes]

I usually start with the soft approach, and take it from there. I do however enjoy listening to Quackcast and his style of "evidence based ridicule"

[Hokulele]

I'm not saying that demeanor is irrelevant, I'm just saying that you need to be careful to pick people who you trust to tell you if your demeanor is way off. Someone who is convinced that we're all going to Hell is probably not the person whose opinion you should seek.


I see. Yes, I agree with this. However, in an anonymous Internet forum, I find it best to err on the side of caution, as I am not sure who the audience may be. Don't get me wrong, there can come a point in time when it is more than obvious that the debate has spiraled waaaaay out of control, and then it is more than appropriate to post in a firmer manner. But this tends to be after all facts and points have been addressed, and things just devolve into unsupported opinion. In the rittjc threads, he was antagonistic, but still somewhat addressing points being made. For another look at how I have dealt with some of the wackies, just see some of my responses in a DavidJayJordan or Emre_1974tr thread!

[Piscivore]

Religion is a virus, and those that promote or defend religion are mentally ill, sick, deluded and diseased people.

And you have evidence to support this claim, right?

[athon]

Sorry to those who are confused by 'neither' and 'in between' options. Neither, as I saw it, meant it depends precisely on the context and can vary from one extreme to the other if necessary. 'In between' means regardless of the situation, it's best to hover somewhere in between the extremes.

I should have been clearer.

Athon:

The "softly" approach of atheist rebuttal to religion is akin to acting like a battered spouse in an abusive relationship. Walking on eggshells is what victims do in the presence of abusive partners. Totally dysfunctional.

Thanks. Interesting comparisons.

The "hard" approach is more reasonable and effective. I mean, it's obvious that all religious people suffer from a disease, a virus, a delusion - an illness they purposefully pass on to their own children! Sick!

You say 'more effective'. In what precisely? Effective in producing what sort of outcome? What evidence do you have that having a harder approach will achieve this more often than the softer approach?

As for a 'virus' that's passed on to one's own children, while I can appreciate the poetry of it, does it serve any purpose other than poetical imagery to draw such comparisons?

We should indeed harshly ridicule and mock people who believe in religion, and people who promote respect for religion. They are diseased, deluded people and when they come to this forum they invite such derision.

Again, what purpose does open mockery serve, if these people are indeed 'sick'. How do you equate verbal hostility with being a cure or a profilactic for religion?

Athon

[athon]

I usually start with the soft approach, and take it from there. I do however enjoy listening to Quackcast and his style of "evidence based ridicule"

Could this be part of the cause behind 'skeptical cynicism'? That we enjoy the hardline approach and ridiculing those who are ignorant or poor on critical thinking skills, even though it might not be useful?

On the other hand, hardline skepticism which does make us feel good could well create more of a focus and embolden more individuals into creating a social atmosphere which doesn't appear to tolerate ignorance and poor critical thinking skills, much as other forms of illiteracy aren't seen to be tolerated.

Athon

[quixotecoyote]

And you have evidence to support this claim, right?

http://www.medicinenet.com/psychotic_disorders/article.htm#symptoms

Symptoms vary from person to person and may change over time. The major symptoms of psychotic disorders are hallucinations and delusions.

Hallucinations are unusual sensory experiences or perceptions of things that aren't actually present, such as seeing things that aren't there, hearing voices, smelling odors, having a "funny" taste in your mouth and feeling sensations on your skin even though nothing is touching your body.

Delusions are false beliefs that are persistent and organized, and that do not go away after receiving logical or accurate information. For example, a person who is certain his or her food is poisoned, even if it has been proven that the food is fine, is suffering from a delusion.

If we go by the common definition of a Psychotic Disorder, religion is a socially acceptable mental illness.

[Piscivore]

Again, what purpose does open mockery serve, if these people are indeed 'sick'. How do you equate verbal hostility with being a cure or a profilactic for religion?

Especially, TTler, since if we suppose your hypothesis is correct and grant that "all" religious people will see a non-theist as an enemy, the attitude you are endorsing would actually adhere to, endorse, and reinforce their religious belief... :rolleyes:

[Piscivore]

If we go by the common definition of a Psychotic Disorder, religion is a socially acceptable mental illness.

Not even close. Very very few religious people describe experiences which could honestly be considered hallucinations. And as far as delusions, the example in your quote contained a falsifiable belief- that a specific quantity of food is poisoned. This can be tested and disproved. Most religious articles of faith cannot.

[quixotecoyote]

Not even close. Very very few religious people describe experiences which could honestly be considered hallucinations. And as far as delusions, the example in your quote contained a falsifiable belief- that a specific quantity of food is poisoned. This can be tested and disproved. Most religious articles of faith cannot.

Now you see, I'm playing devil's advocate here and eventually someone will shoot me down, probably using a more technical definition of mental illness. Going by the definition I posted, the arguments you just used don't cut the mustard.

