A letter to Atheists

static_
static_'s picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2006-05-04
User is offlineOffline
A letter to Atheists

Hi guys, I made this video called "A letter to Atheists"
Check it out here (new window) and let me know what you think (preferably respond on YouTube)

I don't know how current my ideas are, and if it's just a massive redundancy, then I apologize for being unaware of it.

{Mod Edit: I took the liberty of embedding the video}


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I like it. How do we make it

I like it. How do we make it happen?


slightlyoddguy
slightlyoddguy's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Wow, this video is exactly

Wow, this video is exactly the sort of thing that's been on my mind these past few months. I'm currently a junior in high school, and I can attest to the fact that the school system is, to be frank, shit. Critical thinking? Bah! You have a test next week, you'd better get to memorizing! You don't have time to think! That's the mindset that's pushed on us. And if a tendency towards logical analysis isn't an inherent quality in a young person, well, the education system sure as hell isn't going to do anything about it.

But I don't think this is a problem that can be fixed as easily as you think. There have to be teachers that are able and willing to teach critical thinking, and well, at least where I'm from, I don't see that happening. The other day, for example, my Humanities teacher eloquently pointed out to me that global warming was not a problem, because "God makes the earth warm up and cool down, just like he makes it rain". After explaining the water cycle to her and noting that it does not, in fact, require that we invoke the supernatural, she gave me the deer-in-the-headlights look. "But who makes the water cycle work?" We may need to start with the teachers before we can reach the students...

The unexamined life is not worth living - Socrates


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
slightlyoddguy wrote:

slightlyoddguy wrote:

Wow, this video is exactly the sort of thing that's been on my mind these past few months. I'm currently a junior in high school, and I can attest to the fact that the school system is, to be frank, shit. Critical thinking? Bah! You have a test next week, you'd better get to memorizing! You don't have time to think! That's the mindset that's pushed on us. And if a tendency towards logical analysis isn't an inherent quality in a young person, well, the education system sure as hell isn't going to do anything about it.

But I don't think this is a problem that can be fixed as easily as you think. There have to be teachers that are able and willing to teach critical thinking, and well, at least where I'm from, I don't see that happening. The other day, for example, my Humanities teacher eloquently pointed out to me that global warming was not a problem, because "God makes the earth warm up and cool down, just like he makes it rain". After explaining the water cycle to her and noting that it does not, in fact, require that we invoke the supernatural, she gave me the deer-in-the-headlights look. "But who makes the water cycle work?" We may need to start with the teachers before we can reach the students...

Welcome to RRS.

I've thought about this a lot. I have a California teaching credential and one of the things my master teacher stressed was teaching the kids how to think for themselves. She was very unusual. She was brave enough to say what we all know is true: "There is such a thing as a stupid question."

When a student asked a question, this teacher would kindly and gently ask what the student thought and why.

This was a class of second graders, the youngest class in which I co-taught, and I heard more creative and logical thinking from them than from the fourth, fifth and sixth graders I also taught. When I'm around kids, I still have a tendency to ask, "Well, what do you think?"

In the classroom, this is a valuable tool. If the question is of the time-wasting variety, it quickly becomes clear to everyone. Smiling It's kind of funny to watch a student answer his or her own question. Sometimes, if it was a bald-faced attempt to waste time, the teacher would say, "If you already knew the answer, then why did you ask the question?"

Other times turning the question back on the student can lead to in-depth philosophical discussions. And yes, I'm talking about second graders.

This was just one tool this teacher employed, but it was a HUGE time saver and a wonderful way to introduce a stimulating class discussion.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Waiting for Oblivion
Waiting for Oblivion's picture
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-10-22
User is offlineOffline
It's really good, good job.

It's really good, good job.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: I like it.

magilum wrote:
I like it. How do we make it happen?

Standardized tests are a huge obstacle.  Most of the teachers I've known spent most of their time teaching for the test.  As our new forum member so eloquently stated, students tend to memorize by rote rather than explore and develop new ideas.

Problems with standardized tests:

  1. Teacher feels obligated to teach what's on the test and doesn't have time for anything else.  Unfortunately, standardized tests are quite limited in scope.
  2. Standardized tests focus on rote learning and not on creative or logical thinking.
  3. Standardized tests can be wrong.  The kids in that second grade class scored pretty low on some of the standardized tests, but were head and shoulders above the other kids I taught when it came to thinking for themselves.

Standardized tests are probably here to stay, but we could start by changing what is on them.  How about learning the logical fallacies?  You've got to not only learn them, but know how to apply them.

I had a completely religious education (except for self-education).  I never had a logic class.  Are you surprised? 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


static_
static_'s picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2006-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Well I'm not saying that we

Well I'm not saying that we should aim to give every kid a perfect understanding of logical fallacies. Obviously that would be hard to accomplish. A point I made in the video is that the average person - at least, in my experience - looks at you like you're speaking another language (and crazy on top of it) when you start mentioning logical fallacies in the midst of a debate. Most people seem to think, "Look at that cocky guy, sayin' big words, thinking he's all right and great for it!"

