Atheist Tactics that Work [Archive]

Suggestologist

24th September 2007, 01:24 AM

After reading the thread on whether the Agressive Atheistic Stance Hurts the Cause: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93474

I think people really don't have good tactics for making their case. If anyone has convinced someone to change from being religious to atheistic, I am very interested in a detailed description of what you actually, objectively did. I'm not saying that I have tactics that work, I'm saying they need to be developed. And I have some directions I feel are useful to consider.

Time Frames
I think a misconception atheists may have about making their case is that a believer should change his mind after one good and convincing argument against religion, or even several of them. And if they don't, then they're just being stubborn. For some people, one good argument might work, for others it can only happen as a gradual process that may take months, years, or decades.

But there is a process involved, not a single event. We should work on better defining the process involved.

Benefits of Belief
People don't just believe because they were brainwashed as children. There are ongoing benefits that must be addressed. I will list a few that come to mind, but this is not an exhaustive list.
Family Cohesion (Don't want to hurt Mom's or Granddad's Feelings) Social Cohesion (Friends, Parties) Emotional Highs (During Religious Services and Individual Prayer) Excuse for Normally Unacceptable Forms of Emotional Expression Hope for Immortality Excuses for Strange Behavior that Leads to Altered Conscious States (Such as Fasting) Control of Others Behavior (Excuse to Demand "Righteous" Behavior of Others, Especially Your Kids) The Approval of Others

These and other factors keep people from seeing what's really going on (the matrix -- used as analogy of course).

If you can't address them, you can't really change someone without causing emotional distress. Given the choice of not seeing reality or feeling emotional distress; guess which people will usually choose?

Locked to Unlocked
"People don't care what you have to show, unless you first show that you care." I've probably mangled this rule-of-thumb in sales, but it's true. Demonstrate that you care about them as a person, before you try to convince them of anything. A stereotype of atheists is that they're uncaring, unfeeling, miserable human beings. Unfortunately, I think this is often close to true. Don't be that person, show that you care, don't be afraid to show your emotions.

By default, people are locked into their beliefs and locked out of considering that they are wrong. Before you can convince someone, you must unlock their ability to reconsider their position. Arguing with someone who is locked is like talking to a brick wall. But even someone who is unlocked won't automatically change their position if arguments don't convince them.

Hmmm, perhaps saying things like, "I'm not going to convince you or anything, but just think about this."

Under the Radar vs Direct
I think that both approaches can work.

In persuasion, two types of argument are most likely to work. The small argument that is not defended at all. And the large argument that is said with certainty and authority, and is not allowed to be questioned.

The small argument is said in passing. You don't wait for them to argue back. You just immediately continue on to the next sentence about the topic that you were discussing. And if questioned, the questioning is ignored, or it is answered as being unimportant.

The large argument is said with certainty and conviction and emotion. You don't let anyone get away with questioning it. This is the aggressive atheist stance, in my understanding of the term.

The worst type of argument is the wishy-washy type. The one that is only partly defended. The one that has some certainty, some emotion, but not a great deal of either. This is the one that will most build immunity in the other person.

Name the Game
Are they pawns indoctrinated into nonsense? Who convinced them to feel the way they do? For what purpose did they convince them? Would they have acted the same if their parents or whoever convinced them were of a different belief system?

What games are they playing with reality? Name them.

Questions
The questions that need to be answered are these:
What are the stages a person goes through, when they go from believer to atheist? How can a believer be moved through those stages? Who should we try to move? (People already in some sort of distress, or those who are relatively emotionally stable? Children or Adults?) What support structures might be needed to move large numbers of people?

I could probably add a few sections of things to consider. But that's all for now. I'm interested in what others have to add.

tsg

24th September 2007, 07:51 AM

Suggestologist

24th September 2007, 08:25 AM

That all depends on what "The Cause" really is.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not interested in converting people.

This thread is really directed more to those who are interested in converting people. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that goal.

I would be perfectly happy to leave them alone to believe whatever the hell they want provided they did the same.

There are people on their side whose goal is to convert people. There's nothing wrong with that as a goal on either side.

My crusade is against intolerance, specifically the "faith is a virtue" meme that makes some believers think they are automatically superior to anyone who doesn't believe in a magic man. That intolerance extends into criticism of the beliefs themselves. Criticize the claims of a belief system and the people who hold those beliefs will very often see it as a personal attack. And the insistence that their beliefs not be criticized is nothing less than hypocrisy: they want the freedom to say whatever they want and don't want to extend that right to others. The insistence that beliefs automatically deserve respect is nothing less than insisting that we also value those beliefs. This whole "Suck it, Jesus" debacle is a prime example of that. "Suck it, Jesus" is only offensive if you believe Jesus is automatically worthy of respect. He's your prophet, not mine. That you value and respect him does not mean I have to. Insisting I do is nothing less than forcing your beliefs on me.

I respect the right of everyone to believe whatever the hell they want. That doesn't mean I have to respect the beliefs any more than respecting the right of people to make their own decisions means I have to think those decisions are good ones.

In an ideal (IMO) world, rational thought would lead people to the realization their religion is nothing more than ancient superstition. But all I'm asking for is the right to believe what I want, including nothing at all, the very same right we extend to the religious.

I was going to add this anyway, and it sort of answers this last section:

Logic vs. Emotion
I think an error atheists make is in believing that rational arguments should convince emotional people that they are wrong. More generally, atheists fall into the "day is night" trap. If a theist says it's day, the atheist feels obligated to say it's night.

You have to make your arguments emotionally relevant first. Then back it up with rational arguments. People are convinced first by emotion, logic is only there to anchor their emotional decision in place. And atheists often come across as way too dry, or way too caustic. We need to express the full range of emotion in our arguments. The positive and the negative. Sagan showed some positive emotion in his awe of the universe, but even that, I feel, was much too dry. We don't want to be like the overly effusive, crying, screaming televangelists, but we can move much farther in that direction. And I think we must.

Look at the stem cell debate. I feel there was much too little emotional argumentation on the pro-stem-cell side. Yet the anti-stem-cell people had plenty of emotion in their position. And yet, there is much emotional material that could have been utilized to make the emotional point for the pro-stem-cell side. And some it was and is present (Michael J. Fox), but not enough, in my opinion.

So I say, don't be straight-jacketed to rational argumentation. Emotion sells first. Reason only backs it up. Show your genuine emotions, as full of a range of emotions as is appropriate. If you are emotionally closed, people will pick up on that, and they won't be persuaded. It's as if you have something to hide, ulterior motives at work. If they can't trust your emotions (because they don't see any), they can't trust you as a person. Work on being more expressive. You may have to exaggerate your emotions for them to seem even normally expressed. A logical rational argument will almost always lose to an emotional argument.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 08:45 AM

of course, there's always the possibility that they are right and you're wrong

Jimbo07

24th September 2007, 08:48 AM

of course, there's always the possibility that they are right and you're wrong

Always.

Of course, the likelihood is not in their favour...

plumjam

24th September 2007, 09:04 AM

Of course, the likelihood is not in their favour...

in your opinion

Arkan_Wolfshade

24th September 2007, 09:09 AM

of course, there's always the possibility that they are right and you're wrong
Of course that is possibility. One of the strengths of the scientific method is the use of provisional conclusions and the willingness to reexamine those conclusions when new evidence is brought to bear. Have any new evidence?

joobz

24th September 2007, 09:11 AM

plumjam

24th September 2007, 09:21 AM

Of course that is possibility. One of the strengths of the scientific method is the use of provisional conclusions and the willingness to reexamine those conclusions when new evidence is brought to bear. Have any new evidence?

because of the nature of the subject matter the evidence for the existence of God is of a different nature to that generally accepted by empirical science.

the evidence is of a spiritual nature, experienced internally.. and thus not amenable to the scientific method of external (intersubjective) verifiability.

so if (some) scientists want to dismiss such evidence they can easily say it's "anecdotal, subjective and unverifiable", and that's the end of the matter for them.
such an attitude has behind it the assumption that empirical science should be accepted as an arbiter for the existence or non-existence of absolutely every phenomenon in reality.
it's an assumption I don't make.

Jimbo07

24th September 2007, 09:24 AM

in your opinion

Possibly. However, as AW said, do you have any new evidence? For that matter, do you have any evidence at all other than, "so-and-so told me that... or so-and-so feels that..."

Rather, I simply want to maintain an environment where science and skeptical learning is allowed to fluorish(E.g., fight against Intelligent design, creationism, prevent lies from going un-refuted). The goal of this environment isn't to convert but to foster learning and science.

That's sort of like what we were talking about in the "Sneaky Indians" thread. You create an environment where ALL religions are allowed, and soon no one of them has as much prominence as it might have.

joobz

24th September 2007, 09:24 AM

it's an assumption I don't make.
It's an assumption that, thankfully, medicine makes.

tsg

24th September 2007, 09:25 AM

This thread is really directed more to those who are interested in converting people.

I understood that but felt it was important to explicitly state that it is not the only goal of aggressive atheists.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with that goal.

There are people on their side whose goal is to convert people. There's nothing wrong with that as a goal on either side.

I agree with this with one provision: if you (generic "you", not directed at anybody in particular) would be offended by someone attempting to convert you, you have no right to attempt to convert anyone else. If you are going to refuse to examine your own beliefs, you cannot reasonably expect others to do the same.

Fnord

24th September 2007, 09:25 AM

Pay no attention to the man in the corner ... the one with the pen and notebook ... he's just another one o'them Xian people ... nothing to see ... move along ...

joobz

24th September 2007, 09:26 AM

That's sort of like what we were talking about in the "Sneaky Indians" thread. You create an environment where ALL religions are allowed, and soon no one of them has as much prominence as it might have.

Yeah, I repeat myself a lot.:)

Suggestologist

24th September 2007, 09:27 AM

I don't like the idea of conversion in terms of a belief/no belief system, no matter whose doing it.

Rather, I simply want to maintain an environment where science and skeptical learning is allowed to fluorish(E.g., fight against Intelligent design, creationism, prevent lies from going un-refuted). The goal of this environment isn't to convert but to foster learning and science.

I view it like an oxygen rich environment. It doesn't intentionally kill religion, but like anerobic bacteria, most religions (especially the most foul and gangernous ones) can't survive the exposure to such concentrated levels of radical scrutiny.

I like the oxygen rich environment analogy. But I wonder: Is the dislike of converting people really the result of a "day is night" trap. Because religious people so often are into converting others, we have to not do what they do? I agree with not doing it exactly the way they do it, but I think those who want to, have every right to attempt to convert the religious to nonbelief. I just feel that they need a better understanding of general tactics around their conversion attempts (and I'm taking for granted that they know how to produce an argument against religion).

Michael C

24th September 2007, 09:31 AM

Mercutio

24th September 2007, 09:32 AM

the evidence is of a spiritual nature, experienced internally.. and thus not amenable to the scientific method of external (intersubjective) verifiability.

Although it is possible to reproduce such experiences artificially, find the variables which can elicit such feelings, and thus provide a simpler mechanism which does not involve evoking a supernatural entity.

This does not disprove the god hypothesis, but it does return the burden of proof to those claiming that these internally-located experiences are actually evidence.

Suggestologist

24th September 2007, 09:38 AM

because of the nature of the subject matter the evidence for the existence of God is of a different nature to that generally accepted by empirical science.

the evidence is of a spiritual nature, experienced internally.. and thus not amenable to the scientific method of external (intersubjective) verifiability.