If you pin a believer down on how they know their god is the right one, they'll tell you they feel, see, or hear their given deity. Warm hands, whispers in the wind, inner glow, etc. You get all kinds of belief-induced hallucinations.

AFAIK, all theists outside of deists claim their god interacts with the universe in some manner. Once you pin does what the specific god actually does or has done, it can be examined empirically to see if it is correct. It never is and they never stop believing it. There's your delusion.

[Piscivore]

If you pin a believer down on how they know their god is the right one, they'll tell you they feel, see, or hear their given deity. Warm hands, whispers in the wind, inner glow, etc. You get all kinds of belief-induced hallucinations.

No, what you get are subjective interpretations of what certain objective, verifiable phenomenon signify, which is not disprovable and not at all hallucinatory.

The strongest "evidence" for god that my fundy cousins have supporting their belief is the real, actual, verifiable fact that their son's horrible epileptic-like brain disorder went into spontaneous remission right before he was scheduled for a hemispherectomy. Their doctor has no rational, scientific explanation for this (in accordance with the scientific method, of course, he does not just make stuff up when he does not know the answer), but it did happen.

Prove that god did not have something to do with it, or that they somehow hallucinated the illness mainstream medical science diagnosed.

[TTLer]

Can we possibly shame people away from religion by scorning it publicly?

An example, perhaps, of the hard-skeptic approach?

[Piscivore]

Can we possibly shame people away from religion by scorning it publicly?
We can, certainly. Just the way they scorn science and reason. But it is an emotive approach and has nothing itself to do with skepticism. We can just as well mock and shame people of any X belief into accepting any Y belief instead.

An example, perhaps, of the hard-skeptic approach?
No. Not skeptical at all. If you believe in exactly the same things a skeptic does, but you do so for any cause besides reason and evidence, you still are not a skeptic. Sorry.

[quixotecoyote]

No, what you get are subjective interpretations of what certain objective, verifiable phenomenon signify, which is not disprovable and not at all hallucinatory.

The strongest "evidence" for god that my fundy cousins have supporting their belief is the real, actual, verifiable fact that their son's horrible epileptic-like brain disorder went into spontaneous remission right before he was scheduled for a hemispherectomy. Their doctor has no rational, scientific explanation for this (in accordance with the scientific method, of course, he does not just make stuff up when he does not know the answer), but it did happen.

Prove that god did not have something to do with it, or that they somehow hallucinated the illness mainstream medical science diagnosed.

<shrug> I've never met a theist who didn't claim a spiritual experience that could be described in terms of a hallucination. Even those who point to mysteries their main argument say they know it is THEIR god doing it because they 'felt him inside them' or something similar.

[JoeEllison]

I see. Yes, I agree with this. However, in an anonymous Internet forum, I find it best to err on the side of caution.*snip*

Not me, I believe in erring on the side of funny! :cool:

If that means some believer gets his feelings hurt, well... maybe they can pray for a sense of humor? And some stompy death metal boots for me, as long as they have Jesus on the line. :D

[Piscivore]

<shrug> I've never met a theist who didn't claim a spiritual experience that could be described in terms of a hallucination.
Only if you work really hard at being disingenuous. I've never met one that would, by a duly ethical practitioner of medicine.

Even those who point to mysteries their main argument say they know it is THEIR god doing it because they 'felt him inside them' or something similar.
That's what I mean by a "subjective interpretation"- using feelings to determine truth. Being wrong isn't a mental illness.

[quixotecoyote]

Only if you work really hard at being disingenuous. I've never met one that would, by a duly ethical practitioner of medicine.

As I said before, provide a better definition and I'll probably end up wrong. So far you haven't provided a definition that excludes religious experiences.

That's what I mean by a "subjective interpretation"- using feelings to determine truth. Being wrong isn't a mental illness.

No, but under the only definition given, refusing to correct yourself when presented with logical and accurate information is a delusion.

[Darat]

The one thing in common most of us have here is that we all like to believe we have the confidence to thinking critically and skeptically about all areas of our life, regardless of social context or personal affections. This, in some ways, defines what we mean by being a 'skeptic'.



Bit of an aside but I want to challenge this. It certainly does not describe me - I recognise that at times I do not act in a logical or rational manner, that I do not apply the same quality of critical thinking to all aspects of my life.


...snip...

I would define Carl Sagan as a 'soft' or 'sympathetic' communicator.

...snip...

Some might argue that Dawkins is a hard or non-sympathetic communicator.


...snip...


Understand you may not want the thread to go down this route but I would like to see how this characterising of Sagan and Dawkins comes about. I say this because I have never seen either Sagan or Dawkins be anything but polite and civil with whoever they are talking to or talking about.


...snip...


Of course there are those that pepper the spectrum in between, and it tends to rely on context as well. However, for the most part, which form of communication works best, do you think?