That's what I'm saying needs to change - simply the awareness level of logical principles. Doesn't matter if the teaching of them is perverted or what-not. As long as there's some sort of awareness.

In the big leagues of the debate, this isn't as much of a problem. I'm talking about the average populace. Go around a college campus, ask every kid you see if they know what "ad hominem" means, and you'll leave incredibly disheartened.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   I Like your Video, "You

  

I Like your Video, "You must allow them to free themselves, on a massive scale , they see this as bible prophecy, a closed system", ... yes yes, so sad sad ...

If all religion and mythology was indeed equally taught that would help. Just simply understanding other god concepts, as even the idea that Jesus philosophy was atheistic and simular to Buddha etc.

Yeah, logic 101, and ethics education starting at grade one on their level. Think of the films and books for kids that need to be written.

"Quick" change is possible .... but first the system needs fixing ... the battle is against those that like it the way it is, and the ho hum moderates who think toleration is a virtue.


slightlyoddguy
slightlyoddguy's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-11-12
User is offlineOffline
static_ wrote: Well I'm not

static_ wrote:
Well I'm not saying that we should aim to give every kid a perfect understanding of logical fallacies. Obviously that would be hard to accomplish. A point I made in the video is that the average person - at least, in my experience - looks at you like you're speaking another language (and crazy on top of it) when you start mentioning logical fallacies in the midst of a debate. Most people seem to think, "Look at that cocky guy, sayin' big words, thinking he's all right and great for it!"

That's what I'm saying needs to change - simply the awareness level of logical principles. Doesn't matter if the teaching of them is perverted or what-not. As long as there's some sort of awareness.

In the big leagues of the debate, this isn't as much of a problem. I'm talking about the average populace. Go around a college campus, ask every kid you see if they know what "ad hominem" means, and you'll leave incredibly disheartened.

You're right. I'm just too dissatisfied with the education system as a whole, I think, but that's another discussion altogether. I'm completely in favor of your proposal.

I'm reluctant to say that the implementation of a class on logical thinking would have a big impact on the religious, though. In my experience (and I may be wrong), people tend to place religion above logic, asserting that God is "beyond human understanding" or some such nonsense. Still, it's worth a shot, especially considering the other areas of society it'll affect.

The unexamined life is not worth living - Socrates


static_
static_'s picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2006-05-04
User is offlineOffline
slightlyoddguy

slightlyoddguy wrote:

You're right. I'm just too dissatisfied with the education system as a whole, I think, but that's another discussion altogether. I'm completely in favor of your proposal.

I'm reluctant to say that the implementation of a class on logical thinking would have a big impact on the religious, though. In my experience (and I may be wrong), people tend to place religion above logic, asserting that God is "beyond human understanding" or some such nonsense. Still, it's worth a shot, especially considering the other areas of society it'll affect.



Exactly. This would be one big whack at . . . everything. Crime, poverty, general human stupidity (hahah) . . . and would beg believers to come up with better reasons to believe. Ideally, true logic would win - and many (MANY) theists would climb out of their own holes. I climbed out of my own, but it was with a hackeneyed understanding of logic. It took me 3 years. If I had known about logical fallacies immediately, I guarantee it would've taken me only a few months.

And about the comment of putting religion above logic - that can happen, but as far as it being a developing trend, I wouldn't worry about it too much. At least, when I was growing up (in a Baptist private school, went to fundamental churches) . . . It was the trend to nay-say "leaving your brain at the door". The Christian community is struggling to aspouse that their position is logical - not the other way around - because they realize that the other way around is . . . stupid.


ArianeB
ArianeB's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-09-24
User is offlineOffline
A couple of points from a

A couple of points from a former educator.

The education pendulum has been swinging back and forth on on this stuff for a long time. Back in the 50's and 60's it was all rote learning. Then the "Humanist" movement in education emphsized "discovery" in the classroom which made classes fun but the kids were not really learning as much. So the pendulum swung back in the 80's as "open schools" became closed again. Then the 90's it swung the other way again with "teaching thinking skills" "cooperative education" and in Math there was IMPS. Now we have "No Child Left Behind" which is just teaching to the test learning again.

The problem with teaching thinking skills turns out to be that if you do not also teach context for those thinking skills to be applied, the thinking skills soon fade.

I was very very lucky to get a junior high science teacher that also taught us logic in the context of science. He started the class with the famous "Brains in vats" argument, and said he would give an A to anyone who could prove him wrong. Inevitably someone would ask him to prove he was right and he of course would introduce the problems with proving a negative. He basically taught us logic and logical fallacies and the importance of empirical observation.