Exactly. And that is why you have to hit them emotionally before you go into the logical. Religion is fundamentally an emotional and social experience.

so if (some) scientists want to dismiss such evidence they can easily say it's "anecdotal, subjective and unverifiable", and that's the end of the matter for them.
such an attitude has behind it the assumption that empirical science should be accepted as an arbiter for the existence or non-existence of absolutely every phenomenon in reality.
it's an assumption I don't make.

Another great example. If you hit emotional people over the head with logic, they won't accept it. They need an emotional reason to hear what you're saying, first.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 09:39 AM

It's an assumption that, thankfully, medicine makes.

it doesn't really.

medicine would likely struggle and make a huge mess of people's health if it refused to accept anecdotal, subjective evidence.

e.g. Doctor to patient:

what is the problem?
how do you feel?
where does it hurt?
do you feel better or worse after that?
which remedy helped you most? A? or B?
are you better now? would it be ok to discharge you, do you think?
etc...

Suggestologist

24th September 2007, 09:43 AM

Although it is possible to reproduce such experiences artificially, find the variables which can elicit such feelings, and thus provide a simpler mechanism which does not involve evoking a supernatural entity.

We don't need to do this artificially, we actually just need to do this naturally. Eliciting emotions in other people isn't a difficult task. Movies and Books and people good at telling stories do it all the time. Being an emotionally expressive person helps a lot. I guess some people call it charisma or something.

joobz

24th September 2007, 09:44 AM

I like the oxygen rich environment analogy. But I wonder: Is the dislike of converting people really the result of a "day is night" trap. Because religious people so often are into converting others, we have to not do what they do? I agree with not doing it exactly the way they do it, but I think those who want to, have every right to attempt to convert the religious to nonbelief. I just feel that they need a better understanding of general tactics around their conversion attempts (and I'm taking for granted that they know how to produce an argument against religion).

Well, I guess my anti-conversion stance comes from a view that not all religions(or all religious) are in disharmony with the healthy environment I describe. If faith brings someone comfort, I see no reason to try and remove that aspect of their life. Especially if it helps them be a productive member of society. In this regard, I consider choice of belief akin to choice of music.

I simply wish to ensure that no one forces their views onto anyone else (especially if they are hatefilled and contradict reality).

joobz

24th September 2007, 09:50 AM

it doesn't really.

medicine would likely struggle and make a huge mess of people's health if it refused to accept anecdotal, subjective evidence.

e.g. Doctor to patient:

what is the problem?
how do you feel?
where does it hurt?
do you feel better or worse after that?
which remedy helped you most? A? or B?
are you better now? would it be ok to discharge you, do you think?
etc...
Asking "What's wrong?" is not the same thing as
"prove to me what's wrong". I find it quite amusing that you would equivocate the two statements.

Anyway, I take it you have never been to a medical conference before? Or read the NIH road map? Each time you have a objective medical test to diagnose a problem, you have an associated leap in quality of medical care. Be glad medicine doesn't make the same assumption you do.

Undesired Walrus

24th September 2007, 09:56 AM

it doesn't really.

medicine would likely struggle and make a huge mess of people's health if it refused to accept anecdotal, subjective evidence.

e.g. Doctor to patient:

what is the problem?
how do you feel?
where does it hurt?
do you feel better or worse after that?
which remedy helped you most? A? or B?
are you better now? would it be ok to discharge you, do you think?
etc...

All these things are measurable by scientific method. What you describe above is called 'saving time'.

So far, no positive evidence has demonstrated the light of Jesus inside the left ventricle.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 09:59 AM

Exactly. And that is why you have to hit them emotionally sounds a bit spooky

before you go into the logical. In matters of experience logic has no power. If someone has, internally, experienced the existence of God, what does logic have to say about that?
Even externally speaking logic has no power in ontology. Things either exist or don't exist, and logic can have nothing to say about it.
What is logical or illogical about the Universe existing? It's a nonsense question. It happens to exist.

Religion is fundamentally an emotional and social experience.Some interpret it that way, yes. Are you saying that if a thing gets you emotional then we therefore have to question it's existence? e.g. your family/friends?

Another great example. If you hit emotional people over the head with logic, they won't accept it. They need an emotional reason to hear what you're saying, first. Doesn't really follow

Meadmaker

24th September 2007, 10:02 AM

Great OP.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 10:08 AM

Asking "What's wrong?" is not the same thing as
"prove to me what's wrong". I find it quite amusing that you would equivocate the two statements.

Anyway, I take it you have never been to a medical conference before? Or read the NIH road map? Each time you have a objective medical test to diagnose a problem, you have an associated leap in quality of medical care. Be glad medicine doesn't make the same assumption you do.

A new medical test to improve headache treatment:

how would you empirically demonstrate that the subject was indeed suffering from a headache or cured of a headache without taking their word for it? (anecdotal, subjective)

is there some apparatus or method that can clearly demonstrate that a person is experiencing the sensation of a headache?

Suggestologist

24th September 2007, 10:11 AM

sounds a bit spooky

In matters of experience logic has no power. If someone has, internally, experienced the existence of God, what does logic have to say about that?
Even externally speaking logic has no power in ontology. Things either exist or don't exist, and logic can have nothing to say about it.
What is logical or illogical about the Universe existing? It's a nonsense question. It happens to exist.

Notice that you are taking emotional feelings and adding logical arguments to back it up. That's what religious people always do.

Emotional Needs Argument: Jesus died for my sins. I feel so free, and etc.
Logical Justifications: Look, his tomb was empty. People saw him fly up to heaven. 1 Billion believers can't be wrong. Etc.

I'm not concerned with specific arguments here, I'm concerned with tactics.

Some interpret it that way, yes. Are you saying that if a thing gets you emotional then we therefore have to question it's existence? e.g. your family/friends?

I'm saying that emotion is a path, not a proof.

juniper_ann

24th September 2007, 10:13 AM

Benefits of Beliefs #9: Having Absolute Truth.

Science consists of hypotheses that are falsifiable and modifiable. With enough evidence, those hypotheses are upgraded to theories, but they are still falsifiable and modifiable. Many religions, on the other hand, have Absolute Truth from on high. Furthermore, in a materialist world view, there is no absolute morality. Compared to the security of religious "thou shalt nots," it looks like building a house on a sand dune.

Although I'm no longer Catholic, I still have essentially the same attitude toward conversion that I did as a Catholic:
1. Conversion is good because all people deserve to have a shot at the truth (even if it's not the Truth).
2. Aggressive conversion is bad because it is counter-productive--you just scare people off.
3. When asked, or when it comes up in conversations, be willing to intelligently discuss your beliefs. Do not try to convince anyone of anything--just state what's convincing to you and why. Be willing to be drawn into respectful debates, but do not begin them, and end them if they get personal. It's not about winning the argument (unless the argument is "don't sacrifice your children to Cthulu" or similar). It's about giving your debater more ideas to work with (planting seeds, so to speak), and refining your own beliefs.
4. Always try to be the person you'd like everyone else to be. If you're successful, maybe someone will ask you what's your secret to being so fabulous. If you're not, it's still a life well lived.

St. Francis:
“Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.”

A speaker from Opus Dei:
"Anything good can be used to bring people to God. If you and a friend both like beer, then use beer to bring them to God."

Explanation: She wasn't saying to get your friends drunk and brainwash them. She was saying that you should bond with people over common interests, and then have deep conversations with them. Of course (though it's not explicit in the quote), you're not supposed to try to convert people just to try to get your "conversion points" up. If you are converting people, it should be as part of a general interest in their welfare. People can tell the difference between a friend whom you would like to convert, and a potential convert whom you befriend.

Foster Zygote

24th September 2007, 10:19 AM

Speaking as one who was once a "born again" Christian but is now an atheist I can honestly say that no "tactics" were involved in my conversion, although many convincing arguments were. I had an inquisitive mind that won out over my indoctrination. I was exposed to many ideas and gradually altered my world view until one day I realized that I no longer believed in the god of Christianity or any gods. Often the acceptance of an idea is based less on the quality of said idea than the person's emotional investment in accepting an alternative idea. The evidence that the Earth is about 4.3 billion years old is overwhelming but many believe it is only 6000 to 10,000 years old, even after being exposed to the scientific evidence, simply because they want to.

I've never felt an imperative to try to convert anyone to my way of thinking. I have many friends and family who have no idea that I'm an atheist, not because I've hidden this fact from them, but rather because it's simply something I don't talk about unless the situation warrants discussion. If someone asks me directly what my religious beliefs are then I am happy to tell them my position, and if they are further curious I will discuss the matter with them. And if they like I am certainly open to debate the issue as long as they can do so calmly. But I've never felt the need to make it my mission to convert people to atheism. I'll share my thoughts with those who would like to know them and if they find any part of my reasoning compelling then I'm glad of it. But if they still reject my views for whatever reason then that is fine with me as long as they respect my right to hold my own view as I respect their's.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 10:26 AM

Notice that you are taking emotional feelings and adding logical arguments to back it up. That's what religious people always do. I'm not at all. That's you over-interpreting according to your assumptions, and falling into error.

Emotional Needs Argument: Jesus died for my sins. I feel so free, and etc. Logical Justifications: Look, his tomb was empty. People saw him fly up to heaven. 1 Billion believers can't be wrong. Etc. Seems like you've missed, or are avoiding, the points I made.

I'm saying that emotion is a path, not a proof.
Proof belongs to the realm of logic.
I assume you believe that people fall in love. If someone were to ask you whether you're currently in love, what evidence could you offer them apart from the evidence of your emotions?
So in certain situations emotion is the only, or the strongest, evidence for the existence of particular phenomena.
Also, ultimately, all systems of morality are founded on emotion.
If you aren't going to trust emotion then we can have no systems of morality.

Arkan_Wolfshade

24th September 2007, 10:28 AM

because of the nature of the subject matter the evidence for the existence of God is of a different nature to that generally accepted by empirical science.
Post hoc rationalization.

the evidence is of a spiritual nature, experienced internally.. and thus not amenable to the scientific method of external (intersubjective) verifiability.
Post hoc rationalization.

so if (some) scientists want to dismiss such evidence they can easily say it's "anecdotal, subjective and unverifiable", and that's the end of the matter for them.
Strawman fallacy.

such an attitude has behind it the assumption that empirical science should be accepted as an arbiter for the existence or non-existence of absolutely every phenomenon in reality.
it's an assumption I don't make.
Strawman fallacy.

Fnord

24th September 2007, 10:29 AM

... Religion is fundamentally an emotional and social experience. ...

... Well-stated.

Or, as one of my Atheist friends puts it: "Love is to Religion as Sex is to Science." One is primarily about relationships while the other is primarily about procreation.

Please continue...

Suggestologist

24th September 2007, 10:30 AM

Arkan_Wolfshade

24th September 2007, 10:31 AM

. . .I assume you believe that people fall in love. If someone were to ask you whether you're currently in love, what evidence could you offer them apart from the evidence of your emotions?
Measurable physiological changes when near the person you are "in love" with.
Objective third party observable changes in behavior.

So in certain situations emotion is the only, or the strongest, evidence for the existence of particular phenomena.
The above counters this assertion.

Also, ultimately, all systems of morality are founded on emotion.
What have you have just stated is specific to hedonism. Behavioral psychology and evolutionary psychology have put forward hypothesis as to the origin of morals.

If you aren't going to trust emotion then we can have no systems of morality.
Utterly incorrect.

Belz...

24th September 2007, 10:33 AM

because of the nature of the subject matter the evidence for the existence of God is of a different nature to that generally accepted by empirical science.

