1. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #58600 by AtheistAcolyte on July 25, 2007 at 10:40 am

@Richard Morgan-

I responded because I felt it deserved a response. While it may not have been worth someone else's time, who would be better spent dealing with more charismatic detractors and apologetics, I will do my part to engage the lesser demons attacking the modern atheistic movement.

2. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57647 by AtheistAcolyte on July 20, 2007 at 12:13 pm

Bonzai-

I think you have either misinterpreted what I said, or I chose words poorly. If the latter, I apologize. I do not think that factual correctness should be the sole criterion, as you put it of judging others' beliefs.

However, the basis of hurting people should not be the sole criterion either. Were I one flavor of racist, I could think that black people are subhuman intellectual midgets who need the white man's help to do anything in life. Then I can devote my life to helping them because they are incapable of helping themselves. This racist belief actually helps others, but it is profoundly abhorrent to all of us. I'm sure there are some today who believe this. We not only have the right, we have the responsibility to correct this view. It is factually incorrect, yes, but it is also dehumanizing and debasing to the extreme, as well as revolting to our sensibilities.

Or, were I a pedophile, I could say equally sensitive or sweet things about the innocence of children (I will not offend your sensibilities or mine by trying to think of an example). These are extreme examples, indeed. But extreme examples will help us build a criterion by which to judge ideas.

As MrEmpirical pointed out, my friend may think the train is coming at 10, but I know it's arriving at 11. Do I correct him, or let him sit at the station for an hour, even if I know he's trying to find time to read a book? If I don't tell him, no direct harm is done, in fact, there may be some side-benefit of reading the book.
This is far more wishy-washy an example than the previous two, but I think most people would tell their friend the correct time.

If I have knowledge that my friend does not, or if I have knowledge that my friend is sadly deluded on, shouldn't I have the right to try to convince him he is wrong? Isn't that, ultimately, the essence of debate and discussion?

Now the most nuanced (and real) example yet:

My wife is very convinced that vaccines are at least a major factor in autism prevalence. Many studies have come out against this claim, and I think they are right. Do I know for sure that vaccines are not the cause? No. Should I try to convince my wife that she _may_ be wrong? Her belief doesn't harm anyone, but it may complicate things when we have children. I think I should try to convince her to keep an open mind and not be certain where certainty doesn't exist.

I do not advocate storming into a house and viciously brutalizing a person until they renounce their beliefs, as your image of the "rational police". But I do advocate using knowledge to strip away poor beliefs (such as the tooth fairy, flood geology and yes, racism).

3. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57438 by AtheistAcolyte on July 19, 2007 at 11:06 am

Just a little cheap shot I'm sure will not have escaped anyone's (including his) notice:

"So put down your Skeptics Annotated Bible. Amp down the volume and rage on your anti-apologetics web sites. Stop e-mailing your friends, family and your old pastor to pick a fight over their religious mania, and start smelling the roses, instead of smelling a rat. It may well be rotten in Vatican City, but unless you're a resident it doesn't concern you. Take that Golgotha-sized chip off of your shoulder and just relax in your newly won freedom from religious tyranny, alright? We've got more than enough would be dictators telling everyone ELSE what to do."

Plus one.

4. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57437 by AtheistAcolyte on July 19, 2007 at 11:05 am

His two reasons, the crux of his argument are thus:

"In general, anti-evangelism is wrong because A) We don't have the RIGHT to take away someone's beliefs, and B) IT DOESN'T WORK ANYWAY!"

A) But we DO have the right to take away someone's incorrect beliefs with regard to the tooth fairy, Flood Geology and racism. Were anyone to come to me with these ideas and say "Don't try to change my mind! They're my beliefs and you should respect them!" I would have to laugh in their childish, creationist and racist face. Religion has set itself up as one of the only memes which cannot be challenged, and we need to recognize this or we can never begin to be free of it.

B) Convert's Corner rebuts this quite effectively, I think. It does work.

He also says "It all boils down to the Golden Rule. If YOU don't want someone telling YOU how to live/what to do, then it sure is hell is wrong for you to force YOUR views down another person's throat."