Instead of requiring a logic 101 class for all students, logic and critical thinking should be primary skills emphasized in all science classes, and more science should be required.

 


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
ArianeB wrote: The problem

ArianeB wrote:


The problem with teaching thinking skills turns out to be that if you do not also teach context for those thinking skills to be applied, the thinking skills soon fade.


I agree with you.  There has to be some rote learning on which to base thinking skills.  The master teacher I spoke of had language arts down pretty well and taught grammar rules, spelling, etc. on an individual basis in each child's journal, but she didn't know what to do with math because, by nature, it is more restrictive.  The rules have to be memorized. 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


DrTerwilliker
DrTerwilliker's picture
Posts: 151
Joined: 2007-08-06
User is offlineOffline
 It's true, when I try to

 It's true, when I try to argue with someone, I often feel like it has to devolve into a lesson on basic logic for me to get something through to them.  I shouldn't have to do that.  I've always assumed that logical thinking, knowledge of the basic principles of logic, should be somewhat innate, that some people are simply ignoring theirs, but I'm figuring out that that isn't the alway the case.

I like the video a lot.  You make some very valid points, and you have a good voice for narration.   

 


static_
static_'s picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2006-05-04
User is offlineOffline
The rote learning would be

To Iruka and Ariane:

The rote learning would be logical fallacies, I guess?

How would you practice the above? Applying fallacies to inductive or deductive arguments. Boom. General understanding, and general awareness.

I don't know. This just seems a lot simpler to me than you guys are trying to make it sound.


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Given the state of

Given the state of education in the U.S., I think getting logic instituted as a core subject into school curricula is a long-shot. Not only would schools have to pay a teacher to teach the class, but there's no guarantee that, even if a teacher was hired or reassigned to teach the class, the teacher wouldn't be a theist.

However, your core idea is correct: the future of atheism does not lie with endlessly debating grown-up theists. It has to do with taking advantage of the natural curiosity of young people before they become indoctrinated.

You mentioned religion being a closed system. That's mostly true, but it's becoming less so since the advent of the internet. It used to be that families could limit anti-god messages heard by their children by turning off the television or radio, but even theist families have internet connections, not to mention public libraries, etc.

So by this logic, it would seem to me that the most effective course of action would be to reach young people via the internet. What about some sort of online atheism toolkit geared towards college and high-school-aged people? Concisely present the case for atheism and provide additional information sources for them to look at.

I think we have a tendency to be long-winded as a result of our frustration (for example, this post!). And that just won't fly with the up and coming generation.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
static_ wrote:

static_ wrote:
Hi guys, I made this video called "A letter to Atheists"
Check it out here (new window) and let me know what you think (preferably respond on YouTube)

Another Michael Shermer'esque bullshit diatribe....

I disagree with it.

I'm not going to call myself something other than an atheist because a bunch of mean-spirited, muck-raking deluded idiots try to demonize the nomenclature. Fuck that.

The fact that the movement has progressed much more in the last few years is precisely because of the more aggressive, less-political approach, and this guy wants to derail the movement and further segment it? No dice.

As for atheists playing into theist prophesy? Who gives a shit? If a dog craps on someone's roses, they'll claim this is evidence of the impending return of Jesus. We have never given the bible any credibility before, why worry about it now? It's no big secret they can claim they're being persecuted and this is forshadowed in the bible, but that's so easily refuted and dismissed, it's actually amusing and entertaining to address.

To suggest we not criticize the bible because the bible says people who criticize it signal Jesus' return is just, well, stupid. You're playing into the infantile reverse psychology perpetrated by the writers to insulate themselves from criticism.

I do agree on some similar points. I think the atheist community wastes way too much time pandering to creationists and fundamental evangelicals, but I do not think the community should span out beyond religion and into politics and other social issues. That would be a disaster. I have always been politically-active, and I have to say it's a zillion times easier to preach critical-thinking concepts in the religious arena than it is in the political arena. Religion is more black-and-white, and I think by going after religion, other areas, including politics will be weakened. You cannot do this the other way around. Because religion is more of a core component of the way people think and their political ideologies are mere symptoms. We are on track, going after the cause and not the symptom.

"let's make logical principals an academic standard"

We do this already. You cannot mandate this stuff productively. Reality is pretty much the judge of what does and doesn't work.

By the way, I wrote a very comprehensive diatribe that I think pre-empts your idea by a mile. We can't even get to where you're trying to go until we have the ability to effectively have our voice heard in the media proportional to our numbers. This is a lot more important than what you're talking about and a pre-requisite. I'm talking about the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Until that's done, nothing else matters as far as I'm concerned.