The soft approach might possibly achieve more 'conversions' of fence sitters than the hard line, yet the latter might well inspire the choir in its preaching, making waves that reach further and ultimately create an atmosphere where more people are willing to speak out. This is pure speculation, as I have no figures on either, but it's worth considering.

Thoughts?

Athon

I have to go for the "depends on the context" option as I do not think there can be a "one size fits all" approach to communicating with people.

[JoeEllison]

Understand you may not want the thread to go down this route but I would like to see how this characterising of Sagan and Dawkins comes about. I say this because I have never seen either Sagan or Dawkins be anything but polite and civil with whoever they are talking to or talking about.

I think the ONLY difference is that Sagan wasn't seen as predominantly being an atheist... his public identity was not directly tied into a rejection of religion. Dawkins has made himself a poster boy for atheism, and therefore is seen by many to be "non-sympathetic" by definition. The words and tone he uses are pretty much ignored; he's an atheist, therefore many people hear him as being "angry or shrill" in their heads, in a delusional sort of way.

[dannagain]

how do you delete double posts?

[dannagain]

I'll say it more clearly for the cheap seats:

Religious belief is totally indefensible, especially when parents purposely infect their children.

Religion is a virus, and those that promote or defend religion are mentally ill, sick, deluded and diseased people.

Re the OP, I affirm we need to apply the hard approach if we are to become a more secular (therefore better) society in the future.

Science damn you TTler! Do you have any idea how retarded you sound? I already live in a secular society (the UK) but people are allowed to have their own religions here without fear of persecution from people like you.
Religion isn't a virus, intolerance of people who are different from you is a virus.

[Piscivore]

As I said before, provide a better definition and I'll probably end up wrong. So far you haven't provided a definition that excludes religious experiences.
Notwithstanding the fact that a website isn't the best place to get your information on psychology, even the one you are using does not include what most people call a religious experience. You chose to emphasise "unusual sensory experiences or perceptions of things that aren't actually present" as a criteria, then you conflate "a sensory perception experienced in the absence of an external stimulus, as distinct from an illusion, which is a misperception of an external stimulus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination)".

Further, while having a set of beliefs that is unnfalsifiable is not "logical", and a synonym for "not logical" is 'irrational", taking the step that in this case "irrational" is the same as "delusional" is a fallacy of equivocation.

No, but under the only definition given, refusing to correct yourself when presented with logical and accurate information is a delusion.
I'm still waiting for your "logical and accurate" information that god does not and cannot exist. Until you can provide this your claim that unfalsifiable religious belief is delusional is unsupported, and is really no better- no more rational- than a religious belief itself.

[quixotecoyote]

Notwithstanding the fact that a website isn't the best place to get your information on psychology, even the one you are using does not include what most people call a religious experience. You chose to emphasise "unusual sensory experiences or perceptions of things that aren't actually present" as a criteria, then you conflate "a sensory perception experienced in the absence of an external stimulus, as distinct from an illusion, which is a misperception of an external stimulus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination)".

Further, while having a set of beliefs that is unnfalsifiable is not "logical", and a synonym for "not logical" is 'irrational", taking the step that in this case "irrational" is the same as "delusional" is a fallacy of equivocation.


I'm still waiting for your "logical and accurate" information that god does not and cannot exist. Until you can provide this your claim that unfalsifiable religious belief is delusional is unsupported, and is really no better- no more rational- than a religious belief itself.

I was just going to quote myself where I responded to this before. But I'm no Dr. A. I bow out at the point of repeating myself.

[Piscivore]

I was just going to quote myself where I responded to this before.

So in other words, you've already predetermined that all religious experiences are hallucinations, and you are unwilling to consider the possibility that they may just be errors in interpretation, wishful thinking, or confirmation bias?

Hmm... what sort of thinking leads one to this sort of dogmatic, fallacious position? Is it skepticism?

ETA: "I've never met a theist who didn't claim a spiritual experience that could be described in terms of a hallucination." - The examples you gave earlier are clearly attempts to describe an emotional response, not a sensory perception. Equating the two is where your fallacy lies. Insufficient vocabulary on the part of a religious person is not a mental illness either.

[quixotecoyote]

Ok, I'll come back if you're going to make an issue of it.

So in other words, you've already predetermined that all religious experiences are hallucinations, and you are unwilling to consider the possibility that they may just be errors in interpretation, wishful thinking, or confirmation bias?

I've said they fit under the definition of hallucination that I found. You want to split hairs over hallucination vs illusion even through both are symptomatic of a disorder, so even if I granted you the distinction it wouldn't help you.

You then go on to attack a strawman version of my claim.