I think I should be glad to accept reasoned criticism of what I do, and I have taken such criticism in stride. It has helped me become a better person. So, by the Golden Rule, if I would have others criticize me reasonably, I should criticize others reasonably.

All his reasons for why it will not work boil down to "People are stubborn as f**k and never admit they're wrong as long as you push them", which is true enough, but the New Atheists aren't going for the hard-core religious believers. They're going for the middle-of-the-road folks, the millions of twice-a-year Catholics and social Protestants.

In all, thoroughly unconvincing.

5. The US map of faith

Comment #55587 by AtheistAcolyte on July 11, 2007 at 3:29 pm

"Florida? But that's America's wang!"
"They prefer 'The Sunshine State'."

All respects to H. Simpson.

Also, this doesn't provide a totally corroborating picture (New York, West Virginia and Minnesota as examples). I would be interested in seeing this normalized for county population. Something in a web page which didn't show map boundaries of the counties, but each county took up a percentage of the state commensurate with the percentage of the population.

6. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55581 by AtheistAcolyte on July 11, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Two points:

1) To have a rational discussion on the question, we must first ask, "How do we define good-ness", and "What degree of good-ness are we willing to accept?" Are we only looking for the purely good, that which only brings good, and no evil nor purgatorial piffle? What balance of these will we classify as all-around "good"?

2) I'm tired of Xtians asking where morality stems from solely atheism, as if Atheist/Xtian is a legitimate dichotomy. The antonym of Atheist is not Xtian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or Zoroastrian. The antonym of Atheist is Theist.
While I recognize this statement would be sound-bitten to hell and back if Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris/Dennett said it, Atheism cannot account for morality any better than Theism.
Think about it. An atheist does not believe in the existence of any god or supernatural being. A theist believes in the existence of at least one god or supernatural being. At this level, and this level only, no one can make any headway. But when you open it up to other beliefs, such as "Everyone has a right to live their life as they see fit" or "The Bible is the complete and inerrant Word of God", then we start to develop morality.

7. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #55215 by AtheistAcolyte on July 10, 2007 at 9:06 am

@Gordon-

Fair enough. But isn't one of the main purposes of rational thought to increase the signal-to-noise ratio, so to speak? Personal anecdotes have little persuasive power compared to studies (which, I will admit, I have read none referenced in this article).

As to Yemen, I have no experience living there, but I would wonder if in most of those failed cases there was a hierarchy encouraging (perhaps not overtly) competition among the wives for the husband's favor towards their children. In these cases (particularly in patrilineal societies where the entire estate goes to the eldest son rather than split among the heirs), I would understand the intense rivalry between women. The early Mormons are the only society I can think of which practiced polygyny and possibly had split-estate wills.

8. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #55003 by AtheistAcolyte on July 9, 2007 at 4:32 pm

It amuses me that so many people are throwing out "Then why don't I..." personal anecdotes as "proof" that these generalizations don't apply. These are the *exact* same style of argument skeptics get from religious believers: "Then why do I feel/hear/see God's presence/voice/design everywhere I go?"

As to the rest of the articles, while they do lack cited corroboration (this may be too much to ask from Psychology Today, I don't know), where are the debunking corroborative papers? At least their statements make sense to me within the framework of evolutionary theory.

Ben Kington-
Are you suggesting that polygyny is wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am with multiple partners? My understanding is that it is more like one male with multiple wives/female partners, who provides for their security and lifestyle while the women provide the childrearing. If the former, I'd agree with you, but in the latter scenario, the women no longer have to worry about their well-being, so they can focus on raising children. Also note that it is far more efficient (and easier) to provide shelter for multiple people under one roof than to provide multiple roofs for multiple people.

9. The Panel

Comment #53805 by AtheistAcolyte on July 3, 2007 at 9:52 am

Mad props to John O'Farrell for knowing that he doesn't know a lot of it. That is the best form of ignorance, the form we should all practice: the honest ignorance. These questions are not important to most people in their daily lives, and so we shouldn't look down on them for not knowing the answers. We should, however, look down on those people who claim to know that which they clearly don't. Those are the dangerous ones, the falsely wise.

10. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #50001 by AtheistAcolyte on June 14, 2007 at 1:45 pm

I wish one of the questions was further pushed on Olasky: "Do you think secularists like Hitchens are going to Hell?" This seems to be a major point that they should not allow sidestepping with "It's not for me to say," when clearly it *IS* for them to say. They claim to have special knowledge of the path to arrival in heaven (virtue) as well as the path to arrival in hell (sin). It should follow, then, that in their opinion, whoever is not on the path to heaven is on the path to hell, since it is a true dichotomy (One cannot reach heaven by committing mortal sins, and one supposedly cannot go to hell by being virtuous). So it is very _*definitely*_ for Olasky to say, in the framework of his beliefs, if Hitchens and all secularists are on their way to hell, and therefore, if they continue along their chosen paths they will go to hell.

Also, did anyone else get tired of him saying "You can just go down to..." on and on like a broken record, as if homespun yarns of piety and wholesomeness lend any support to him. Hitchens bore strong, reasonable arguments. In comparison, Olasky struggled (valiantly, I will admit) against him with a dry spaghetti noodle: unpalatable, flimsy and easily shattered.

11. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45895 by AtheistAcolyte on May 29, 2007 at 2:20 pm

But he hasn't a clue about what David Brooks, in a recent New York Times column, calls the "quasi-religious" people who make up perhaps the majority of societies like this.

12. Christopher Hitchens at Politics and Prose

Comment #45893 by AtheistAcolyte on May 29, 2007 at 2:16 pm

The more and more I watch Hitchens, the more I like him. The way he handled the crowd when the third questioner (a believer) came up, and his patience with the obviously bigoted "Mormon guy", and the following non-questioning atheist woman were quite amazing. He may have to find his way bumped up on my reading list.

13. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33549 by AtheistAcolyte on April 20, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Sorry, but that is the worst possible advice. Ever see anyone do that? It is disgraceful, and embarrasing. Robert Novak, anyone? There is a reason people don't do that on TV - they look like they couldn't handle it. Much better to calmly make your points and allow BillO to embarrass himself.

14. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33497 by AtheistAcolyte on April 20, 2007 at 12:03 pm

My advice to Dawkins would be, "Be prepared to walk away at any moment O'Reilly begins bullying. Prepare a concise statement along the lines of 'I refuse to discuss this with you while you are shouting,' and leave the set." This I see as the only way to deflate the man; refuse to speak with him until he's cooled down, then be ready to resume the conversation if he invites you back.

15. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32772 by AtheistAcolyte on April 18, 2007 at 8:20 am

I don't think anyone should. That will only fund these nutjobs and boost their sales numbers so they can claim to be right.

16. For God's Sake

Comment #31649 by AtheistAcolyte on April 13, 2007 at 3:50 pm

I can't resist a bit of ontological fun....

"Knowledge being indefinitely progressive, I can believe that I shall one day know that of which I am now ignorant……. I presume you believe ignorance is lost upon you……"

OK, let's examine this.

premiss (using this spelling purposely) #1: Time is either finite or infinite.
premiss #2: Knowledge is either finite or finite.
premiss #3: Knowledge is indefinitely progressive.
conclusion: I will one day know something that I do not know now.

(I will assume he didn't mean by #3 that he will one day know what 13498275930532+29473475462219 is, since this is trivial; rather, I am taking this as an epistemological statement on the universal scale) (i.e, Of all the knowledge he does not know currently, he will know it someday)

Case #1: Time is infinite; Knowledge is infinite.
Obviously, there will never come a day when he knows everything. There will _always_ be something beyond his knowledge.

Case #2: Time is infinite; Knowledge is finite.
There will indeed come a day when he will know everything. However, on that definite day, gaining knowledge will cease to be indefinitely progressive and it's use as a universal statement is contradicted.