Until we have an ability to represent ourselves fairly in public media, it doesn't matter what cause you take up. Whether it's discrediting religion or adopting new universal academic standards, those who have control of the media will discredit the effort if it conflics with their agenda. So until the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated, all of it is ineffective. The Fairness Doctrine has to come first. The Internet has been good at compensating for the lack of fairness in broadcast media, but Net Neutrality is likely to be lost in the next few years and our voices will be even further silenced. Those who control the mainstream media can get away with this stuff, so if you want a "primal cause" to pursue, abandon this goofy imposition of idealistic academic standards and promote the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine. That's the real deal.

 


Aeroslin
Aeroslin's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-11-08
User is offlineOffline
I agree with the message

I agree with the message but I would also assert that the responsibility doesn't just lay with teachers in the school system.  Aside from the miles of red tape you'll have to go through to get it there, by the time you did, you'd have lost out on plenty of opportunity to actually get the job done yourself. This doesn't mean to not try, just saying that we also share this responsibility.

 

I think Dawkins has a great idea in writing childrens books that promote critical thinking in the youngest of the population.  Teachers are powerful, there's no doubt but so is peer pressure.  If you have a big enough group of kids that share the same skills in thinking, they're bound to be influential.  The real problem is that kids are, by nature, believers in anything.


static_
static_'s picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2006-05-04
User is offlineOffline
To Pile: Michael Shermer?!

To Pile:

Michael Shermer?! Isn't that the guy that explores the cooky side of skepticism - alien abductions, ghost appearances and the lot?

?!

Anyway.

Pile, it's people like you that I'm trying desperately to get across to. I grew up in a Baptist Christian home. I went to a fundemantalist Christian private school from 4th grade all the way through high school. I'm trying to tell you why the direct approach won't work, because I KNOW what's going on in the world of Bible-thumpers like the back of my hand. I know what they'll think, and I know what they'll do - because I used to be a devout advocate of them, and I was very involved.

The goal here is to change their minds. The second they become aware of your motives to convince them that the Bible is false, you've lost.

They think they've heard it all. When you mention an idea or concept they haven't heard, they will just hide back in their shells, telling themselves, "Well, some apologetic author much smarter than me has probably refuted all of this, because God always wins." If there isn't a book or an answer, they tell themselves, "Oh well, there's an answer somewhere. I just don't realize it yet. There's an answer, though, because God always wins."

The solidity of your argument doesn't mean shit. Nothing. Zilch. It's a form of denial that, if approached directly, is totally impermeable. Some fuck-tard pastor is gonna stand in front of his congregation, or a teacher in a private school classroom, and "refute" our arguments in front of them, and they'll just nod their heads and pray, thanking God for another victory over the deceptive ways of Satan.

With that, you think that making the direct approach louder and stronger is going to improve things?

So we've successfully deconverted some - hundreds, or even a few thousand - using our recent methods. Doesn't matter. It pales in comparison to the multitudes of millions and millions more we've left to even spark a conversation with. The second you deconvert someone, they become an outcast to the church. They can't go back to their fellow believers and share the good fruit of logic. They'll be rejected and disassociated with. The denial is rooted deep down in the core.

I do agree with you that we need a fair voice in the major playing field. But that won't be accomplished if we just bash religion the whole way there. It won't work. Will not. Period.

Atheists need something else on their resume other than bashing theists. I know we've done other things, but I mean something major and noticeable. Something that even the average airhead can see as a constructive cause. It matters how we appear to them if we're going to change their minds.


I didn't even touch on the point about our actions under Biblical prophesy. That's so, so, SO relevent from the theist perspective. How can you not see that?


JanCham
Posts: 102
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
I love it.  I think it

I love it.  I think it would be a good idea to somehow reach out and give others the tools to arrive at their own conclusions instead of challenging them right out.  I think going straight up to a theist and going "There is No God" is allot like a Therapist going up to the Patient and shaking them widly screaming "Fix yourself you broken twit!" (while both are valid, they are not very constructive)

To go beyond your limits you must first find them.


Teknison
Teknison's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Seems a bit "dreamer" like.

Seems a bit "dreamer" like. I mean get this sort of class into a public school is an epic battle in itself. Making sure that they actually work is almost as huge a goal.

Good idea... but I dont know if its practical.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
static_, I left a comment on

static_, I left a comment on your vid (as 'wonderist' ) basically completely agreeing with you, at least in the overall approach.
Kids can learn simple math skills at 7, 8, 9 years of age. They could easily learn basic logic at that age as well. It's really not that hard to learn. If you can learn multiplication tables, you can learn truth tables. When I was 8 or 9, I was even dabbling with computer programming, which is very similar. Maybe we could try to get logic included in math courses, and call it systematics. Use the computer to test out your homework. Along with teaching science, this would go a long way to immunizing society against religion and other dogmas.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
I disagree with the op and

I disagree with the op and agree with him on some points too. Overall I think it's important for atheists to completely avoid the crux of this message and not fall into this hole. In short... theists merely say that strident and fervent tactics reinforce their beliefs, but I believe more often than not, this is simply a lie they tell to either self delude themselves or try and convince you to join them. Inside as they're gut wrenchingly contemplating everything they've ever been taught about god, they are externally pretending as if nothing is wrong.