I say:
AFAIK, all theists outside of deists claim their god interacts with the universe in some manner. Once you pin does what the specific god actually does or has done, it can be examined empirically to see if it is correct. It never is and they never stop believing it. There's your delusion.

you recast it as

I'm still waiting for your "logical and accurate" information that god does not and cannot exist. Until you can provide this your claim that unfalsifiable religious belief is delusional is unsupported, and is really no better- no more rational- than a religious belief itself.

That's an unfair interpretation.

eta in response to your edit:
The people I've talked to are not claimed an exclusively emotional experience. They say they are actually seeing/hearing/feeling their god. Your mileage may vary, but that's what I get from my sample set.

[quixotecoyote]

Look. As I said before, I'm sure there a technical definition out there that will exclude religious delusions from mentally ill delusions/hallucinations/illusions. you're better off hunting for that and shortcutting the argumentation entirely.

[Piscivore]

I've said they fit under the definition of hallucination that I found. You want to split hairs over hallucination vs illusion even through both are symptomatic of a disorder, so even if I granted you the distinction it wouldn't help you.
Yes, it would, because anyone can be fooled by their senses and being fooled is not a "disorder". Not even if you are fooling yourself. Seeing a roadsign out of the corner of your eye and thinking for a moment it is a construction worker is not a hallucination. Watching a magician "saw a woman in half" is not an hallucination. They are illusions, errors in perception.

Having the "constrcution worker" follow you home and drink your beer, seeing the woman's lower torso walk off stage and dripp blood on you is an hallucination.

Even seeing a particular pattern of scorch marks on a piece of toast and deciding that god put it there is not a hallucination. It is wishfull thinking, and Occam would suggest it is not the best explanation, but we cannot falsify this belief.

Similarly, labelling one's own thought as being "the Voice of God" is not necessarily "delusional"- another word aroud which you like to equivocate, let me note- most of the time it is the same sort of wishful thinking. There are several very important other criteria that you website fails to mention that need to be in place before one can honestly and accurately assess "mental illness".

Anybody can be "deluded" in the sense that they are wrong about how they interpret sensory data, this does not make all of us "delusional" in the sense of a mental illness.

You then go on to attack a strawman version of my claim.
If I've done so, I apologise. I don't think I did. You said:
AFAIK, all theists outside of deists claim their god interacts with the universe in some manner. Once you pin does what the specific god actually does or has done, it can be examined empirically to see if it is correct. It never is and they never stop believing it. There's your delusion.

and I offered a non-hypothetical example...
The strongest "evidence" for god that my fundy cousins have supporting their belief is the real, actual, verifiable fact that their son's horrible epileptic-like brain disorder went into spontaneous remission right before he was scheduled for a hemispherectomy. Their doctor has no rational, scientific explanation for this (in accordance with the scientific method, of course, he does not just make stuff up when he does not know the answer), but it did happen.
...which you have thusfar failed to examine empirically and prove incorrect.

This sort of "evidence" is common for the religious. While the belief that "god did it" here is unsupported by logic, it is also unfalsifiable, so to declare it unequivically incorrect is itself an error. And while it is in one sense "delusional" it does not meet any useful standard of "mental illness"- they are at worse incorrect, not insane.

The people I've talked to are not claimed an exclusively emotional experience. They say they are actually seeing/hearing/feeling their god. Your mileage may vary, but that's what I get from my sample set.

I think, were you to examine their claims with a less biased set of premises, you will see they probably are not. Using the language of sensory perception to describe emotional experiences is pretty common. Even we on this board do it frequently- a brief read through community will provide numerous examples, I'm sure.

[Piscivore]

Look. As I said before, I'm sure there a technical definition out there that will exclude religious delusions from mentally ill delusions/hallucinations/illusions. you're better off hunting for that and shortcutting the argumentation entirely.

Where's the fun in that? :D

[Roboramma]

Personally I favour the "softly" approach most of the time, both when I myself am dealing with people, and for the great communicators whom I admire. Being able to get someone that you disagree with to actually listen to and consider what you're saying is an increadibly difficult thing to do, and I have a lot of respect for those who can do so effectively. The world needs more such people.

Carl Sagan was an increadible man, and these days he's sorely missed. No one has quite come along to fill his shoes. Sure, I'm a great fan of Richard Dawkins, and some of his books are both poetically beautiful and increadibly informative, but when it comes to the public understanding of science, he's no Carl Sagan.

On the other hand, the hard line approach has its uses. It can certainly make the viewpoint more widely known. If you've never heard anyone talking about atheism for instance, the idea of it may be anathema, but when you see and read "The God Delusion", if you were open to the ideas in it anyway, it might have a lasting affect.
Something similar happened with me when I read "A Devil's Chaplin" - before reading it I considered myself agnostic. Afterward, I felt like I'd been given permission to be an atheist.

And to go a little further in to this, though it's only one person's anecdote, it was because I continued to read dawkins that I not only became informed about evolution and excited about biology, but also about skepticism. It was while devouring his writtings that I could find online that I stumbled on JREF.