Case #3: Time is finite; Knowledge is infinite.
I leave this for the reader to solve :-)

Case #4: Time is finite; Knowledge is finite.
Under this concept, there will come a day when gaining knowledge will no longer be indefinitely progressive; that is to say, either time will run out or knowledge will run out, and so no more knowledge may be gained. But this contradicts premiss #3 again.

Conclusion: Gaining knowledge is not indefinitely progressive; it merely seems that way to us because there is so much knowledge to be gained (finite or infinite) that we cannot learn it all within our lifetimes (Or in others).

I'm probably wrong somewhere, but I think I've reached the end of my indefinitely progressive knowledge-gaining on the subject by myself. :-)

17. For God's Sake

Comment #31571 by AtheistAcolyte on April 13, 2007 at 9:56 am

Phaderus, I suggest New Zealand, or otherwise somewhere far away from the complete nuclear self-destruction of homo religioso.

Let's set up on one of the tiny, uninhabited Hawaiian islands.

EDIT: Sorry, that should be "nukular"

18. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #29974 by AtheistAcolyte on April 5, 2007 at 8:32 pm

@501 (CruciFiction)-

I suspect the public nature of this blogalogue has been to rationality's detriment. It is part of Andrew's image to be a gay Catholic, and I suspect he gets a fair amount of readership because of that inherent contradiction. It may be that people want to listen to him because he takes up these two positions very much at odds with each other, and want to see what that's like. If he were to lose that Catholicism, he would simply be a gay libertarian, something far less interesting to everyone.

19. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #29973 by AtheistAcolyte on April 5, 2007 at 8:27 pm

I'm also very disappointed by Andrew's latest (and, I hope, not last). This "God Is Love" concept seems very poorly developed to me, rather more a theological squirming to save one's faith. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that God is, quite literally, our feelings of love? Or is it more figurative than that? In either case, how can Love create the universe, as depicted in Genesis? Can Love think? Can Love find something "good"? I guess Love is a personal god when Andrew wants it to be, and an ephemeral feeling which can't be argued with whenever someone argues against him.

20. Even Stephven: Islam vs. Christianity

Comment #24573 by AtheistAcolyte on March 7, 2007 at 11:21 am

It's pretty depressing, isn't it, Martin? Creationwiki in particular drove me pretty nuts. It's amazing how much poor science and apologetics rooted in denial can affect us. I recommend everyone to take a look at it, because it's important to see what your opponents are thinking, but I also suggest taking a shot of liquor before clicking.

21. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23751 by AtheistAcolyte on March 2, 2007 at 1:10 pm

I'm just finishing up the "Fine Tuning Argument" section. A little over halfway through.

I think my head just exploded.

22. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23377 by AtheistAcolyte on February 28, 2007 at 8:39 am

#23317

I think we can take a page from the creationists here and comment that, under a particular model of worldviews, the basis for any given worldview is preferred to be circular for it's internal consistency. I believe Bahnsen puts this idea forward, and I happen to like it. He argues there are two criteria for any valid (read: acceptable as possibly true) bases for worldviews: (1) Internal Cohesion, and (2) Non-Arbitrariness.

If you could imagine it, then, it's possible to see a worldview as a circle (or polygon, if that helps you imagine it, as long as it's closed) consisting of segments (tenets, axioms, what-have-you) surrounding a space which contains the faith required to support the circle surrounding it (for a theist, the faith is belief in a God, belief in the various mysteries of the particular faith, etc). Then outside the circle, emerging from the axioms, is the worldview itself, all logically based off of the axioms.

I think there has probably been considerable philosophical work in this area, but I am not aware of it. I think this can ultimately resolve our problem at the worldview-level. Anyone know of any giants in the field we can stand on the shoulders of?

23. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #23272 by AtheistAcolyte on February 27, 2007 at 12:19 pm

After a week of silence, Sullivan is finally commenting on his debate with Sam Harris. It's a small reference, but at least now we know he hasn't quit the conversation.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/quote_for_the_d_19.html

24. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22827 by AtheistAcolyte on February 23, 2007 at 4:29 pm

"Did the debate end?