No such thing.

the evidence is of a spiritual nature

Isn't that an oxymoron ?

experienced internally.. and thus not amenable to the scientific method of external (intersubjective) verifiability.

And therefore useless, unless you also accept all the OTHER religions.

Jimbo07

24th September 2007, 10:34 AM

Utterly incorrect.

In fact, a morality based purely on emotion could be somewhat problematic!

:eye-poppi

Belz...

24th September 2007, 10:34 AM

how would you empirically demonstrate that the subject was indeed suffering from a headache or cured of a headache without taking their word for it?

That's precisely WHY we have double-blind tests, junior.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 10:35 AM

Post hoc rationalization.

Post hoc rationalization.

Strawman fallacy.

Strawman fallacy.

I see you have things in common with your avatar ;)
you know, you could always attempt to engage in discussion intelligently, addressing the points made.. instead of relying on dubious labeling

Belz...

24th September 2007, 10:36 AM

If someone were to ask you whether you're currently in love, what evidence could you offer them apart from the evidence of your emotions?

Uh-huh, but the existence of the emotion is proof of that emotion, not that there's a logical reason behind it.

For example: if you get scared, it doesn't mean there's a reason to. But you ARE scared.

Belz...

24th September 2007, 10:37 AM

I see you have things in common with your avatar ;)
you know, you could always attempt to engage in discussion intelligently, addressing the points made.. instead of relying on dubious labeling

It's usually simpler to just point out the fallacies than explain what they mean at length.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 10:43 AM

Measurable physiological changes when near the person you are "in love" with.
Objective third party observable changes in behavior.

from where do these measurable physiological changes and third party observations ultimately derive their validity?
from accepting the word of the subjects

What have you have just stated is specific to hedonism. Behavioral psychology and evolutionary psychology have put forward hypothesis as to the origin of morals.
ultimately morality is founded on emotions such as pity, compassion, love, hatred of injustice etc...
This is pretty clear. To realise this, try to imagine what a moral system without them would look like. It wouldn't be a moral system.

Utterly incorrect.
Utterly correct

Suggestologist

24th September 2007, 10:45 AM

Seems like you've missed, or are avoiding, the points I made.

Like I said, I'm not interested in specific arguments in this particular thread. I'm interested only in tactics and arguments about tactics. All of the arguments and counterarguments on the existence and nonexistence of god, etc., are all over other sections of this forum.

Proof belongs to the realm of logic.
I assume you believe that people fall in love. If someone were to ask you whether you're currently in love, what evidence could you offer them apart from the evidence of your emotions?
So in certain situations emotion is the only, or the strongest, evidence for the existence of particular phenomena.
Also, ultimately, all systems of morality are founded on emotion.
If you aren't going to trust emotion then we can have no systems of morality.

I believe people feel they are in love.
I believe people feel loved.
I believe people feel religious.

The difference is that feeling religious implies some outside force: some god or spirit.
Love does not.

A feeling is a feeling. Some are well-founded, others are not.
I do agree that morality is emotion-based -- empathy-based, really. It does not imply a higher force. It's comes from an evolutionary reward for better survival tactics.

Belz...

24th September 2007, 10:45 AM

from where do these measurable physiological changes and third party observations ultimately derive their validity?
from accepting the word of the subjects

From where does ANY observation come from ? From accepting the word of scientists and other people.

We can do this forever, Plum.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 10:46 AM

That's precisely WHY we have double-blind tests, junior.

In double-blind tests you're still taking their word for it, Pops ;)

Belz...

24th September 2007, 10:50 AM

In double-blind tests you're still taking their word for it, Pops

Yeah, sure. Care to guess why the double-blind test makes that NOT a problem ?

Belz...

24th September 2007, 10:51 AM

Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors - Sir Isaac Newton
"There is no better soporific and sedative than skepticism." -Nietzche

Wow! Historical characters endorsed theism! What a shock.

I guess I should convert now.

...Anyway.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 10:57 AM

[QUOTE]I believe people feel they are in love.
I believe people feel loved.
I believe people feel religious.

The difference is that feeling religious implies some outside force: some god or spirit.
Love does not.

It does, unless it's just loving yourself... which isn't really the accepted usage of the term.
If you love someone you're implying an outside force, an exterior agent - the force of that person's existence.

I do agree that morality is emotion-based -- empathy-based, really. Good, others here don't.

It's comes from an evolutionary reward for better survival tactics.
well that's a huuuuuge assumption there.
if morality comes from an evolutionary reward for better survival tactics, assuming I'd get away with it, why don't I kill my 86 year old grandmother? she's of no survival-use to me or anyone. If I killed her I could take her resources to improve my chances of survival and reproduction.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 11:00 AM

Yeah, sure. Care to guess why the double-blind test makes that NOT a problem ?

the problem still remains...
you're still relying on anecdotal evidence... double-blind testing or not

to put it simpler for you:

if you aren't willing to accept anecdotal/subjective evidence as valid then there's no point doing the double blind experiment, because the results are (on both sides) anecdotal/subjective.

Suggestologist

24th September 2007, 11:02 AM

if morality comes from an evolutionary reward for better survival tactics, assuming I'd get away with it, why don't I kill my 86 year old grandmother? she's of no survival-use to me or anyone. If I killed her I could take her resources to improve my chances of survival and reproduction.

Because you have an emotional attachment to her.

Or if you don't, other people did to their relatives, and made laws to reflect that.

Or, they saw their own future, and want to be treated a certain way when they get to be that age. Again, they made laws to reflect that. Benefiting their own future survival.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 11:02 AM

From where does ANY observation come from ? From accepting the word of scientists and other people.

We can do this forever, Plum.

not ALL is taking people's word for it,.. you have your own experiences too, which we usually take as more reliable

such as spiritual experience, for example

joobz

24th September 2007, 11:07 AM

A new medical test to improve headache treatment:

how would you empirically demonstrate that the subject was indeed suffering from a headache or cured of a headache without taking their word for it? (anecdotal, subjective)

is there some apparatus or method that can clearly demonstrate that a person is experiencing the sensation of a headache?A device such as that does not exist, yet I do not see a reason to assume that such a device is impossible.

Now, there are tests that can be used to determine what the cause of the headache is. We don't have a test for all possible causes yet, but again, there is no reason to assume that such tests are impossible.

---
Now explain to me how,
Having a headache and god is real are related. Because your equivocation of these two events are causing you major problems.

We know that emotions and pain are real. Therefore, no one doubts.

Having a headache is possible
nor do we doubt that
Having a religious emotional experience is possible.
These two things are well within the realms of observable evidence. And experiments can be designed to prove these two items (as Belz has indicated)

However, Having a headache doesn't prove that the cause of the headache is a small invisble toad inside the person's ear. Secondary validation is needed to make such a claim valid.

Nor does having a religous emotional experience prove
the existence of a invisible magical being.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 11:14 AM

Because you have an emotional attachment to her.

Or if you don't, other people did to their relatives, and made laws to reflect that.

Or, they saw their own future, and want to be treated a certain way when they get to be that age. Again, they made laws to reflect that. Benefiting their own future survival.

Nope.
You accepted that all moral systems are based on emotion/empathy.
If, as you argued, moral systems developed simply to improve survival... there's a contradiction here.

You were willing to accept emotion as the foundation of morality. Now you try to get out of the example by saying it's because I have an emotional attachment to my grandmother, as though that was invalid.

So you accepted that emotion was valid, and then you're saying it isn't.

Moral systems based on survival and resources are generally abhorrent. If we accept them we should just exterminate anyone who is a 'burden' on society. Mentally handicapped people, the very old, the terminally ill etc.. wouldn't stand much of a chance that way.

Arkan_Wolfshade

24th September 2007, 11:15 AM

It's usually simpler to just point out the fallacies than explain what they mean at length.
Prexactly

from where do these measurable physiological changes and third party observations ultimately derive their validity?
from accepting the word of the subjects
Addressed by Belz...

ultimately morality is founded on emotions such as pity, compassion, love, hatred of injustice etc...
This is pretty clear. To realise this, try to imagine what a moral system without them would look like. It wouldn't be a moral system.

Utterly correct
How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God (second edition) (http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Believe-Science-Skepticism/dp/0805074791/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/102-9133364-0600140?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190653307&sr=8-3)

The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule (http://www.amazon.com/Science-Good-Evil-People-Gossip/dp/0805077693/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/102-9133364-0600140?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190653307&sr=8-4)

Do you have anything beyond your opinion to back your assertion?

Mercutio

24th September 2007, 11:21 AM

We don't need to do this artificially, we actually just need to do this naturally. Eliciting emotions in other people isn't a difficult task. Movies and Books and people good at telling stories do it all the time. Being an emotionally expressive person helps a lot. I guess some people call it charisma or something.

I did not mean "artificially" to mean via drug or EMR or anything--but simply out of the original religious context, via some artifice. A natural situation would give us correlative evidence, but we would need to manipulate the situation (thus, artificial) in order to demonstrate causality.

Other than that, I agree.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 11:29 AM

---
[QUOTE]Now explain to me how,
Having a headache and god is real are related. Because your equivocation of these two events are causing you major problems.
the point is 'what is acceptable evidence?' with things like headaches science is ready to accept a person's experience as real (not because it wants to, but because it has no alternative)
with a person's spiritual experience science is not willing to accept this as evidence.
why the difference of treatment of the two?

We know that emotions and pain are real. Therefore, no one doubts. No one doubts because they experience this internally, yes. Some people experience God internally. This is doubted not for any valid philosophical or rational reason... but merely because it happens to a lot fewer people than people who experience pain.

Having a headache is possible
nor do we doubt that
Having a religious emotional experience is possible.
These two things are well within the realms of observable evidence. And experiments can be designed to prove these two items (as Belz has indicated)
Experiencing a headache and a spiritual experience are not observable, except for the person experiencing them.

However, Having a headache doesn't prove that the cause of the headache is a small invisble toad inside the person's ear. Secondary validation is needed to make such a claim valid.

Nor does having a religous emotional experience prove
the existence of a invisible magical being.

In this regard spiritual experiences are much more complex than a headache.
Almost no one who has a headache imputes a supernatural origin to it, because the supernatural or spiritual is not a component of the experience.

Yet, in spiritual experience, the sense of another moral agency, or being, or expansion of consciousness.. these are very common components of the experience.

Suggestologist

24th September 2007, 11:30 AM

Nope.
You accepted that all moral systems are based on emotion/empathy.
If, as you argued, moral systems developed simply to improve survival... there's a contradiction here.

You were willing to accept emotion as the foundation of morality. Now you try to get out of the example by saying it's because I have an emotional attachment to my grandmother, as though that was invalid.

I neither said it was valid nor invalid. I said that it likely is something you feel.

But I guess that's why babys are "cute" and old people are "ugly". Much easier to feel good emotions around a person who is "cute" than one who is "ugly" - unless you formed an emotional attachment to them through prior experience.

So you accepted that emotion was valid, and then you're saying it isn't.

Moral systems based on survival and resources are generally abhorrent. If we accept them we should just exterminate anyone who is a 'burden' on society. Mentally handicapped people, the very old, the terminally ill etc.. wouldn't stand much of a chance that way.

Well, people used to go off into the wilderness to die of exposure when they got old. Different societies handled it differently. It depends on the particular society's view of the world.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 11:32 AM

Do you have anything beyond your opinion to back your assertion?

Which assertion?