Finally, I do agree with Dawkins that religion is a topic that is given too much respect. And while showing it respect is a good way to get theists to listen to criticism (and that's the tact I prefer to take in personal discussions), it seems to me that the only way that people will stop giving it undue respect is if we (or those of us who feel that it doesn't deserve respect anyway, I'm sure many skeptics feel that it does) stop treating that way.
Someone has to be the first to stand up and say no. And while many people might be offended, others might realise that they agree. I think that's how many movements grow.

So... to sum up my entire post: I don't know.

[quixotecoyote]

Yes, it would, because anyone can be fooled by their senses and being fooled is not a "disorder". Not even if you are fooling yourself. Seeing a roadsign out of the corner of your eye and thinking for a moment it is a construction worker is not a hallucination. Watching a magician "saw a woman in half" is not an hallucination. They are illusions, errors in perception.

Having the "constrcution worker" follow you home and drink your beer, seeing the woman's lower torso walk off stage and dripp blood on you is an hallucination.

I'll grant you that, but I'm not sure you can make those example analogous to the positions you want. Let's read on. :p



Even seeing a particular pattern of scorch marks on a piece of toast and deciding that god put it there is not a hallucination. It is wishfull thinking, and Occam would suggest it is not the best explanation, but we cannot falsify this belief.

How far would you take this? What about the bum who goes around screaming at traffic because he sees the end of the world written in sidewalk cracks?




Similarly, labelling one's own thought as being "the Voice of God" is not necessarily "delusional"- another word aroud which you like to equivocate, let me note- most of the time it is the same sort of wishful thinking. There are several very important other criteria that you website fails to mention that need to be in place before one can honestly and accurately assess "mental illness".

I'm trying not to equivocate on that. In my most recent post I drew attention to using the term in two different senses.





If I've done so, I apologise. I don't think I did. You said:


and I offered a non-hypothetical example...

...which you have thusfar failed to examine empirically and prove incorrect.


I followed your example down the wrong track. I thought you were using the hospital response as a response to the hallucinations rather than the delusion argument. To them I'd ask for more details. Did god respond to your prayer? Spontaneously help out of the blue? What happens if it reoccurs? There are arguments that follow from each of them.

I only called strawman because I say that specific claims of interaction can be falsified and you interpreted that as me saying I could disprove the possibly of a god existing.



This sort of "evidence" is common for the religious. While the belief that "god did it" here is unsupported by logic, it is also unfalsifiable, so to declare it unequivically incorrect is itself an error. And while it is in one sense "delusional" it does not meet any useful standard of "mental illness"- they are at worse incorrect, not insane.


Again I question how far you will defend this position. Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate?

[Piscivore]

I'll grant you that, but I'm not sure you can make those example analogous to the positions you want. Let's read on. :p

How far would you take this? What about the bum who goes around screaming at traffic because he sees the end of the world written in sidewalk cracks?
Even he might not be mentally ill. Maybe this guy, given his better vantage point than the cars driving by, has noticed that the infrastructure that underpins our society is crumbling and he deduces from this that our culture is in danger of collapsing. Maybe he is in severe emotional distress- lost his job, his wife, his house and his dog- and sees the cracks in the sidewalk as metaphors, symbols, of his life collapsing and makes the all to common error of assuming that since his world is crumbling, everyone elses' is also- or is in danger of doing. In either case, he may be wrong, but that does not make him crazy.

The point is, making a snap judgement like "ranting homeless" = "crazy" is not a skeptical response. Neither does "holding unfalsifiable belief" = "mentally ill"

I followed your example down the wrong track. I thought you were using the hospital response as a response to the hallucinations rather than the delusion argument.
Fair enough.
To them I'd ask for more details. Did god respond to your prayer? Spontaneously help out of the blue? What happens if it reoccurs? There are arguments that follow from each of them.
And that is a skeptical response. Labelling them "mentally ill" is not.

I only called strawman because I say that specific claims of interaction can be falsified Unfortunately, they cannot, always. It would make things very simple if we could.

and you interpreted that as me saying I could disprove the possibly of a god existing.
My bad.

Again I question how far you will defend this position. Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate?
Jim Jones rode high on the hog for several years- basking in the financial and sexual largess a horde of devoted followers offers, not to mention the adulation and respect- and went out in a blaze of glory without suffering any legal, and arguably few personal, consequence for his actions. He chose the time and manner of his inevitable departure from this life and his name now lives on after his death. This is not a course of action that you or I might choose, but I do not see any hint of mental illness there.

I'm not up as much on the Heaven's gate folks, but again, being wrong or being lied to does not by default add up to mental illness. Nor is everyone who suicides crazy. That conclusion was specifically struck from the DSM- and most canons of Western law- many years ago.