I have a much longer essay/piece I'm working on which I hope to write in such a manner that it will be able to stand alone as it's own message. I mention that because I want you to know that essentially my post will be written specifically to you, however I'm going to generalize the situation so that it might be posted as an op-ed in American Atheist magazine. I'll post it as a blog when I'm done.

Overall I'm very glad you're here, and I thought your video was constructed in an excellent manner, your criticisms are likely to be embraced.

May I ask how old you are? How many years have you been an atheist? How many years have you been debating Christians? How many individual debates with Christians have you had? How many Christians have you managed to convince to leave religion behind?

You boast of how sure you are of this position you have arrived at because of the experiences you say you've had, so forgive me for getting personal I'm just trying to get the jist of how your experiences compare to mine.

In this logic class of yours would you teach the students to simply trust the experential knowledge of one person alone as you've asked us to all do here?

__________________________

 

Here's a chunk of what I was working on that I feel is nowhere near complete, still includes you (not generalized), and even includes an invitation to our show. I really shouldn't be posting this without completing it, however I feel I must. It seems you might have already started to hold the movement back as a few people are agreeing with you. This will later be heavily revised and added to for clarity... (I hope this might be a lesson to others who assert with absolute certainty the best way to do things... there isn't one way!)

Brian Sapient wrote:

I found your video to be the best constructed criticism from an atheist to atheists in my short youtube career. Very very well done. I must contend however with some points from your video. You must realize the school system is just a small part of the necessary change. Logic classes alone aren't enough, logic can't be taught by applying a test, teachers need to apply logic to all areas of study. Teachers need to learn logic too, and they've already completed school! We need to be helping society overcome superstition at every turn. People are working on exactly what you are asking for right now in terms of schooling (see www.secular.org), I'm not at liberty to discuss details on some major groundwork that is trying to be made in that area, however I promise you every attempt in that area is being made by people in power.  With appropriate funding orgs like SCA can make big leaps in this area. Look at this school as an example: http://www.carlsaganacademy.org/ Your wish is not only already being worked on, it's near impossible to pull off. Abandoning all fruitful projects and attacking religion on one front alone (a front that we are not likely to succeed on) is the epitome of bad battle planning.  Thinking that logic classes alone could solve the problem completely avoids the compartmentalization process that ocurrs in some otherwise highly logical minds. There are tons of people who understand logic and how to apply science, yet they compartmentalize their god belief in an area that they will not allow logic to seep in to.  You claim to want to use your experience as a devout believer as proof that you know it wont work, but this in itself is not scientific and flawed logically. You've come to a conclusion based on your experiential data. Would you care to combine the collective 65 years of experience that 8 top members of the RRS have that would show the world exactly the contrary? Claims like these are inaccurate...
"I'm trying to tell you why the direct approach won't work, because I KNOW what's going on in the world of Bible-thumpers like the back of my hand. I know what they'll think, and I know what they'll do - because I used to be a devout advocate of them, and I was very involved.

The goal here is to change their minds. The second they become aware of your motives to convince them that the Bible is false, you've lost.

They think they've heard it all. When you mention an idea or concept they haven't heard, they will just hide back in their shells, telling themselves, "Well, some apologetic author much smarter than me has probably refuted all of this, because God always wins." If there isn't a book or an answer, they tell themselves, "Oh well, there's an answer somewhere. I just don't realize it yet. There's an answer, though, because God always wins."

There is countless evidence to prove these statements wrong. In fact, Kelly and Rook can both attest to being as devout as they get, and needing a direct approach in order to abandon religion. Rook was studying to be a priest, Kelly read 4 versions of the bible cover to cover and was the role model of her church in terms of Biblical knowledge. Both claim today to have required a kick in the ass like the RRS would give in order to abandon their beliefs and no other method would have worked.  If you want to get real scientific, I would like to see a study on how many people are lying either to you or to themselves when they say "you've only solidified my faith" or something similar. Without seeing the science to back it and only going on experiential data like you have done I'd assert with my abundant experience that 90% of the people that say such things are lying. It may not be an intentional lie, it may be a subconscious act of reinforcing self delusion (that I'll give you), but it doesn't mean you're not getting through to them. I just asked Rook, and he said he recalls making statements like that when he was a theist and that he was simply reinforcing his delusions, that he was trying to act prideful of his beliefs in the face of his skeptic but privately it was gut wrenching for him. Kelly would attest to the same, as well as millions of others, I'm merely bringing up my own household.  I do think it would serve both of us well and our audience well to try and address these issues in a conversation in front of an audience. All of this would be done by phone. We've currently got a sound problem, but if we can fix it, would you be willing? Also if you'd like to come on with an atheist that agrees with you please feel free to pick one. That might be cool.  If you're interested, drop me your phone number by email.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I am not as pessimistic

I am not as pessimistic about the "atheist" label being in the forfont.