Mercutio

24th September 2007, 11:33 AM

from where do these measurable physiological changes and third party observations ultimately derive their validity?
from accepting the word of the subjects.

Interesting. The odd thing is that these individuals had to learn the label ("love") for what they are feeling, from people who had no access to these individuals' feelings. More, their teachers had no way of giving access to their own feelings to these individuals.

How, then, did they learn that what they were feeling was love, as opposed to excitement, lust, limerance, indigestion, or dozens of other possibilities?

From the behavior of many publicly observable examples.

You might think we should be better at judging our own feelings than our public behaviors--after all, we have direct access to our feelings. In point of fact, though, we have a very fuzzy grasp on these--even something like hunger can fool us (ever said "gee, I guess I wasn't as hungry as I thought", or "I guess I was hungrier than I thought"?).

Love has been studied scientifically for decades. There are some fairly sophisticated paper & pencil tests ("asking the word of the subjects", but with controls for lying or for self-aggrandizement), physiological measures, behavioral measures... Just because something feels as magical as love does, does not mean it is impossible to study scientifically.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 11:37 AM

[QUOTE]But I guess that's why babys are "cute" and old people are "ugly". Much easier to feel good emotions around a person who is "cute" than one who is "ugly" - unless you formed an emotional attachment to them through prior experience.
Little old ladies are cute too, yet utterly useless to me (in a survival sense). So are fluffy teddy bears, and pink ankle socks.

Well, people used to go off into the wilderness to die of exposure when they got old. Different societies handled it differently. It depends on the particular society's view of the world.

would you advocate the reintroduction of such a system?
I assume you wouldn't. So therefore you think our current morality is better. How did our better system of morality come into existence then? (If it's all just developed from survival concerns)

Mercutio

24th September 2007, 11:38 AM

Experiencing a headache and a spiritual experience are not observable, except for the person experiencing them.

It is also impossible for anyone but the subject to know which lens makes his/her vision sharper, right? And yet, the tools of psychophysics allow us to systematically examine this perception, using signal detection theory, to give you a better lens prescription than you would choose for yourself. Systematic observation allows us the ability to account for bias. Double-blind testing serves a similar function in headache tests, and in some of the "replication of spiritual experience" experiments.

Of course, subjects could lie--but unless they are systematically able to lie differently in different conditions while blind to those conditions, all lying will do is increase variability.

joobz

24th September 2007, 11:40 AM

the point is 'what is acceptable evidence?' with things like headaches science is ready to accept a person's experience as real (not because it wants to, but because it has no alternative)
with a person's spiritual experience science is not willing to accept this as evidence.
why the difference of treatment of the two?

No one doubts because they experience this internally, yes. Some people experience God internally. This is doubted not for any valid philosophical or rational reason... but merely because it happens to a lot fewer people than people who experience pain.

Again, you confuse the experience with the cause of the experience. You have yet to explain how the religious experience is proof of god (the cause of the experience) rather than the proof of the experience itself.

Similarly, the headache is merely the proof that there is a headache, it tells us nothing of the cause of the headache.*

*noted that descriptions of the kind of headache can lead to clues about the cause of the headache.

Experiencing a headache and a spiritual experience are not observable, except for the person experiencing them. the experiences are verifiable. and we can prove that the experience is occuring to the person.

In this regard spiritual experiences are much more complex than a headache.
Almost no one who has a headache imputes a supernatural origin to it, because the supernatural or spiritual is not a component of the experience.

Yet, in spiritual experience, the sense of another moral agency, or being, or expansion of consciousness.. these are very common components of the experience.
Now adays you are correct. However, go far enough back before we knew as much now as then, and headaches were the result of evil spirits. And if you have ever had a migraine, it isn't impossible to think of the visual lights associated as manifistations of these spirits.

SO again, how does the experience prove what the cause of the experience is?

Arkan_Wolfshade

24th September 2007, 11:49 AM

Which assertion?
That morals are derived from emotion.

Little old ladies are cute too, yet utterly useless to me (in a survival sense).
This demonstrates your lack of familiarity with evolutionary psychology and group dynamics. The "[l]ittle old ladies" are of value from a survival sense; in that they are reservoirs of knowledge which can be passed on to further generations.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 11:50 AM

Interesting. The odd thing is that these individuals had to learn the label ("love") for what they are feeling, from people who had no access to these individuals' feelings. More, their teachers had no way of giving access to their own feelings to these individuals.

How, then, did they learn that what they were feeling was love, as opposed to excitement, lust, limerance, indigestion, or dozens of other possibilities?

From the behavior of many publicly observable examples.

You might think we should be better at judging our own feelings than our public behaviors--after all, we have direct access to our feelings. In point of fact, though, we have a very fuzzy grasp on these--even something like hunger can fool us (ever said "gee, I guess I wasn't as hungry as I thought", or "I guess I was hungrier than I thought"?).

Love has been studied scientifically for decades. There are some fairly sophisticated paper & pencil tests ("asking the word of the subjects", but with controls for lying or for self-aggrandizement), physiological measures, behavioral measures... Just because something feels as magical as love does, does not mean it is impossible to study scientifically.

Yeah, you bring up some good points.
It's true that people attempt to correlate their experiences to language in order to be able to describe it. It doesn't surprise me that people sometimes make errors in this regard... we might be using slightly different definitions of words etc..

Love CAN be studied scientifically.. but studying it scientifically will never give you the real experience of what love actually is. It would be a bit like a completely deaf man studying music. Or a blind man using scientific papers translated into braile in order to study research into light or colour.

It is exactly the same with spiritual experience.
In a nation of blind people it would be easy for the majority of the population to dismiss the anecdotal evidence of a few 'cranks' who claim to experience light, shape and colour.
Similarly, people who have spiritual experiences are now dismissed by the majority. Not because their experiences don't happen or are invalid. But because they are in a minority.

Suggestologist

24th September 2007, 11:52 AM

Little old ladies are cute too,

I don't agree.

yet utterly useless to me (in a survival sense). So are fluffy teddy bears, and pink ankle socks.

Well, their "usefulness" is in the emotions they make you feel. Emotion value (even more basic than S&R value, that's no Mystery. Ahhh...mehow....cough...).

would you advocate the reintroduction of such a system?
I assume you wouldn't. So therefore you think our current morality is better. How did our better system of morality come into existence then? (If it's all just developed from survival concerns)

I would not. Because I'm pretty egotistical. I don't want to be thrown off a cliff when I turn 90.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 11:58 AM

[QUOTE]That morals are derived from emotion
Seems self-evident to me. Maybe you see it differently.
I think it's obvious that any moral system not based on feelings of compassion, empathy, love, dislike of injustice, pity, etc... would be pretty bizarre, and probably very damaging.

This demonstrates your lack of familiarity with evolutionary psychology and group dynamics. The "[l]ittle old ladies" are of value from a survival sense; in that they are reservoirs of knowledge which can be passed on to further generations.

we've had libraries for thousands of years... get rid of the grannies.
what about senile little old ladies? they should be killed then

Arkan_Wolfshade

24th September 2007, 12:03 PM

. . .
Love CAN be studied scientifically.. but studying it scientifically will never give you the real experience of what love actually is. It would be a bit like a completely deaf man studying music. Or a blind man using scientific papers translated into braile in order to study research into light or colour.

It is exactly the same with spiritual experience.
In a nation of blind people it would be easy for the majority of the population to dismiss the anecdotal evidence of a few 'cranks' who claim to experience light, shape and colour.
Similarly, people who have spiritual experiences are now dismissed by the majority. Not because their experiences don't happen or are invalid. But because they are in a minority.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/758346f7fbda67cec.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8510)
noted

Arkan_Wolfshade

24th September 2007, 12:06 PM

Seems self-evident to me. Maybe you see it differently.
Fallacious circular reasoning.

I think it's obvious that any moral system not based on feelings of compassion, empathy, love, dislike of injustice, pity, etc... would be pretty bizarre, and probably very damaging.
So, your conclusion is based on your personal incredulity.

we've had libraries for thousands of years... get rid of the grannies.
what about senile little old ladies? they should be killed then
Now, you're just being intentionally obtuse.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 12:26 PM

[QUOTE]Again, you confuse the experience with the cause of the experience. You have yet to explain how the religious experience is proof of god (the cause of the experience) rather than the proof of the experience itself.

People throughout history, from different cultures, different sexes, different beliefs about the world, have described such experiences in a very similar way. They describe the experience as originating from some entity other than their individual egos; often described as God.
As I have not had such experience myself I have no reason to doubt how they have described it.
I would suggest that neither do you :)

Similarly, the headache is merely the proof that there is a headache, it tells us nothing of the cause of the headache.* headaches and spiritual experiences differ in many respects

the experiences are verifiable. and we can prove that the experience is occuring to the person. can you prove that a person is, say, thinking about his bathroom?

Now adays you are correct. However, go far enough back before we knew as much now as then, and headaches were the result of evil spirits. And if you have ever had a migraine, it isn't impossible to think of the visual lights associated as manifistations of these spirits.
Yes, I would never deny that what are currently seen as inadequate explanations for some phenomena have been offered in the past. Which is why skeptics would do well to remain open-minded about many phenomena they like to dismiss as "woo".

SO again, how does the experience prove what the cause of the experience is?
I've tried to address this above. But let's think of an example.
Let's say someone calls me on the phone. The experience (of answering the phone) shows what the cause of the experience was (someone wanting to speak to me).
The same with spiritual experiences, except they aren't as externally obvious and observable as someone answering the phone.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 12:29 PM

Fallacious circular reasoning.

So, your conclusion is based on your personal incredulity.

Now, you're just being intentionally obtuse.

A pic of some guys doing something, and some more dismissive one-liners.
Keep up the good work.

Arkan_Wolfshade

24th September 2007, 12:35 PM

A pic of some guys doing something, and some more dismissive one-liners.
Keep up the good work.
Familiarize yourself with the terms being used o' ignorant one:
http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.sfdebris.com/logic.html
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

And here are some good articles that address your flawed reasoning:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=00028C98-6F5C-152E-A9F183414B7F0000
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/baloney.html
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663530#post1663530
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html

plumjam

24th September 2007, 12:36 PM

I don't agree.

Well, their "usefulness" is in the emotions they make you feel. Emotion value (even more basic than S&R value, that's no Mystery. Ahhh...mehow....cough...).

I would not. Because I'm pretty egotistical. I don't want to be thrown off a cliff when I turn 90.

you still haven't addressed how it is our non-survival system of morality came about, if moral systems developed to improve survival and reproduction.

plumjam

24th September 2007, 12:38 PM

Familiarize yourself with the terms being used o' ignorant one:
http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.sfdebris.com/logic.html
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

And here are some good articles that address your flawed reasoning:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=00028C98-6F5C-152E-A9F183414B7F0000
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/baloney.html
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663530#post1663530
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html

if, instead, you tried to make some substantive points, or comment on the ones I've made,... maybe bring up some objections, then we might make some progress.

Fnord

24th September 2007, 12:41 PM

:catfight:

(... and the Christians took notes ...)

Suggestologist

24th September 2007, 12:42 PM

Let's say someone calls me on the phone. The experience (of answering the phone) shows what the cause of the experience was (someone wanting to speak to me).

Or it could have been a line error (bad grounding in the phone circuits).

The same with spiritual experiences, except they aren't as externally obvious and observable as someone answering the phone.

The same. Just different. ("Naming the Game" here.)

I mean in the first case we can observe the system.
In the second case we can't.
So the analogy doesn't work for me.