[Moochie]

I've just read the topic. IMO, one would speak matter-of-factly, and have plenty of supporting evidence on hand with which to support one's contentions. If the other party is amenable to reason, that would be enough.

The hammer, however, is sometimes more emotionally satisfying.

M.

[JoeEllison]

The hammer, however, is sometimes more emotionally satisfying.

M.
I think people forget that we're all human, even us atheists and/or skeptics... and we sometimes need the emotional satisfaction of hitting back. The religious folks have had free reign to strike out at us for centuries... is it any wonder that people get a sense of exhilaration to see someone standing up and being forceful, and not getting knocked down?

[blutoski]

http://www.medicinenet.com/psychotic_disorders/article.htm#symptoms

If we go by the common definition of a Psychotic Disorder, religion is a socially acceptable mental illness.

Except it isn't.

Aren't we supposed to make fun of 'those clearaly nonskeptical people' who google medical diagnoses instead of consulting qualified professionals?

The DSM-IV explicitly explains that unusual beliefs that are culturally dominant are not considered delusions, but are signs of normalcy.

[Moochie]

I usually start with the soft approach, and take it from there. I do however enjoy listening to Quackcast and his style of "evidence based ridicule"

Is there a URL to go with that?

M.

[blutoski]

The victim (meek skeptic/unsure atheist) tries repeatedly to engage the abuser (religious person) with polite reason, but gets thumped every time by the abuser, who always turns the situation by claiming the victim role...

And there's the disconnect... 'tries repeatedly'... what's wrong with putting the argument down and walking away?

This is what I recommend: if the opponent isn't on the level, stop the discussion before you lose it.

Back on the topic of diagnoses, look up the description of OCPD. This is a mental disorder that some skeptics have in spades, unfortunately.

[Moochie]

I think people forget that we're all human, even us atheists and/or skeptics... and we sometimes need the emotional satisfaction of hitting back. The religious folks have had free reign to strike out at us for centuries... is it any wonder that people get a sense of exhilaration to see someone standing up and being forceful, and not getting knocked down?

One of the most satisfying moments (for me) in The Root of All Evil? was Richard Dawkins's confrontation with Ted Haggard. It was like High Noon and Gunfight at the OK Corral all rolled together.

That Haggard was later revealed to be a hypocrite was icing on the cake.



M.

[blutoski]

<shrug> I've never met a theist who didn't claim a spiritual experience that could be described in terms of a hallucination. Even those who point to mysteries their main argument say they know it is THEIR god doing it because they 'felt him inside them' or something similar.

I think there's quibbling here. It's almost certain that the 'feeling' was real, but misattributed.

I feel a rush or zing when I'm listening to excellent choirs, but I attribute it to some aspect of my personality. If religious people get the same physical reaction when listening to gospel music, a sermon, or perhaps when they're praying independently, this should not be miscategorized as an 'hallucination'.

These phenomena have no known origin, and the decision to attribute them to naturalistic causes is a philosophical decision based on the assumption that unexplained phenomena "must have" natural explanations. This is the basic unproven creed of naturalism, from which much of science and thus skepticism derives.

But it is a belief... and to address the OP... mocking those who hold different beliefs is something progressive people usually hold unethical. Skeptics can lead by example by reserving their hostility against those who merely have different beliefs, while still holding a firm line on how we want them to translate those beliefs into actions.

[kellyb]

I voted "context".
Pleasant back and forth exchanges of ideas and information are always ideal, but if the believer gets an attitude first, there's no harm in biting back.

[JoeEllison]

I voted "context".
Pleasant back and forth exchanges of ideas and information are always ideal, but if the believer gets an attitude first, there's no harm in biting back.
Of course, in some situations, it is more fun not to bite back, but to put on your mildest expression and see how insane you can drive the other person by not matching their overreaction.

[Piscivore]

Of course, in some situations, it is more fun not to bite back, but to put on your mildest expression and see how insane you can drive the other person by not matching their overreaction.
Shh!




:D

[JoeEllison]

Shh!




:D

If you assume that people are not stupid, and usually are wrong for emotional reasons, you begin to realize that the best offense is no offense at all. Remain calm and polite, and watch them spin more and more out of control.They will probably start shouting, or if it is in a forum such as this, THEY WILL START POSTING LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!

Yeah, it is a little petty to infuriate them by taking a snugly superior position by keeping your cool, but it is often more fun than whatever insulting bit of wit you could have come up with.:D

[quixotecoyote]

Except it isn't.

Aren't we supposed to make fun of 'those clearaly nonskeptical people' who google medical diagnoses instead of consulting qualified professionals?

The DSM-IV explicitly explains that unusual beliefs that are culturally dominant are not considered delusions, but are signs of normalcy.

Well if that's the case, then I'll gleefully surrender as promised. I would appreciate a link though.

