-Leviticus 20:13
I'm commonly asked why I have this blog, as well as why I bother debating with theists who "will never change their mind." People seem to have the idea that the process of going from theism to atheism is simple and quick; one minute you believe, the next you don't. This is a common misunderstanding. It is entirely true that I have no chance of getting into a debate with a theist and having him leave as an atheist. That is not in any way what I can do or what I think I am able to do. Rather, people tend to fall into certain categories based upon how strongly they feel about their beliefs. If I were to say I have a specific goal when debating theists and agnostics, I would have to say that it is to move them, even just slightly, along this scale. I myself was raised Roman Catholic, and over the course of about four years I went through various stages, theism without organized religion, agnosticism, and finally full atheism.
Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Strong Believers
This category of believers generally encompasses those strong believers who feel they are absolutely correct in their beliefs. They tend to believe that the Bible (or other holy book) was written directly or indirectly by God, and base their life around their god. They believe they have proof for their god, and there is almost no chance of this person ever being convinced that they are wrong. Almost everyone who falls into this category also makes the absurd statements that the Universe is 6,000 years old, or that argue that evolution does not occur (it happens, it is a fact, if you still argue the point you are simply being ignorant). This was me until about five years ago. The method of debate employed by these theists generally depends on either distorted/made up facts or the fallacies of special pleading, false dichotomies (attempting to disprove scientific theories such as evolution or the Big Bang and believing that proves their theory), or variations of the argument from design/uncaused causes.
Average Believers
Most theists fall into this category. They go to church, are familiar with some Bible stories (but most have never read the whole Bible), and some accept the 6,000 year old Universe or argue against evolution. These people believe what they are told by those in the above category as well as priests and other religious figures. This strata of believers often does not ever actually think about the truth behind the claims they accept, they simply dogmatically accept these claims as they were told to by parents and other authority figures. This was me until about four years ago. The method of debate employed by these theists generally depends on argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad ignorancium, special pleading, and anecdotal evidence.
Unaffiliated with Religion
This category is the group of theists that will say the bible was written by humans, it is not an authority, and they do not believe in any specific religion. They merely have this belief that a god exists, usually a personal god and usually one who has a heaven in store for us. I generally look down upon this group of believers as a great deal of them will acknowledge that they have no evidence or justification for their belief and yet they still believe. I have little respect for people who hold beliefs that they agree are unjustified. If you believe in a Judeo-Christian god and heaven, yet you accept that the Bible and other holy books were written by people and are likely fairy tales, where do you derive your beliefs from? Holding a belief purely and knowingly because it makes you feel better is something that I detest, despite that fact that I fell into this category until about three years ago. This group of theists almost always resorts to an appeal to emotion to justify their beliefs.
Agnostics
Agnostics tend to be one of two types. Some are pretty much atheists who are either scared of the word atheist or who are holding on to the last sliver of belief they have just for the sake of "fitting in." These people can generally be swayed to atheism somewhat easily by simply showing them that the reasons they think they have for belief make no sense. The second type is the group that simply chooses not to think about religion because of the cognitive dissonance it causes when they try to reconcile the nonsense that theism claims with the reality that is present and observably true. Again, these people can usually be persuaded to reject the absurd claims of religion as long as they you can get them to actually think about the subject. Agnostics generally use the first cause argument to justify their retained belief of a god.
Atheists
At this point, the person has fully stopped accepting god claims. They have concluded that there is inadequate evidence to support belief in a god, and will generally no longer accept claims without thinking critically about them first.
As noted above, I don't anticipate converting anyone overnight; it's not an instantaneous process. I hope by encouraging people to actually examine the truth value of their beliefs, I may at least shift some readers along the scale.
At this point, the person has fully stopped accepting god claims. They have concluded that there is inadequate evidence to support belief in a god, and will generally no longer accept claims without thinking critically about them first.
As noted above, I don't anticipate converting anyone overnight; it's not an instantaneous process. I hope by encouraging people to actually examine the truth value of their beliefs, I may at least shift some readers along the scale.
 |
| ffffound.com |
"They tend to belief that the Bible" believe
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think it is necessary to convert (de-convert?) theists?
Are you saying that all these populations of believers are actively harming the world with their beliefs and thus need to be changed?
I'm just curious about the motivation.
I will eventually get to more posts regarding negative effects of religion, but yes, I feel that on both a large scale and a small scale religion is harmful. It teaches people to devalue themselves and deprives them of credit where credit is due. Take, for example, the senator who was shot in the head and survived. People are saying "thank God, it's a miracle!" instead of giving credit to the surgeons and doctors who actually did something. I am personally insulted by those who are members of certain religions, because they are supporting a belief system which claims I am inherently immoral and deserve eternal torture simply because I don't believe their unsupported claims. There are clear negative actions performed by religious extremists (bombing of abortion clinics, 9-11, Andrea Yates, etc.) and if there were no moderate believers, the extremists either wouldn't exist or would be locked up with or delusional people in asylums. I am opposed to the church taking money to buy ornate decorations for churches while the money could be going places it's actually needed. The acceptance of "God did it" has the effect of impeding education and research, such as in the cases of evolution/abiogenesis and the origins of the universe. It seems to me that the acceptance of one entirely unjustified claim, such as a god, results in a willingness to accept more unjustified claims (psychics, etc) without applying skepticism to the claims, and this leads to people accepting more untrue things. I find it harmful that stem cell research, research that could save lives, is being heavily impeded by religious bigots. I object to Christian Scientist sects of Christianity, as they refuse to take medication based upon religious beliefs, similar to the Jehovah's Witnesses' rejection of blood transfusions; these are deaths that could be prevented. I can't stand the bigotry present against homosexuals and other non-heteronormative persons, especially when places like Kansas pass laws forbidding the adoption of children by non-married couples with the intent of preventing gay people from raising children; this is stopping innocent children from being taken into good homes, not just by homosexuals but also by single people and unmarried but devoted couples. It disgusts me that in Uganda homosexuals were previously put to death, and now given life imprisonment sentences, for committing acts of homosexuality. I am horrified by the Nigerian murder or infants that are supposedly witches because the Bible says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." I think it is awful that various religious missionaries tell people not to use condoms in areas of Africa heavily burdened by HIV. Finally I object to the basic principle of people being taught as fact something that most likely isn't even true. I have quite a few others, but I think I've ranted for long enough xD Each generation sees a larger percentage of the population as atheists, and I expect that in a hundred or two-hundred years, if the human race hasn't destroyed itself by then, religion will likely be treated like psychics, witches, and alien abductees; "Yea, Grandma believed in that stuff..."