I do agree that we need to play the marketing game as well as theists, but I do not think we need to loose the atheist label and I damned sure think that taking our eyes of religion would be suicide to freedom, for both theist and atheist.

Critical thinking skills should be a priority as young as possible. Skepticism was a cornerstone of the foundation of this country. The ability to question even religion and political leaders has maintained the ability to keep theocracy and facism at bay.

I think things like "Freethinking teens" and Rap artist Graydon Square are a great start. As bleek as things may seem in some regions of the world I also see progress.

America has it's first open atheist and Muslim Senator. We have seen the explosion of atheist voices in print and broadcast media. I think this is not evidence of more rejection of atheism as much as it is a growing awarness of better alturnitives to theism.

The people causing the worlds problems are irrational, be they facists or theocrats, I think fortunatly they are the minority. The problem is these minorities politicians and theocrats have money and power and use it to sell laymen a reason to be sheep.

I think most humans when left to their concious would be willing to "live and let live". I think however, between AS YOU SAID CORRECTLY, lack of education and critical thinking skills, allow themselves to be sold irrational claims because they are not taught to question.

"Question with boldness even the existance of God, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear" Thomas Jefferson.

In this push to the New Enlightenment, even with this "fly under the radar" suggestion, we must not become that which we are claiming to avoid. We ourselves must as well as any theist, understand that utopias dont exist. While improving humanity we must not assume that we have the right, any more than any theist, to be the alpha male via government force anymore than we like it when theocrats or facists want to silence us.

I try to make it perfectly clear to my theist critics that the war of ideas need not be faught with guns EVER, unless we are talking about defending from people like Hitler or Bin Ladin.

We must remember as much as we remind theists, that there ARE 6 billion people on this planet. If our goal is to be met, it must remain an intelectuall battle and not one of "my way or the highway". That is what theocrats and facists do.

I agree that we need to compete with marketing. But the best tool in using our marketing skills is that we need to make it clear that WE DONT NEED, nor will we ever need goverment to fight our battles for us, we have the free market and free speech and we know that our arguments and evidence stand on their own.

EDIT,

Let me add that this rush to "the end times" is a kneejerk reaction, but that is a small minority compaired to the totality of the worlds population. It is getting these nutty facists and theocrats out of power.

There still are pleanty of Christians, Muslims, Jews and of course atheists who are in agreement that this "end times" accelleration crap, IS DANGEROUS, but completely avoidable. I think any theist reading this who agrees should post here to show solidarity that one good goal that we can agree on is to scrap the alpha male mentality of "devine intitlement" to the globe.

The species has one planet to live on and both the theist and atheist should want the ride to continue as long as possible. We must fight the fearmongers and not fear each other.

It would be nice if "poof" one could magically get what they want. I am sure theists say, "wouldnt it be nice if" as well. I think the biggest clusterfuck to humanity is trying to build utopias and I see it just as delusional and dangerous for atheists to fall into that trap as well.

I think our goal is to fight the fearmongers, challenge the facists and theocrats, and combine our demand for peace with our theist counterparts without expectation of silence of the other or assumption that one wants to opress the other. I think neither they or us need to assume the other is out to get each other.

Whatever our goal is long term, it must lead and show, not dictate or opress, and that includes not dictating to the atheist label as well.

If we claim we dont want to be dictated to and we should not be forced to live under religious law, then we must appeal to them with that logic. If Christians wouldnt want to live in Iran under Islamic law, then why would they be hypocrites and claim that our laws came out of the bible?

Our Constitution is quite clear, "Freedom of religion" IS garunteed. Atheists are simply tired of the assumption that only Christians make good Presidents or Congressmen. It isnt about saying, "Never vote for a Christian". It is about, "Hey if you are tired of both the left and right, then maybe you should focus on real issues such as health care and the war, insted of what sect of Christianity a politician on the left or right claims. Maybe if you'd expand your choices insted of limiting them by proxy of mere label and seek overlap insted of common dogma.

I think this is a good aproach and it lets the theist know, that although we dont mince words and are unafraid to speak out, that we are not facists and do value their freedom even if our goals are different.

This is an intelectuall war, and should not be faught on any battlefield. I hope both the theist and atheist can agree that the age of war should end so that whatever happens there can be great grandchildren still surviving on OUR planet. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Static_, is it not slightly

Static_,

is it not slightly illogical to attach a connotation to a word where, inherently, there is none? I find it odd that you are advocating the use of logic, and yet with regards to the simple word "atheist", you seem to be bereft of it. Would your logic class have advocated that gays refrain from using that word because of the negative social stigma? It seems that their campaign to reclaim the word has been effective, and I see no reason why the word "atheist" will not return similar dividends once those who have no belief in a god start standing up for themselves and actually using it without shame.