[athon]

Bit of an aside but I want to challenge this. It certainly does not describe me - I recognise that at times I do not act in a logical or rational manner, that I do not apply the same quality of critical thinking to all aspects of my life.

I said 'would like to think', but now recognise I should have worded it as 'have as an ideal'. I agree that there are areas of my life I'm not as critical as I am in others. I hold critical thinking as an ideal, but acknowledge that social thinking dominates every now and then. Are there areas of your life that you wish to be less critical in, in spite of holding skeptical thinking as an ideal? If so, which ones?

Understand you may not want the thread to go down this route but I would like to see how this characterising of Sagan and Dawkins comes about. I say this because I have never seen either Sagan or Dawkins be anything but polite and civil with whoever they are talking to or talking about.

I have no real plans for a path for the thread. So, as good a question as any.

The language and style of approach in their literature contrasts, IMO, between Sagan and Dawkins. Both are polite, eloquent speakers, for sure. Both write beautifully. But from what I've read, Dawkins uses more emphatic language which often looks at the believer's actions, while Sagan uses language which is more sympathetic to the believer and focusses on what a critical thinker looks like.

I have no study which objectively compares this, so admit I might have some bias, but it is based on my own experience of reading (and loving) both authors.

Athon

[Piscivore]

Well if that's the case, then I'll gleefully surrender as promised. I would appreciate a link though.

A lot of people talk about it, but it is hard to find one online- lists of codes are all that are readily available.

This might have something to do with it: "The American Psychiatric Association has come down hard on any site that attempts to share criteria for DSM-IV disorders. (http://mysite.verizon.net/res7oqx1/)" - of course, this guy is trying to sell his book.

However, here is a UK site that seems pretty good:
Brief Psychotic Disorder

The main diagnostic criteria is as follows:

The patient has at least one of the following that is not a culturally sanctioned response:

Delusions
Hallucinations
Speech that is markedly disorganized
Behavior that is markedly disorganized or catatonic.

I didn't want to have to go for an appeal to authority to show that being wrong wasn't a mental illness, though.

[fishbait]

"When I want it to stick, I give it to 'em loud and dirty, then they'll remember" -General George S. Patton

[Slimething]

I have no real plans for a path for the thread. So, as good a question as any.

Oh, come on, Athon! Surely, I'm not the only one who has noticed the nice visual pattern that the poll results are taking!? Sheer, genius, I say!
:bricks:

[athon]

Oh, come on, Athon! Surely, I'm not the only one who has noticed the nice visual pattern that the poll results are taking!? Sheer, genius, I say!
:bricks:

:D

And here I thought I was the only one with a filthy mind.

Athon

[Normal Dude]

:D

And here I thought I was the only one with a filthy mind.

Athon

...I was too.

[CFLarsen]

It makes little or no impact on believers whether you are "soft" or "hard". No matter how "soft" you are, you will eventually reach a point where they will accuse you of being a baaad person, because you don't accept their nonsense. You can come up with any kind of explanation, they will dismiss it the moment they hear it.

So, it is better to anticipate this, and establish the conditions before you hear the story, and they hear - and dismiss - the explanations.

Whenever I am approached with a "Well, explain this!" story, usually with the old punch-line "Be open-minded!", before they tell the story, I first ask them if they are willing to accept a natural explanation. Even if it is just one.

Most say yes, but some say no. For the latter, skip to Crunch-Time.

To those who say yes, I also ask them to recognize if their story simply doesn't have enough information to determine if it was supernatural or not. If they won't, skip to Crunch-Time.

Then, they tell their story. I let them tell it in full, without interruptions. And I pay attention. Boy, do I pay attention.

After they are done, I go over the story again, with clarifying questions, pointing out if there are inconsistencies in their story - and there usually are quite a few. If there is enough information, I can come up with several natural explanations, each far more likely than their own. (You got to know your stuff, though. They will pounce on you, if you waffle.)

As the explanations come, their faces start to sag more and more. And I do get the "Ah...." moment of realization from some. But most of the time, I don't.

If that is the case, it's Crunch-Time.

If they are of the first kind - those who refuse to accept any natural explanation, even before they have heard it, I say: "Then, why do you ask me for a natural explanation? You have already made up your mind and nothing will change it. And you ask me to be open-minded?" And then, I turn the conversation to why they would reject the natural.

If they are of the second kind - those who will accept natural explanations, but won't accept that the information available isn't enough to determine whether it was supernatural or not - I say: "Then, you have favored a very unlikely supernatural explanation over a possible-but-unknown, yet much more likely one." And then, instead of listening to the story (because it won't matter if I hear it or not), I turn the conversation to why they would favor the supernatural over the natural, even though they realize they don't have enough information.