Suggestologist

24th September 2007, 12:49 PM

you still haven't addressed how it is our non-survival system of morality came about, if moral systems developed to improve survival and reproduction.

That's because I don't care about addressing that in this thread. I've only addressed things I felt had to do with emotions relating to tactics.

joobz

24th September 2007, 12:52 PM

People throughout history, from different cultures, different sexes, different beliefs about the world, have described such experiences in a very similar way. They describe the experience as originating from some entity other than their individual egos; often described as God.
As I have not had such experience myself I have no reason to doubt how they have described it.
I would suggest that neither do you :)
So?
Many cultures explained the existence of lightning as a god's weapon or wrath.

In Hindu mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_mythology), the god Indra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra) is known as the god of lightning. His main weapon is the thunderbolt (Vajra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajra)).
In Hittite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites) and Hurrian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurrian) mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology), a triple thunderbolt was one symbol of Teshub (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teshub).
In Greek mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mythology), lightning and thunder are weapons of Zeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus), given from Cyclops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclops).
In Maya mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_mythology), Huracan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huracan) is sometimes represented as three lightning bolts.
In Norse mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_mythology), Odin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin)'s spear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear) Gungnir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gungnir) is an embodiment of lightning. In addition, his son, Thor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor) is specifically the god of thunder and lightning, wielding Mjolnir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mjolnir).
In Native American mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_mythology), the Ani Hyuntikwalaski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ani_Hyuntikwalaski) ("thunder beings") cause lightning fire in a hollow sycamore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sycamore) tree.

Obviously, thier similar origins made them no more correct. Similarity in explanation isn't proof.

headaches and spiritual experiences differ in many respects

can you prove that a person is, say, thinking about his bathroom?
again, terrible analogy.
I do not doubt that a person can think of a bathroom. But to claim that thinking of the bathroom was a result of the bathroom god would require some proof outside the thought.

joobz

24th September 2007, 12:58 PM

(... and the Christians took notes ...)
I'm glad someone is.
taking notes is a sign of a willingness to learn.

Belz...

24th September 2007, 01:06 PM

the problem still remains...
you're still relying on anecdotal evidence... double-blind testing or not

to put it simpler for you:

if you aren't willing to accept anecdotal/subjective evidence as valid then there's no point doing the double blind experiment, because the results are (on both sides) anecdotal/subjective.

And yet this somehow doesn't answer my question:

Why does the double-blind test make the subjectivity question NOT a problem ?

Belz...

24th September 2007, 01:10 PM

not ALL is taking people's word for it,.. you have your own experiences too, which we usually take as more reliable

such as spiritual experience, for example

Priceless. OTHER people's subjective experiences are suspect, but not yours ?

That is PRECISELY why we came up with science, Plum. YOUR OWN experiences are unreliable.

Belz...

24th September 2007, 01:12 PM

Love CAN be studied scientifically.. but studying it scientifically will never give you the real experience of what love actually is.

And that, as they say... is irrelevant.

Seems self-evident to me. Maybe you see it differently.

I would think that morals could be determined logically, as well.

Belz...

24th September 2007, 01:13 PM

again, terrible analogy.
I do not doubt that a person can think of a bathroom. But to claim that thinking of the bathroom was a result of the bathroom god would require some proof outside the thought.

Even better: The fact that someone is thinking of the bathroom doesn't prove that this particular bathroom even exists.

joobz

24th September 2007, 01:17 PM

Even better: The fact that someone is thinking of the bathroom doesn't prove that this particular bathroom even exists.
Good call.
I just enjoyed the imagery of a Bathroom god.
It's like the Golgothan from Dogma.

Fnord

24th September 2007, 01:21 PM

I'm glad someone is.
taking notes is a sign of a willingness to learn.

Don't "you people" have a Pope or someone that can nail down the finer points of your doctrine? Not that I pay any attention to His Popeliness, Bernie the Enforcer, but I was just wondering...

ImaginalDisc

24th September 2007, 01:22 PM

joobz

24th September 2007, 01:25 PM

Don't "you people" have a Pope or someone that can nail down the finer points of your doctrine? Not that I pay any attention to His Popeliness, Bernie the Enforcer, but I was just wondering...
The last time I checked, Greek Orthodox follow a Patriach and not the silly pope.*

Jeez.

*I have absolutely no clue who it is currently.

Foster Zygote

24th September 2007, 01:26 PM

People throughout history, from different cultures, different sexes, different beliefs about the world, have described such experiences in a very similar way.
Given that they all have human brains with virtually the same neurophysiology and neurochemistry how does this show that the source of the experiences is external and not internal?

Arkan_Wolfshade

24th September 2007, 01:26 PM

if, instead, you tried to make some substantive points, or comment on the ones I've made,... maybe bring up some objections, then we might make some progress.
I have. That you are unable, or unwilling, to understand them as such is your failing, not mine.

Foster Zygote

24th September 2007, 01:29 PM

I've tried to address this above. But let's think of an example.
Let's say someone calls me on the phone. The experience (of answering the phone) shows what the cause of the experience was (someone wanting to speak to me).
The same with spiritual experiences, except they aren't as externally obvious and observable as someone answering the phone.

So when someone hears voices telling him to kill strangers is that God talking to him too?

Foster Zygote

24th September 2007, 01:32 PM

you still haven't addressed how it is our non-survival system of morality came about, if moral systems developed to improve survival and reproduction.

Would you care to demonstrate how our (admittedly varied and changing) moral systems do not contribute to the survival of the human species?

Fnord

24th September 2007, 01:34 PM

What part of "atheism is not a religion" is so difficult?

And what part of "... or someone ..." do you fail to understand?

Is there a person or group of people upon whom the "Final Authority" of all things Atheistic rests? Is there a Canon of Skeptical Standards? How about a set of rules that one must follow in order to truthfully lay claim to having a Critical Mind?

Or would you prefer to argue amongst yourselves about how many memes can dance on the head of a pin?*

(* - Figuratively speaking, of course. Memes can't dance.)

ImaginalDisc

24th September 2007, 01:37 PM

And what part of "... or someone ..." do you fail to understand?

Is there a person or group of people upon whom the "Final Authority" of all things Atheistic rests? Is there a Canon of Skeptical Standards? How about a set of rules that one must follow in order to truthfully lay claim to having a Critical Mind?

Or would you prefer to argue amongst yourselves about how many memes can dance on the head of a pin?*

(* - Figuratively speaking, of course. Memes can't dance.)

There is no more a central authority for atheists than there is a central authority for people who don't collect butterflies.

Incivility removed.

Foster Zygote

24th September 2007, 01:40 PM

Don't "you people" have a Pope or someone that can nail down the finer points of your doctrine? Not that I pay any attention to His Popeliness, Bernie the Enforcer, but I was just wondering...

Whom do you mean by "you people"? If you are referring to atheists then no, there is no centralized authority dictating doctrine that one must conform to in order to be recognized as an atheist. All one has to do to be an atheist is conclude that there is no evidence for the existence of gods.* Beyond that one can believe pretty much anything one wants to believe.

*Technically, all one has to do is not believe in the existence of at least one god. If a Muslim states "Ganesh does not exist" he could be considered in that respect to be atheist concerning Ganesh.

Foster Zygote

24th September 2007, 01:44 PM

There is no more a central authority for atheists than there is a central authority for people who don't collect butterflies.

Incivility removed.

Which is why they will be all the easier to conquer. Number 21, release the butterflies!

Fnord

24th September 2007, 01:44 PM

Whom do you mean by "you people"? If you are referring to atheists then no, there is no centralized authority dictating doctrine that one must conform to in order to be recognized as an atheist. All one has to do to be an atheist is conclude that there is no evidence for the existence of gods.* Beyond that one can believe pretty much anything one wants to believe.

*Technically, all one has to do is not believe in the existence of at least one god. If a Muslim states "Ganesh does not exist" he could be considered in that respect to be atheist concerning Ganesh.

That's it?

Is there, anywhere in the definition, a clause that states: "... and must ridicule and give insult to those who do believe in the existance of gods"?

Arkan_Wolfshade

24th September 2007, 01:46 PM

That's it?

Is there, anywhere in the definition, a clause that states: "... and must ridicule and give insult to those who do believe in the existance of gods"?
Has anyone here suggested that such a quality is necessary, or are you just trying to build a strawman?

ImaginalDisc

24th September 2007, 01:47 PM

That's it?

Is there, anywhere in the definition, a clause that states: "... and must ridicule and give insult to those who do believe in the existance of gods"?

Please get over your martyr complex. We're not making fun of you because you're a Christian, Incivility removed..

ImaginalDisc, attack the argument, not the member making it.

Fnord

24th September 2007, 01:51 PM

Has anyone here suggested that such a quality is necessary, or are you just trying to build a strawman?

No need to build a strawman, one need only look no further than the post that followed yours...

Please get over your martyr complex. We're not making fun of you because you're a Christian, Incivility removed..

While the insult and ridicule may not be necessary, it certainly seems to be intrinsic.

Or is it part of the "Atheist Tactics That Work" doctrine?

:D

Foster Zygote

24th September 2007, 01:52 PM

That's it?

Is there, anywhere in the definition, a clause that states: "... and must ridicule and give insult to those who do believe in the existance of gods"?

There are many atheists on this forum who do no such thing. If you wish to construct a straw man atheist based on the behavior of those who have offered you offense then you do an injustice to all the rest. I would suggest that you judge people as individuals and not as a group label. Implying that all atheists ridicule and insult theists is no more valid than implying that all Muslims are suicide bombers or that all Christians are Bible thumping prudes.

Fnord

24th September 2007, 02:10 PM

There are many atheists on this forum who do no such thing. If you wish to construct a straw man atheist based on the behavior of those who have offered you offense then you do an injustice to all the rest. I would suggest that you judge people as individuals and not as a group label. Implying that all atheists ridicule and insult theists is no more valid than implying that all Muslims are suicide bombers or that all Christians are Bible thumping prudes.

Darn straight.

Just as it takes a few "Bible-Thumping Prudes" to make all Christians look like idiots, so too does it take just a few insults from a minority of Atheists to make the all Atheists look like bullies.

With that in mind, how about trying to form a more friendly relationship with those people you are trying to convert to your point of view?

By "you" I mean anyone with a viewpoint; Atheist, Theist, or whatever.

By "friendly relationship" I mean getting to know a person as a person, rather than as a narrowly-defining label.

Just as I've tried to impress upon lay evangelists that saying something like "Nice to meet you! Did you know that you're going to Hell?" is no way to win converts to Christianity, so too am I saying that "Drop the martyr complex, you idiot, don't you know it's all a pack of lies?" is no way to convert someone to an atheistic view.

joobz

24th September 2007, 02:15 PM

Just as I've tried to impress upon lay evangelists that saying something like "Nice to meet you! Did you know that you're going to Hell?" is no way to win converts to Christianity, so too am I saying that "Drop the martyr complex, you idiot, don't you know it's all a pack of lies?" is no way to convert someone to an atheistic view.
Rock on!

Although, I reserve the right to frustrate/mock/pick on/be a complete goober to anyone who displays behaviors that violate the decency which your statement attempts to establish.

Belz...

25th September 2007, 05:25 AM

Is there a person or group of people upon whom the "Final Authority" of all things Atheistic rests?

Is there a theist who is not utterly ignorant of what skepticism is ?

Is there, anywhere in the definition, a clause that states: "... and must ridicule and give insult to those who do believe in the existance of gods"?

No, but being a non-believer pretty much means that when the subject of the supernatural is brought up, it's not seen in a positive way.