 "Atheist" = "no belief in god/gods".

Nothing more; nothing less. It is not the word--it is the concept. No matter what word is used, it will become vilified in the eyes of believers. At this point in time, the word "atheist" accurately describes the one thing that holds us together, and even Sam Harris admits that it may be a necessary evil in order to band together and stop the egregious assaults on rationality that are occurring worldwide as a result of dogmatic adherence to ancient texts. I realize that you haven't heard Sam admit this, but we have unreleased footage of him agreeing to this just 24 hours after his speech at the AAI conference.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
I have been an "audience"

I have been an "audience" member on this issue for the past day.  One of those waiting to see who can convince me which idea is best.

After thinking about both sides and my own experiences, I have to go with the frontal assault idea.

Simply teaching logic will not make religion go away.  I read an article a few days ago talking about radical fundamentalist Muslim schools.  They have 6 main areas of study.  Three are religious like the Koran, and Sharia law.  One of the other six is "logic".  It's not hurting them.  So I don't see it hurting christianity either.

My mother was visiting a couple weeks ago.  She started spouting endlessly about the bible and I confronted her on Noah's flood.  When I pointed out that it was impossible, all the things that would make it impossible, her logic kicked in and she fell back saying that it was most likely a local flood.  At that point I fully agreed with her and we stopped talking.

The next day, with this wistful look on her face she said, "The bible tells us that before the flood it never rained.  I guess that the soil somehow held more water back then.  Enough for there to be no need for rain."

I was confused as crap.  If she could be so logical when confronted about the idea of the world-wide flood, how could she be so illogical about it never raining before the flood?

The shields were back up.

Logic not allowed in here, not this place, not in the religion area.

My mother is very intelligent.  A director of a university library with a Master's degree.

You have to force people to question religion.  Force them to defend.  Force them to use logic on religion.

Or they will throw up those shields around their belief and never use logic on it.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: I have been

Watcher wrote:

I have been an "audience" member on this issue for the past day. One of those waiting to see who can convince me which idea is best.

After thinking about both sides and my own experiences, I have to go with the frontal assault idea.

Simply teaching logic will not make religion go away. I read an article a few days ago talking about radical fundamentalist Muslim schools. They have 6 main areas of study. Three are religious like the Koran, and Sharia law. One of the other six is "logic". It's not hurting them. So I don't see it hurting christianity either.

My mother was visiting a couple weeks ago. She started spouting endlessly about the bible and I confronted her on Noah's flood. When I pointed out that it was impossible, all the things that would make it impossible, her logic kicked in and she fell back saying that it was most likely a local flood. At that point I fully agreed with her and we stopped talking.

The next day, with this wistful look on her face she said, "The bible tells us that before the flood it never rained. I guess that the soil somehow held more water back then. Enough for there to be no need for rain."

I was confused as crap. If she could be so logical when confronted about the idea of the world-wide flood, how could she be so illogical about it never raining before the flood?

The shields were back up.

Logic not allowed in here, not this place, not in the religion area.

My mother is very intelligent. A director of a university library with a Master's degree.

You have to force people to question religion. Force them to defend. Force them to use logic on religion.

Or they will throw up those shields around their belief and never use logic on it.

Watch how you use the word "force". I get what you are saying, but please remember we are dealing with pathetic fearmongers who will shout "see, they do want a facist state".

By "force" we mean taking no guff in a debate or disscussion. Call them on every fallacy, inconsistancy, and magical claim. Basically, "You claim it you prove it".

I wouldnt call it "forcefull" as much as I would call it "blunt". One theist will take this "blunt" approach if another theist of a nother label makes a claim about their deity being real. The only differance between us and them is that we reject one deity more than they do.

They already have a inmature immage of us being Hitler wanting to barbaque kittens. I am balls to the wall in verbal brawls when it comes to debate, but I am about as physically forcefull as cheerleader's palm palm. If you ask me what I think, I dont mince words, but certainly I dont want to live under Po Pot or that Moron who is President of Iran. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I want to take a stance

I want to take a stance that is a hybrid of Sapient's and Static's.  I have said for years that it's a complete travesty that critical thinking is not a mandate for all schools in the country.  I think it ought to be more than a single class, in fact.  I think as early as kindergarten or first grade, we ought to be incorporating critical thinking into the curriculum, so that as children get to high school, they've already had eight years of progressive problem solving instruction.

As Pineapple has pointed out, it seems that the trend in education has been a series of opposite reactions that have missed the mark.  "Open" education doesn't work.  Facts must be taught, and there are many things that do require rote and memorization.  There are also problems that are best approached by critical thinking and do not require 'book learnin'.  

Now, as for the OP, I suggest that it is correct on one point and wrong on the other.