ReplyDeleteSorry, big block of text all at once xD
ReplyDeleteI think it's entirely possible that there is a God of some sort. A God that created the earth and universe then walked away and let everything happen. I don't really think so though.
ReplyDeleteBut my point is, religion can do good things to. It does often give people false hope, and I do believe it does more good than bad, but I think the heart is usually in the right place.
You want people to see the truth, and to better themselves, and that's why you try to "convert" them. Religious people do that too. I frankly think it's sort of annoying and presumptuous though.
Truth is important, and what we believe to be true is important. I really tend to prefer and respect people who don't believe in God more, but I think the Rabbi at my synagogue is a very amazing person and I really respect her.
Blind faith is definitely problematic.
I give the existence of a god equal probability to the existence of unicorns. Either COULD potentially have existed in the past, but what is the point of believing either claim without and evidence for it?
ReplyDeleteI can't tell if it was a typo, but your sentence "it does more good than bad, but..." Did you mean more bad than good? That is what the syntax seems to imply, but I'm unsure. I am of the opinion that it does more bad than good.
And yes, I want people to see the truth, but I am promoting a truth that is clearly and demonstrably true. I am encouraging skeptical thought. This is not the same as in the case of religion; they are promoting and preaching as fact something which they cannot back up. Promoting faith is presumptuous. Promoting reasoning, logic, and critical thinking is not.
I never said that religious people cannot be respectable, and many religious people definitely are.
"And yes, I want people to see the truth, but I am promoting a truth that is clearly and demonstrably true."
ReplyDeleteCareful with this Ryan, this is technically false. As you talked about in an earlier post, it is usually impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. By stating that your truth is "clearly and demonstrably true" you are claiming that you can demonstrate that God/gods don't exist.
When I say "promoting a truth that is clearly and demonstrably true," I am referring to logic and skeptical thought as well as encouraging the examination of evidence in generally. Perhaps I should not have used the word demonstrably, though my main point was to demonstrate the difference between my claims and those which require faith. Additionally, most god claims I have been presented with do not have a condition of falsifiability, and the claims that do (effects of prayer, astral projection, global flood stories) have been falsified ^_^
ReplyDeleteOops more bad than good. You're right-typo
ReplyDeleteSomeone's heart may be in the right place, but that does not mean his action is any more excusable because of it. Andrea Yates had five children who were devout believers in God and Jesus Christ. She realized that they would soon come to an age where they would begin to question the things they were indoctrinated to believe, and this would put them at risk of becoming atheists and, in her mind, being sent to Hell. She then drowned the five of them, believing she was sending them to Heaven because they were true believers; she didn't want to risk them losing their faith and going to Hell, as she believed. In her mind, she did something fantastic and selfless; she sentenced herself to eternity in Hell in exchange for the salvation of her five children. Her heart may have been in a good place, but people suffering from a delusion cause real problems, regardless of their motives.
ReplyDeleteI still don't think that makes believing in God inherently evil. I think it's probably better for people not to. But I think sometimes it's harmless. Sometimes these people are crazy anyway and religion happens to be a convenient excuse. People do ridiculous things in the name of religion, but people also do some very good things.
ReplyDeleteAlso I'd like to say that I find that people like you, and my friend who led me to this blog, who once had a lot of faith in religion but then lost it, are much more "violently" atheist than people who never had much faith to begin with. This is probably an over generalization and is based on a ridiculously small sample size, but it's just something I've observed.
I never claimed the belief does make anyone evil. I am, however, of the opinion that believing in a god has more negatives than positives in almost all cases. Sometimes it is harmless, but that does not mean we should just ignore it. If someone lives their life under the impression that they are supposed to punch all black babies they see, but they never see a black baby, was the belief acceptable? Not all cases would directly result in negative effects, such as babies getting punched, but I still strongly object to what they believe.
ReplyDeleteI would say that "violent" is the wrong word; adamant perhaps? And yes, I agree. People raised with no religion or with weak religion do not experience the same effects of religion, and tend to be more accommodating. There is a reason that an entire branch of psychiatry is devoted to people who are traumatized in the process of leaving a religion. My personal beliefs have strained my relationship with other once-close members of my own family, and yes it upsets me very much that religion has this divisive nature. It may be a slight overgeneralization, but it is definitely rather accurate. Atheists who were affected more by religion previously in their lives tend to feel more strongly about it. Imagine asking a Jew that suffered in a concentration camp how they felt about Nazis, then ask a Jew that didn't the same question. Obviously one has more reason to be upset.