Which is fine, because when theists speak of atheists, they say far, far worse things.

Belz...

25th September 2007, 05:27 AM

Good call.
I just enjoyed the imagery of a Bathroom god.
It's like the Golgothan from Dogma.

Actually, the bathroom god is Mister Clean.

Belz...

25th September 2007, 05:28 AM

Or is it part of the "Atheist Tactics That Work" doctrine?

Okay, now, what part of "no doctrine" didn't you understand ?

With that in mind, how about trying to form a more friendly relationship with those people you are trying to convert to your point of view?

Why would we try to convert them ? People who have emotion-based faith can't be convinced by reason and logic, so why try ?

plumjam

25th September 2007, 05:30 AM

Priceless. OTHER people's subjective experiences are suspect, but not yours ?

That is PRECISELY why we came up with science, Plum. YOUR OWN experiences are unreliable.

how do you know science exists?
only by trusting your own experiences

Arkan_Wolfshade

25th September 2007, 05:44 AM

how do you know science exists?
only by trusting your own experiences
Science is a methodology, not an entity.

plumjam

25th September 2007, 05:53 AM

So?
Many cultures explained the existence of lightning as a god's weapon or wrath.

Obviously, thier similar origins made them no more correct. Similarity in explanation isn't proof.

again, terrible analogy.
I do not doubt that a person can think of a bathroom. But to claim that thinking of the bathroom was a result of the bathroom god would require some proof outside the thought.

the fact that some explanations in the past have been inaccurate doesn't mean that some current explanations must be invalid.
I never argued that similarity in explanation is proof. I was talking about similarity of description. Explanation adds a layer of theory.. which, of course, provides greater room for error.
The people in those cultures would describe the experience of seeing lightning in a similar way. Just as mystics and saints describe their experiences in a similar way.
Going by your approach, if you had never seen lightning, and were, as you seem, prone to dismiss other people's similarly described experiences of things you haven't yet experienced, then you would dismiss lightning as superstition or the like.
But you'd be wrong.

In the case of me thinking about my bathroom, that's only possible due to the existence, external to my ego, of my bathroom. Nothing to do with a bathroom God which you've added yourself.

I'm sure there are lots of things you've doubted until you experienced them yourself.
As a kid I used to think people were just being silly, or 'putting it on' when they got drunk.. until I first got drunk myself. Before I fell in love I thought the whole thing was exaggerated; I didn't really understand what they were going on about in love songs and poetry. Afterwards I understood completely, and no longer doubted the validity of the experience.
Because things like getting drunk and falling in love are internal experiences I've been wrong about in the past, I no longer easily dismiss the reality and validity of other people's claims to internal experiences.

plumjam

25th September 2007, 05:54 AM

Science is a methodology, not an entity.

lol..
the same applies

Belz...

25th September 2007, 05:57 AM

how do you know science exists?
only by trusting your own experiences

No.

Belz...

25th September 2007, 05:58 AM

I'm sure there are lots of things you've doubted until you experienced them yourself.

I doubted I would experience them, not that they existed.

plumjam

25th September 2007, 06:02 AM

Would you care to demonstrate how our (admittedly varied and changing) moral systems do not contribute to the survival of the human species?

His point was that moral systems evolved purely for reasons of survival and reproduction. Your question here then is illogical.

plumjam

25th September 2007, 06:04 AM

No.

how do you know science exists except for having some experiences in relation to science, and trusting those experiences?

Arkan_Wolfshade

25th September 2007, 06:09 AM

how do you know science exists except for having some experiences in relation to science, and trusting those experiences?
Are you really heading down that solipsistic road?

plumjam

25th September 2007, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by plumjam
Love CAN be studied scientifically.. but studying it scientifically will never give you the real experience of what love actually is
[QUOTE][QUOTE=Belz...;2994174]And that, as they say... is irrelevant.

It's entirely relevant. Spiritual experience, like love, can be studied scientifically. But purely because most people fall in love, and hardly anyone, has spiritual experiences the former is accepted, while the latter is commonly dismissed or ridiculed, particularly on a forum like this.

I would think that morals could be determined logically, as well.

Not sure what you mean by 'determining morals logically'.

plumjam

25th September 2007, 06:14 AM

Are you really heading down that solipsistic road?

I see. You can find no flaw in my argument, so instead of addressing it you try to get out of it by using a label.

plumjam

25th September 2007, 06:28 AM

Given that they all have human brains with virtually the same neurophysiology and neurochemistry how does this show that the source of the experiences is external and not internal?

Is love external or internal?
It is experienced internally, yet pretty universally the 'catalyst' for, or the object of, love is described as being external to the ego.
When people describe it thus, it's generally accepted, but only because most people have experienced it.

This is exactly the same with spiritual experiences. Except that many fewer people have experienced it. Therefore the majority can tend to dismiss or ridicule the descriptions offered.

I guess if you want very strong evidence you, as an individual, will have to experience it for yourself. But this is highly unlikely, because apart from rare occasions of 'grace', people who experience this are generally people who have done years of spiritual practice and self purification.
So, by disbelieving it, you make it almost impossible, for you.

But it's the same with science. If someone doesn't believe that there are valid results to be gleaned then they won't go to the bother of formulating hypotheses, gathering apparatus, performing experiments, analysing results etc..

joobz

25th September 2007, 07:24 AM

the fact that some explanations in the past have been inaccurate doesn't mean that some current explanations must be invalid.
I never argued that similarity in explanation is proof. I was talking about similarity of description. Explanation adds a layer of theory.. which, of course, provides greater room for error.Nice try, but no. I was also giving a "similarity of description" with the thunderbolt example.

You are assuming that an external thing is required to ahve an experience. This is not true.

The people in those cultures would describe the experience of seeing lightning in a similar way. Just as mystics and saints describe their experiences in a similar way.
Going by your approach, if you had never seen lightning, and were, as you seem, prone to dismiss other people's similarly described experiences of things you haven't yet experienced, then you would dismiss lightning as superstition or the like.
But you'd be wrong.
Again, false example. You can setup experiments to prove that people have very similar experiences as to what lightning is. This doesn't prove lightning, only that the expierence shared is similar. You need a secondary experiment to verify the lightning's existence.

In the case of me thinking about my bathroom, that's only possible due to the existence, external to my ego, of my bathroom. Nothing to do with a bathroom God which you've added yourself.
Sure, but as Belz points out, your thoughts on your bathroom doesn't prove the bathroom is real.

I'm sure there are lots of things you've doubted until you experienced them yourself.
As a kid I used to think people were just being silly, or 'putting it on' when they got drunk.. until I first got drunk myself. Before I fell in love I thought the whole thing was exaggerated; I didn't really understand what they were going on about in love songs and poetry. Afterwards I understood completely, and no longer doubted the validity of the experience.
Because things like getting drunk and falling in love are internal experiences I've been wrong about in the past, I no longer easily dismiss the reality and validity of other people's claims to internal experiences.
You keep trying to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

No one is doubting the religious experience. I'm saying that the fact that you can recreate those experiences through non-religious ways raises doubts on the origin of the experiences in the first place.

joobz

25th September 2007, 07:32 AM

I see. You can find no flaw in my argument, so instead of addressing it you try to get out of it by using a label.
Obviously, no. Your argument is an blatant attempt to change subjects to try and save face.
Arkan just called you out on it.

bokonon

25th September 2007, 07:56 AM

The tactic I'm currently using is to advance deism as a more rational alternative to dogmatic theology.

I don't have a desire to convert people from belief to non-belief per se. If a person has a deeply-held belief in feng shui, the result is that they spend time and money re-arranging their furniture. Their irrational belief doesn't have a negative effect on my life, or (as far as I can see) on society as a whole, beyond the endorsement of irrational thinking itself.

My battle with religion is more focused on mitigating the harmful effects than eliminating the beliefs themselves. As an American in 2007, I'd like to foster a climate in which abortion is available, stem cell research can be federally funded, and intelligent design can only earn its way into the classroom when (yeah, right) it furnishes enough evidence to be accepted by the scientific community. My quarrel is thus more with fundamentalists and evangelicals than with religious people as a whole.

I'm willing to settle for moving someone from harmful belief to less harmful belief. Someone may have an "inner experience" of God, but it's their choice to map that experience onto a set of dogma. People in a Christian culture tend to adopt Christian dogma, those in a Muslim culture tend to adopt Muslim dogma, those in a Hindu culture tend to adopt Hindu dogma, etc. To echo an earlier poster in this thread, my experience of fear while walking alone in the woods doesn't confirm that I'm being stalked by Bigfoot. It's my choice to interpret the inner experience that way.

If someone has an inner experience of God, and they attribute the experience to a natural sense of awe and wonder for the creator of the universe, it doesn't necessarily follow that "heaven and hell are real, and only the blood of Jesus can purchase entry into heaven." Yes, you've had an experience of God. Now, go and discover the universe, the real universe, that you believe he created. Yes, that universe is awesome and incredible, and (as the signature of the creator you experienced) is worthy of study and devotion. The actual realized universe which you yourself were born into, not the dust-covered words of someone who was born into a different time and place. Learn about it, see how God really works.

I don't know if this will be effective in moving a hard-core fundamentalist toward rationality. It's a tactic which may be effective in some circumstances, and will undoubtedly be completely ineffective in others. I do think that moving someone from belief to unbelief may be more of a leap than many people can make. Maybe in some of those cases, moving them from an anti-science belief to a science-neutral or even a pro-science belief will still be a realistic goal.

Jimbo07

25th September 2007, 08:01 AM

I see. You can find no flaw in my argument, so instead of addressing it you try to get out of it by using a label.

Actually, that was a flaw in that particular argument... it was a fair play.

Belz...

25th September 2007, 08:06 AM

how do you know science exists except for having some experiences in relation to science, and trusting those experiences?

Solipsism. Gotta love it.

This is why I hate philosophers. ANY and all arguments with them ALWAYS go back to ridiculous arguments about the self or some other nonsense.

Belz...

25th September 2007, 08:09 AM

It's entirely relevant. Spiritual experience, like love, can be studied scientifically. But purely because most people fall in love, and hardly anyone, has spiritual experiences the former is accepted, while the latter is commonly dismissed or ridiculed, particularly on a forum like this.

I think you're confused. No one is disputing that spiritual experiences exist. We're just saying that they're not proof of god, any more than you loving someone is proof that this someone else loves you back.

Not sure what you mean by 'determining morals logically'.

Person dying = reduced social efficiency
Person dying = hurt relatives
Hurt relatives = reduced efficiency
Therefore, Murder = bad

That sorta stuff.

Belz...

25th September 2007, 08:10 AM

I guess if you want very strong evidence you, as an individual, will have to experience it for yourself.

Just like a hallucination.

But this is highly unlikely, because apart from rare occasions of 'grace', people who experience this are generally people who have done years of spiritual practice and self purification.

Evidence ?

I'd say that people who have spiritual experiences are spiritual people to begin with, apart from rare exceptions.

So, by disbelieving it, you make it almost impossible, for you.

Yes, that is EXACTLY my point.

l0rca

25th September 2007, 08:21 AM

I don't know about tactics, but so far as argument is concerned, I've so far used what I've come to call "axiom reasoning" to out-argue any point someone might make of value in access to truth vs a scientific method. I've written it out a few times on the internet. Here are two examples of it:

Consider axiom reasoning the best way we might have to weigh the value of different systems which model the world around us. You ask yourself: what about the axioms I derive my models from is most essential to my models? Or ask: could I replace my axioms with completely different ones and still arrive with the same rationalization for my model?