Education and critical thinking will help with decreasing irrational mob mentality, and getting behind a revamp of the education program will go a long way towards this.  However, as you point out in your video, theists have a perfect loophole for anything logical -- the bible "predicts" that the wisdom of man will seek to overthrow religion.  In other words, even if you educate everybody in critical thinking, religion will still be a force, and parents will still tell their children not to question religion.

I suggest that a multi-pronged attack is better.  Here's how it works:

1) Atheists/freethinkers continue to expand their network, and continue to publicly attack religion.  The movement is growing.  (By the way, RRS has moved up from over #200,000 on the web to #171,000 in one week!)

2) A large conglomerate of interest groups, including freethinkers and atheists, get behind a national push to reform education, including cumulative critical thinking classes from K-8.  This should not be spearheaded by the atheist community because of the stigma attached to us.  Rather, this is something that should be encouraged by educators and local school boards.

3) If such education is ever implemented, there will have been a generation of people who have already been exposed to the critical thinking of atheists.  The atheist community will be much more visible, and children who have learned to think will be able to see that we are a large and prominent force, and they will not be so afraid to listen to us.

4) As a side benefit, if kids are taught to think, and by the time they get to high school, they already know all about critical thinking, they will be primed and ready to rebel against their religious parents by flirting with those dangerous atheist kids.  We'll tap into the natural rebelliousness of teens and channel it into something that will actually help the country.

So, in summary, I agree fully with your support of a reformed education system.  I disagree completely with abandoning the push towards atheism.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I

Hambydammit wrote:

I disagree completely with abandoning the push towards atheism.

You know I love you Hambi, but that last line I warn frightens the theist(needlessly, but does) I think it should come with some clarification.

Some here would readly claim that theists have "good intent" in pushing us toward their deity(no matter how missplaced).  I agree with the push toward atheism. But in this ideological competition we must not come accross as wanting a forcefull end to oposition.

You and I know that solid critical thinking will do the job without a facist state wich theist so often accuse atheists of wanting.

Our balls are brass and our logic is gold, but convincing the Santa fans cant come through government force. In all our bluntness and Blasphemy we must make it clear, that if IF IF "THEY "COME TO THE DARK SIDE" <------*COUGH COUGH*" that we did not manipulate them, but they simply weighed the evidence and came to the same conclusion we did. 

I think it is as simple as explaining the magic of other religions they reject and saying, "Why is your magic any more real than theirs?" 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Clarification: I, and all

Clarification:

I, and all the freethinkers/atheists I know personally, are completely and utterly opposed to enforcing any belief system, whether political, religious, or moral.  My goal is to make America a place where there truly is complete freedom of religion and from religion.  

I believe that I am right, and that there is no god.  I encourage everyone to examine my evidence and make their own conclusions.  I would stand beside theists in opposition to any program enforcing atheism.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I love it

Your are totally correct on this static. In psychology the more you try to persuade somebody to take on a new behavior or belief, the more they resist and argue the other side. Also, the therapist then confirms some of the individuals beliefs about the world and people by falling into certain traps. Sort of like us coming over to the Middle East to stop terrorism is confirming the belief that we are an evil empire and nation that only wants to destroy the Muslim world. I think your ideas are greatly supported by the science of psychology.

However, I do think that what RRS, Dawkins, and Hitchens have done is made it capable for Atheists to organize and have a voice. I think they allowed those who were afraid to say it or didn't think about it to often to mobilize and organize.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


ctressle
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-08-28
User is offlineOffline
I read that Sapient was in

I read that Sapient was in the process of typing his thesis directly to static_, but I also got the impression it would be open to all to view once he was done. If the later is true, I want to stay up to date on this; from what little he has typed so far, it seems really interesting.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
static_ wrote: To Iruka and

static_ wrote:
To Iruka and Ariane:

The rote learning would be logical fallacies, I guess?

How would you practice the above? Applying fallacies to inductive or deductive arguments. Boom. General understanding, and general awareness.

I don't know. This just seems a lot simpler to me than you guys are trying to make it sound.

Yeah, this is how I would implement it in a classroom.  It's been a long time since I taught, so I defer to those who have more (and more current) experience.   One thing I do know is that anything you try in a classroom is never simple. Eye-wink

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
I'm with Hamby. I don't see

I'm with Hamby.
I don't see an 'either'/'or' thing.
The 'improving education' is certainly more to my style and my ideal of doing things that the 'attack' of 'militant atheism', but the way I see it, every approach has it's place. Both approaches will achieve results that the other can't.

I've also had the opinion that education needs working on.
Someone earlier in the thread already said this, but the best way to teach things is it in a way that the kids feel that they are learning something that they can use.
There are already initiatives in motion that are working on education to encourage more creativity and more critical thinking - the two main elements of free thought.

My mum is currently working in a primary school and has been on training courses geared towards improving these things. I've been meaning to take a look at some of the materials that she's been given.