If they are of the third kind - those who said they'd accept a natural explanation, but refuse it, even after hearing it - I say: "Then, you were not prepared to accept a natural explanation, even though you said so." It seems more as if they wanted to hear what The Skeptic had to say, only to dismiss it, so they could later go on and claim that even The Skeptic couldn't explain their experience. Ha! Which is an odd approach, given that they have just given the impression that they wanted to be convinced that their experience wasn't supernatural. And I take it from there.

In each case, it goes from "The Story" to "Why They Believe". Which is infinitely more interesting than some old wife's tale. And the bonus is, you get people to think.

[brodski]

It makes little or no impact on believers whether you are "soft" or "hard". No matter how "soft" you are, you will eventually reach a point where they will accuse you of being a baaad person, because you don't accept their nonsense. You can come up with any kind of explanation, they will dismiss it the moment they hear it.

So, it is better to anticipate this, and establish the conditions before you hear the story, and they hear - and dismiss - the explanations.

Whenever I am approached with a "Well, explain this!" story, usually with the old punch-line "Be open-minded!", before they tell the story, I first ask them if they are willing to accept a natural explanation. Even if it is just one.

Most say yes, but some say no. For the latter, skip to Crunch-Time.

To those who say yes, I also ask them to recognize if their story simply doesn't have enough information to determine if it was supernatural or not. If they won't, skip to Crunch-Time.

Then, they tell their story. I let them tell it in full, without interruptions. And I pay attention. Boy, do I pay attention.

After they are done, I go over the story again, with clarifying questions, pointing out if there are inconsistencies in their story - and there usually are quite a few. If there is enough information, I can come up with several natural explanations, each far more likely than their own. (You got to know your stuff, though. They will pounce on you, if you waffle.)

As the explanations come, their faces start to sag more and more. And I do get the "Ah...." moment of realization from some. But most of the time, I don't.

If that is the case, it's Crunch-Time.

If they are of the first kind - those who refuse to accept any natural explanation, even before they have heard it, I say: "Then, why do you ask me for a natural explanation? You have already made up your mind and nothing will change it. And you ask me to be open-minded?" And then, I turn the conversation to why they would reject the natural.

If they are of the second kind - those who will accept natural explanations, but won't accept that the information available isn't enough to determine whether it was supernatural or not - I say: "Then, you have favored a very unlikely supernatural explanation over a possible-but-unknown, yet much more likely one." And then, instead of listening to the story (because it won't matter if I hear it or not), I turn the conversation to why they would favor the supernatural over the natural, even though they realize they don't have enough information.

If they are of the third kind - those who said they'd accept a natural explanation, but refuse it, even after hearing it - I say: "Then, you were not prepared to accept a natural explanation, even though you said so." It seems more as if they wanted to hear what The Skeptic had to say, only to dismiss it, so they could later go on and claim that even The Skeptic couldn't explain their experience. Ha! Which is an odd approach, given that they have just given the impression that they wanted to be convinced that their experience wasn't supernatural. And I take it from there.

In each case, it goes from "The Story" to "Why They Believe". Which is infinitely more interesting than some old wife's tale. And the bonus is, you get people to think.

Claus, should we use the soft or hard approach in getting you to provide evidence for your claims in this thread?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2848800#post2848800

[Cuddles]

Oops. One of the votes for "hard" is actually supposed to be for "neither". Unfortunately, it seems I'm not clever enough to click the right button. Cue jokes about US elections.

As others have said, you won't win anyone over by insulting them and it is always worth remembering that your audience is often much larger than just the person you are talking to. Very few hardcore believers will ever be convinced no matter how you talk to them, but there are always plenty of people who will see how you treat them and will ignore your arguments, no matter how good they are, if they don't like your attitude.

However, there are times when enough is enough. It's all very well debating someone rationally, but after months of posts all repeating exactly the same long-debunked nonsense it reaches a point where there is nothing left to say except "You're an idiot, please go away.". I think the always soft approach is not necessarily a bad one, but it is too open to getting sucked into long, drawn-out debate with no further points being made. I think the always hard approach is a bad one though. Not everyone is a hardcore believer, and insulting the fence-sitters and others that you might be able to convince is only going to drive them away.

[quixotecoyote]

A lot of people talk about it, but it is hard to find one online- lists of codes are all that are readily available.

This might have something to do with it: "The American Psychiatric Association has come down hard on any site that attempts to share criteria for DSM-IV disorders. (http://mysite.verizon.net/res7oqx1/)" - of course, this guy is trying to sell his book.

However, here is a UK site that seems pretty good:


I didn't want to have to go for an appeal to authority to show that being wrong wasn't a mental illness, though.

Works for me.

Given that we were arguing about definition, linking to the best definition isn't a fallacious appeal.

[Dogdoctor]

I know skeptical people and scientists who are put off by Dawkins so my guess is that most woos will likely just think he is full of hot air. My guess is that if we learn more we will learn that the best results will be accomplished with a technique of communication that can be tailored for each individual. Overall I would say soft is better but perhaps hard is ok sometimes.