You can replace any spiritual idea for another, and arrive with the same rationalized consistency for noumena and phenomena. The same level of prediction remains, and its falsifiability remains vaguely in the dark.

Falsifiability and prediction are of course values based on scientific axioms, and their worth is not communicable to spiritualism — but axiom reasoning is. We can always ask ourselves if we can arrive at the same conclusions we have if we switched up our axioms. In science we can not do this, and it is the need for falsifiability and prediction that hold us above rationalizations that can fall among any other set of axioms. Science has more rigor, and less and less can its reasonings be compromised.

God-axioms do nothing to ratify reality — we can always replace the axioms concerning faith about different characteristics about god, and our correspondence with god, with equal but different axioms, and remain with the same accuracy. To give a good example: to say that god is all knowing, and that god’s works are mysterious, and that the real god is the biblical, Christian god, means that we can justify any event that happens as something god made happen, and does not want us to know the reasoning behind. We can replace these same axioms with different axioms, and reach the same fulfillment: we can assume that god is Zeus, or an invisible unicorn, that god is all-knowing or just that god is always one step ahead of us, that he is all powerful or just more powerful, and a bit mysterious, or even just toying with us, and still retain the same exact predictive power that all other ideas of god have.

Axioms about god rest upon our original axioms: that the world is in some sense understandable, that we exist, etc. What makes these axioms ultimately clumsy is that we do not need these axioms to predict or rationalize anything. We can begin to explain and predict everything in the world without needing elaborate assumptions. We only need the basics.

This last one is a part of a much larger text I wrote (feel free to use it whenever you want), called "Arguments Against Theism"

http://theheliotrope.wordpress.com/2007/04/29/arguments-against-god/

plumjam

25th September 2007, 10:03 AM

Person dying = reduced social efficiency
Person dying = hurt relatives
Hurt relatives = reduced efficiency
Therefore, Murder = bad

That sorta stuff.

People who are senile, mentally handicapped, terminally ill, indolent, workshy = reduced social efficiency.
If reduced social efficiency's gonna be the reason you see a person dying as bad, then maybe the above groups should be murdered?
I get the impression your logical moral system would take up several thick volumes of symbols. ;)

plumjam

25th September 2007, 10:07 AM

[QUOTE]Just like a hallucination.

just like life

Evidence ?read Evelyn Underhill's Mysticism, and William James The Varieties of Religious Experience. Good places to start.

I'd say that people who have spiritual experiences are spiritual people to begin with, apart from rare exceptions.
Sometimes, yes. Due to living spiritually in past lives. Others make progress in this life.

Belz...

25th September 2007, 10:33 AM

People who are senile, mentally handicapped, terminally ill, indolent, workshy = reduced social efficiency.

Exactly. "Logical" morality wouldn't necessarily appeal to us, being empathic beings ourselves. But the point is that you CAN create a morality based on something other than emotions.

If reduced social efficiency's gonna be the reason you see a person dying as bad, then maybe the above groups should be murdered?

Perhaps from that point of view, yes.

I get the impression your logical moral system would take up several thick volumes of symbols. ;)

That's because you didn't get the reason for my remark.

Belz...

25th September 2007, 10:36 AM

just like life

I guess you lost track of the conversation. Let me help you.

What I said is that experiencing something does not make it true. If I see a ghost, someday, I'll doubt my experience very, very much.

read Evelyn Underhill's Mysticism, and William James The Varieties of Religious Experience. Good places to start.

Purification, eh ? Well, as I said, believers are much more likely to have experiences that confirm their beliefs. The more fanatic the better, in fact.

plumjam

25th September 2007, 10:45 AM

Exactly. "Logical" morality wouldn't necessarily appeal to us, being empathic beings ourselves. But the point is that you CAN create a morality based on something other than emotions.

Granted that it would be possible to create a 'morality' that wasn't based on emotions. But what would it be based on instead? Social efficiency has been tried to some extent by nazism, and the results were abhorrent (by the standards of our emotion-based system)
Note that I don't state that our system is created by emotions, only based on them.
So there are emotions underlying it all, and then on top of them there are discussion, moral debates, ethical philosophy, laws etc..
So at the stage of creating a system then, yes, there is a place for systematisation, reason etc...
It's just that if you get rid of the foundation of emotion the whole structure will over time cease to be a moral system at all.

Suggestologist

25th September 2007, 10:50 AM

I'm willing to settle for moving someone from harmful belief to less harmful belief. Someone may have an "inner experience" of God, but it's their choice to map that experience onto a set of dogma. People in a Christian culture tend to adopt Christian dogma, those in a Muslim culture tend to adopt Muslim dogma, those in a Hindu culture tend to adopt Hindu dogma, etc. To echo an earlier poster in this thread, my experience of fear while walking alone in the woods doesn't confirm that I'm being stalked by Bigfoot. It's my choice to interpret the inner experience that way.

Right, just because you feel loved by someone, doesn't mean that that person loves you.

Emotions can be wrong.

Belz...

25th September 2007, 10:54 AM

Granted that it would be possible to create a 'morality' that wasn't based on emotions. But what would it be based on instead? Social efficiency has been tried to some extent by nazism, and the results were abhorrent (by the standards of our emotion-based system)

Godwin aside, I never said it would be a GOOD system. You said that morality was based on emotion. It clearly doesn't need to be.

Suggestologist

25th September 2007, 10:58 AM

I don't know about tactics, but so far as argument is concerned, I've so far used what I've come to call "axiom reasoning" to out-argue any point someone might make of value in access to truth vs a scientific method.

Well, this type of answer is a bit too nerdy, logical, cold, doesn't address what people will lose if they change their minds, etc.

Could you translate this into something more emotionally based?

I mean this type of argument is all over YouTube right now. And most arguers there, talk like zombies in my opinion. They need to talk like people. With a full and genuine range of emotion.

With an interesting emotionally relevant lead in question or story.

"Have you ever been in love with someone and thought they loved you back? I mean, you were just so stupidly in love. And you were sure you were going to have so much fun at the next party. But they ended up leaving that party with someone else. Emotions are wonderful, but they can deceive you."

plumjam

25th September 2007, 10:58 AM

I guess you lost track of the conversation. Let me help you.

What I said is that experiencing something does not make it true. If I see a ghost, someday, I'll doubt my experience very, very much.

What you're saying, really, (if I understand you right) is that the less an experience happens the more right we have to question its validity.
The only reason you'd question seeing a ghost so much is that it's either never happened to you, or only very rarely... plus your (probably justified) belief that it also happens very rarely to other people.
People who have this belief tend towards a consensus-driven world view, which tends to dismiss and discredit the unusual and anomalous.
I don't subscribe to this worldview... because these unusual and anomalous phenomena have persisted throughout known human history, cross culturally.
I feel they demand better treatment than just outright dismissal.

Purification, eh ? Well, as I said, believers are much more likely to have experiences that confirm their beliefs. The more fanatic the better, in fact.

well you've created a catch 22 there, haven't you... so the believer can never 'win'.
it would be just like me saying... "well, scientists are much more likely to conduct experiments... and the more fanatic the scientist, the more likely."

plumjam

25th September 2007, 11:00 AM

Godwin aside, I never said it would be a GOOD system. You said that morality was based on emotion. It clearly doesn't need to be.

so your argument is like this:
without emotion we could create useless and damaging moral systems

Apology

25th September 2007, 11:27 AM

Arkan_Wolfshade

25th September 2007, 11:38 AM

so your argument is like this:
without emotion we could create useless and damaging moral systems
You, plumjam, put forth the claim that moral systems are derived solely from emotion.

I put forth examples of work that show that morals could be derived from an evolutionary outgrowth.

Belz... put forth an example that shows that morals can be derived from logic.

In both cases you have then attempted to create strawmen and move the goalposts. You're not fooling anyone with these antics. Stop it.

joobz

25th September 2007, 02:18 PM

What you're saying, really, (if I understand you right) is that the less an experience happens the more right we have to question its validity.
The only reason you'd question seeing a ghost so much is that it's either never happened to you, or only very rarely... plus your (probably justified) belief that it also happens very rarely to other people.
People who have this belief tend towards a consensus-driven world view, which tends to dismiss and discredit the unusual and anomalous.
I don't subscribe to this worldview... because these unusual and anomalous phenomena have persisted throughout known human history, cross culturally.
I feel they demand better treatment than just outright dismissal.
What do you mean by better treatment?

Foster Zygote

25th September 2007, 05:08 PM

His point was that moral systems evolved purely for reasons of survival and reproduction. Your question here then is illogical.

So the answer is "no".

Foster Zygote

25th September 2007, 05:28 PM

Is love external or internal?
It is experienced internally, yet pretty universally the 'catalyst' for, or the object of, love is described as being external to the ego.
When people describe it thus, it's generally accepted, but only because most people have experienced it.

This is exactly the same with spiritual experiences. Except that many fewer people have experienced it. Therefore the majority can tend to dismiss or ridicule the descriptions offered.
So that guy who hears God whispering "kill them all" really is hearing god's voice.

I guess if you want very strong evidence you, as an individual, will have to experience it for yourself. But this is highly unlikely, because apart from rare occasions of 'grace', people who experience this are generally people who have done years of spiritual practice and self purification.
So, by disbelieving it, you make it almost impossible, for you.
I was once a born again Christian so your assumption that I have never had any spiritual experiences is erroneous, but not surprising as I've seen you leap to a number of convenient conclusions. Your "you can't believe because you don't believe" is just another version of the "you will believe if you believe" tautology. It offers no support of the validity of your claims.

But it's the same with science. If someone doesn't believe that there are valid results to be gleaned then they won't go to the bother of formulating hypotheses, gathering apparatus, performing experiments, analysing results etc..
Again, you are assuming things about me that are incorrect. I have investigated the spiritual hypothesis, as have many other atheists I know.

articulett

25th September 2007, 05:33 PM

Social/moral systems evolve in many social animals--basic game theory... you start out giving others the benefit of the doubt and respond in tit for tat fashion... others avoid doing bad, so it doesn't come back to them... dopamine is released when you do good, cheaters are punished, give when you have (not just for the dopamine rush), but also so that others will give to you when you don't have-- a social insurance policy... it evolved because it maximizes benefits for those in the social group and protects them from out group attacks (strengths in numbers.)

I don't see how people can be so retarded to think that morality comes from religion... they all cherry pick what they want from their assorted religions anyhow... and dogs don't run around murdering and indulging in the sort of things humans imagine they'd do without religion... most animals don't in fact. Humans are the only animals with such vicious warring... and the only animals that kill in the name of god or some other higher power (males more than females, I might add.).

Where are all these good, moral religious people. I think their morality may exist in their heads like their gods. Statistically, secular societies are healthier... but I imagine religious people think those that believe whatever sect they've been brainwashed with are the super duper best people of all. I find plumjam vapid. I can't tell if his religion made him that way or if he was just to daft to think his way out of it. But boy is he ad advertisement for not inflicting it on children and passing on critical thinking tools.

articulett

25th September 2007, 05:34 PM

The hijackers were hearing Allah's voice... and they were successful (may even be enjoying sex in the afterlife if their sect is true)-- so god must have been answering to Allah that day.