Andrew Sullivan has said basically nothing about it on his blog. He's moving on as if nothing happened."

Andrew is talking a lot about the end of slavery. I think he may employ a "But look what religion has gotten us" strategy in the next letter, if it's forthcoming at all.

25. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22699 by AtheistAcolyte on February 20, 2007 at 10:14 pm

-NormanDoering-

"Dogma" also carries a lot of negative baggage with it. I think Sam is reluctant to use the word because he's arguing to change Andrew's mind, and will only succeed in alienating Andrew if he uses inflammatory language, language you say 'cuts to the heart of the matter'. Sam's best hope is to keep the argument as civil as possible and present a calm and collected voice. Richard Dawkins' style of discourse is highly confrontational, and good for conciousness-raising, but on the individual level, you will need a much different tactic. Sam is playing the part perfectly, in my opinion. He seems to be playing a one-man game of "Good Cop, Bad Cop". I suspect that this exchange will become something of a textbook case of how to bring a person of faith into the light of reason.

It has been said that when a religious person becomes an atheist, they go through a period of anger; and I think Andrew might be feeling his cognitive bias of not wanting to recognize the "sunk cost" of his religious life. I think that's where Andrew's latest confrontational letter gets much of its anger from.

Also, the "bomb-blasts" Harris mentions I believe is making the point that Andrew was expending a lot of rhetorical firepower on a target way off the mark. Which he was.

26. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21189 by AtheistAcolyte on February 8, 2007 at 12:23 am

Best of luck to you on your CNN time Thursday, Dr. Dawkins. Here is my comment I sent to CNN:

You recently ran a piece regarding discrimination in America against atheists, and I was horrified to see the panel discussion following the initial interview portion. Particularly, there was no atheist representation in the panel, so there was no counterpoint to how atheists in America feel discriminated against. I suggest you follow up on the many stories of discrimination that you yourselves allude to with your pre-panel segment. Many people in America are being hounded by religious groups and even their own neighbors just for their beliefs.

A friend of mine, who is a homosexual, once said to my wife that we'll never understand how lucky we are to not have to worry if the guy across the bar will bash in our head with an iron pipe for flirting with him. I'm afraid that now, I at least have an inkling of his fear. I, and many others I know, are afraid to speak our beliefs for fear of reprisals. We *ARE* the homosexuals of the 80's and 90's, the African-Americans of the 50's and 60's, the feminists of the same era, and the Jews of the past few millenia. We are struggling for acceptance outside of the zoo-like curiosity of our theistic co-workers and neighbors.

A comment was made about atheists believing in nothing. This is patently untrue, and misinformation of the highest order. Atheism is not nihilism as some would have everyone believe. Atheists can be swept up into an almost religious fervor just by observing the beauty of the natural world. Free thinkers such as myself believe in a naturalistic worldview, a belief that everything around us is natural and can be discovered through analysis of natural processes. Some theists can share a similar worldview, but a theist also believes in, at least partially, a supernaturalistic worldview. Atheists deny the supernatural, because we find it unfulfilling intellectually (and yes, spiritually, if there is a difference).

Were you to replace the label 'atheist' with 'African-American' or 'homosexual' or 'immigrant' or 'Muslim' or 'Jew', you would be met with such angry resistance you would be hard pressed to not issue an apology to the aggrieved group. And yet I doubt there will be such an apology for us, since we are such a small minority and it will probably be hard for you to understand just how you have set back acceptance of atheists nation-(if not world-)wide in the span of five minutes.

Perhaps I am too pessimistic. I truly hope that you will recognize the error you made and take steps to actually raise the consciousness of your viewers. I do not ask for apology; that would be too much to ask for. But I do wish you would ask a prominent atheist such as Sam Harris (http://www.samharris.org), Richard Dawkins (http://www.richarddawkins.net), or Daniel Dennett (http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/incbios/dennettd/dennettd.htm) on your show to present the atheist's perspective and actually balance out the tribunal of prejudiced panelists you invited onto your show.