Foster Zygote

25th September 2007, 05:36 PM

how do you know science exists except for having some experiences in relation to science, and trusting those experiences? Are you really heading down that solipsistic road?
I don't think he even knows it's a road, or that it leads to solipsism. He seems completely oblivious of Descartes' writing on the subject or of the centuries of philosophy since.

articulett

25th September 2007, 05:43 PM

I'm against trying to convert people. But I don't defer to religion. I will ask people about why god would care so much about "belief" rather than actions? --or other such questions that lead me to learn to think for myself. I may point out how there really is no way to tell one faith from another in regards to truth since none have any measurable evidence in their favor so people just tend to go with the one they were born into or that feels the "best". Or I'll point out that since I can't know if god exists--that means nobody else can either and lots of people have been known to fool themselves when it comes to such things often with some tragic consequences.

Sometimes I'll say that I don't see how souls could be real given the total devastation of personhood with various types of brain damage-- how could they be anything without a brain at all?

I've asked people what makes their belief system more likely to be true than Scientology.
Sometimes I'll say that I don't care about what people believe-- I care about facts... and I care about other people opinions (and I consider beliefs opinions) about as much as they care about mine.

But mostly I stay quiet... until someone expects me to defer or are doing the double standard thing where they can only see what is good about religion and only see what is bad about a non-believer.

Faith is a bad way to know actual truths. It's also one of the most common ways humans are known to fool themselves and manipulate others.

Suggestologist

25th September 2007, 06:02 PM

I'm against trying to convert people.

Why?

Is it just that some religions are so annoying about the way they try to convert people? I'm not asking you to convert people. You don't have to do it yourself, to support the effort.

Skepticybe

25th September 2007, 06:59 PM

Good OP.

I think one of the points that should always be made by atheists/nontheists when talking with theists is that any god will be completely and fully compatible with science. That doesn't mean science knows everything, or that science can prove or disprove the existence of some supreme being (however defined). It simply means that all things conceivable will be governed by inviolable rules. This can be a handy measuring tool to see where beliefs become rational, and any discussion is wasted on anyone who can't accept this simple principle. Science is not the enemy of god, only the enemy of false gods.

Plumjam brought up the point of personal spiritual manifestation directly from god. Something to keep in mind is the different realms of "evidence". A person's experiences in life are part of their set of evidence they use to draw conclusions. Very few people are able to assess the evidenciary (sp?) value of their experience as anything less than 100%.

If, for example, someone were to spontaneously regenerate an amputated limb, that would become irrefutable evidence of a miracle to all who witnessed it. But none of us could (or should!) consider this at face value without some extreme validation of the event. So, god talking to plumjam (imagined or not) is part of his evidence, but not ours. And we can't even start to evaluate his experience; it is uniquely and irrevocably his alone. The best we could hope for is for him to more objectively evaluate his experience and measure it vs science.

At the risk of sharing too much information, I enjoy hallucinogens including weed and magic mushrooms, something I decided to start in my 30's after much long research into potential risks and benefits. While under the influence of mushrooms in particular, I too have experienced profound and undeniable spirituality. Yes, I know I was on drugs and my perception was severely altered and unreliable, and the experience can only be tested to the extent that I can compare it against science for consistency. But those experiences nevertheless become part of my "knowledge base" which involuntarily forms my beliefs, precluding me from accepting pure and strict atheism -- for now, at least. However, I still identify best philosophically with atheists and don't accept the existence of an other-worldly supreme authority based on any form of parent/child or ruler/subject model.

More directly, I would say to plumjam, that my undeniable and incredibly vivid spiritual experiences (the most profound moments of my life) directly and almost completely contradict yours (as you've described them). Both of us can't be right, but we both can be wrong.

As a science enthusiast, I'm hopeful that psychedelics will eventually provide science with a far better understanding of the human brain, and may eventually provide the basis for validating or falsifying the existence of a spirit (for lack of a better term). It's truly a shame that psychedelics are used so much yet studied so little.

Belz...

26th September 2007, 05:27 AM

What you're saying, really, (if I understand you right) is that the less an experience happens the more right we have to question its validity.

Ugh. This is painful.

What I'm saying is that you can't trust your perceptions as much as you seem to think.

The only reason you'd question seeing a ghost so much is that it's either never happened to you, or only very rarely... plus your (probably justified) belief that it also happens very rarely to other people.

Actually, you are -- again -- completely wrong. The reason what seeing a ghost would be a questionable experience is because it's much, much more credible to think that I'm having a hallucination than to think that somehow, some way, people's spirits survive death or imprint their patterns upon their surroundings.

People who have this belief tend towards a consensus-driven world view, which tends to dismiss and discredit the unusual and anomalous.

Plum, this isn't a belief, it's a natural consequence of looking at things scientifically.

I don't subscribe to this worldview...

Obviously.

because these unusual and anomalous phenomena have persisted throughout known human history, cross culturally.

Which, in and of itself, means nothing, because very, very often these "phenomena" are mutually exclusive, cross culturally. Take gods, for example...

I feel they demand better treatment than just outright dismissal.

They HAVE had better treatment, but nobody has ever been able to detect their existence. Take bigfoot, for example...

well you've created a catch 22 there, haven't you... so the believer can never 'win'.

Of course the believer can never win, because reality is not a matter of belief.

it would be just like me saying... "well, scientists are much more likely to conduct experiments... and the more fanatic the scientist, the more likely."

And... how would that be bad ?

Belz...

26th September 2007, 05:29 AM

so your argument is like this:
without emotion we could create useless and damaging moral systems

Your ability to comprehend other people's points is abysmal, at best.

What I'm saying is what I've said in the post you were responding to. That this moral system would be "damaging" is entirely inconsequential to our discussion. You didn't say "good" moral system, in which case you'd still be wrong.

Belz...

26th September 2007, 05:30 AM

The hijackers were hearing Allah's voice... and they were successful (may even be enjoying sex in the afterlife if their sect is true)

Sure, but after 5 or 6 billion years, they'll want more than just 72 virgins.

Fnord

17th October 2007, 05:50 PM

:clap:

You people are great!

I showed this thread to some fundie friends, and they're totally "Spun Up" about it. I hope that the one who claims to know Jack Chick personally was telling the truth, as I'd love to see Belz's avatar on the cover of a Chick Tract.

One of them said something about that Fnord guy being a Judas for even posting here, but...

:con2:

Undesired Walrus

17th October 2007, 06:02 PM

Atheist tactics?

I believed that the Iraq War was wrong, I felt it was wrong. But there is no power, no definitive morality to affirm that 'belief' as true.

You believe in God, you sense he is there, yet you ask this to take exception.

INRM

20th October 2007, 01:20 PM

Well, any time I discussed atheism I never really came on aggressively. I also didn't call it atheism, I just called it not believing in God.

For some reason Americans aren't all that intolerant of Americans not beliving in God, but are totally distrusting of Atheists. Now try wrapping your minds around that...

The word atheism doesn't just conjure up a non-believer, but an angry "preachy" non-believer who accuses opposition of being mentally ill. Although not all atheists are like that -- Atheist just means a person who doesn't believe in God, but it has a connotation

JetLeg

21st October 2007, 06:48 AM

Benefits of Belief
People don't just believe because they were brainwashed as children. There are ongoing benefits that must be addressed. I will list a few that come to mind, but this is not an exhaustive list.
Family Cohesion (Don't want to hurt Mom's or Granddad's Feelings) Social Cohesion (Friends, Parties) Emotional Highs (During Religious Services and Individual Prayer) Excuse for Normally Unacceptable Forms of Emotional Expression Hope for Immortality Excuses for Strange Behavior that Leads to Altered Conscious States (Such as Fasting) Control of Others Behavior (Excuse to Demand "Righteous" Behavior of Others, Especially Your Kids) The Approval of Others

These and other factors keep people from seeing what's really going on (the matrix -- used as analogy of course).

If you can't address them, you can't really change someone without causing emotional distress. Given the choice of not seeing reality or feeling emotional distress; guess which people will usually choose?

These are just ad hominem arguments.

JetLeg

21st October 2007, 06:50 AM

He seems completely oblivious of Descartes' writing on the subject or of the centuries of philosophy since.

Don't you think that the arguments of Descartes are bullet-proof?

JetLeg

21st October 2007, 06:56 AM

You have to make your arguments emotionally relevant first. Then back it up with rational arguments. People are convinced first by emotion, logic is only there to anchor their emotional decision in place. And atheists often come across as way too dry, or way too caustic. We need to express the full range of emotion in our arguments. The positive and the negative. Sagan showed some positive emotion in his awe of the universe, but even that, I feel, was much too dry. We don't want to be like the overly effusive, crying, screaming televangelists, but we can move much farther in that direction. And I think we must.

Look at the stem cell debate. I feel there was much too little emotional argumentation on the pro-stem-cell side. Yet the anti-stem-cell people had plenty of emotion in their position. And yet, there is much emotional material that could have been utilized to make the emotional point for the pro-stem-cell side. And some it was and is present (Michael J. Fox), but not enough, in my opinion.

So I say, don't be straight-jacketed to rational argumentation. Emotion sells first. Reason only backs it up. Show your genuine emotions, as full of a range of emotions as is appropriate. If you are emotionally closed, people will pick up on that, and they won't be persuaded. It's as if you have something to hide, ulterior motives at work. If they can't trust your emotions (because they don't see any), they can't trust you as a person. Work on being more expressive. You may have to exaggerate your emotions for them to seem even normally expressed. A logical rational argument will almost always lose to an emotional argument.

Weird that you say that. The ideal in rational thinking is precisely not being convinced by emotions, but being convinced by reason. Would you, as an atheist be happy if everyone believed that there is no god, due to arguments from authority? However, it is a logical conclusion of your views, since that is the easiest way to prove that.

And if the last sentence of your quote would be true, then skeptics would not exist.

Arkan_Wolfshade

21st October 2007, 10:48 AM

These are just ad hominem arguments.
Clarify; do you tu quoque, circumstantial, or abusive?

Suggestologist

21st October 2007, 11:09 AM

These are just ad hominem arguments.

These are not arguments.
They are tactical factors.

These are factors I think should be taken into consideration within discussions with religious folk, to increase the effectiveness of arguments against religion. I'm not really concerned with any specific arguments, in that post of mine you quoted.

Suggestologist

21st October 2007, 11:12 AM

Weird that you say that. The ideal in rational thinking is precisely not being convinced by emotions, but being convinced by reason. Would you, as an atheist be happy if everyone believed that there is no god, due to arguments from authority? However, it is a logical conclusion of your views, since that is the easiest way to prove that.

And if the last sentence of your quote would be true, then skeptics would not exist.

Skeptics back up emotional conclusions with logical conclusions. The religious, generally do not.

Suggestologist

22nd October 2007, 01:21 PM

A Few Points

Some of these will probably be controversial among skeptics, but I'd like to hear opinions on such tactics:

Position yourself to their right.

People say "yes" more to people who are thinner than fatter. So lose weight if you need to.

Lean in a little when they are talking about what is important to them.

Get small movements, then escalate over time. (Foot-in-the-Door principle)
To get someone to do something, get them to take an action (physical).
Creating a picture in their minds is not as effective, as an actual experience.

When people say they are 99% sure, they are actually 90% sure.
People overestimate their own certainty levels.

Do some light cold reading to make them comfortable with you.
People do this all the time naturally.
By light cold reading, I mean tell them your general positive or neutral impressions of them.
It's OK to be wrong.

Give them a skeptical compliment as you cold read.
"You don't believe everything you hear, you like to make sure, don't you."
This sets up an expectation that they have questioned whatever supernatural beliefs they may present later. Remind them that they are skeptical people, when they bring those up.