STer

I don't see a fundamental diffirence between these three examples. Reasoning by way of rhetorical argument and telling a moral story are essentially one in the say, you have examples of virtue and not-virtue and in either case they can be literally true or not. They are simply there as a device to convey meaning. Similarly, leading by example is essentially acting out the former two or doing one's best to emulate the qualities one would present as reasonable. In either case there is a rational motive, to supply some instruction on reason and virtue, but the two examples you gave don't necessarily require one to be acting in a persuasive manner. A story might be interesting and circumstantially reasonable. A parent being watched by a child may have no idea he or she is being watched and simply impart virtue unknowingly. Reasoning by way of rhetorical argument is explicitly giving someone the premises and conclusion. Telling a moral story or role modeling involves demonstration without necessarily explicitly revealing premises and conclusions. Thus they are different and affect people in different ways. In certain situations one may be more effective than the other.

Nope, atheism is NOT having the belief that accepting theism IS merited (more precise: that there is a god). One word in a different place, huge implications. Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack thereof. In order to be an atheist you don't have to believe anything about any theistic belief having any merits or not. You don't have to have any even remotely connected belief about theism at all and still be an atheist (without knowing it). An atheist just doesn't hold that belief himself. A-theism means not being a theist. Being a theist means believing in a deity. It is literally that simple. Check these videos out: The Atheist experience with Matt Dillahunty: Shifting The Burden Of Proof - The Atheist Experience 438 Burden of Proof - Atheist Experience Response to: "Atheists have faith, just like theists." Take My Burden of Proof Please! - The Atheist Experience #747 That cleared things up quite a bit. Thanks. What belief is involved with Atheism? A lack of belief doesn't magically = a belief I respond with another post explaining how misguided it is to continue focusing on debating the labels at the expense of actually assessing the beliefs themselves and responding to them. The next couple posts go right back to the terminology. I give up. I really think there needs to be a separation between the issue of debating terminology, which is a linguistics endeavor, and the issue of assessing as accurately as possible what people's beliefs are, which is a research endeavor and possibly an activist endeavor depending on what you want to do with that information. Linguistics are interesting and important. They deserve a discussion of their own. But when I see activists getting bogged down in linguistics, I find it a shame. The terminology has stopped serving as an aid and become an obstacle itself. I am going to assume at this point that this has become a linguistics thread. I'm not very interested in that aspect at the moment. If anyone is interested in the research/activism aspect primarily, perhaps start another thread for discussion of that.

Actually i'm just evaluating statements rationally based on literal definitions. If you, as you have, want to insist on changing definitions or not being concerned with them, you are free to argue about super-human things and what percentage we believe in our own idea of super-human-things. I simply ask that you stop misusing words for which we already have definitions. But many - even most people out there - do NOT evaluate statements rationally based on literal definitions. So if you want to know what they believe you cannot just assume what they mean by a word is the same as you mean when you use it. I get the idea that you have little interest in knowing what those people believe. I and some others do. So if you are not interested in accurately assessing their beliefs, this discussion really isn't very relevant for you. If you are then it will be crucial to work as hard as you can to clarify what people mean rather than simply focus on being frustrated that they are using words in ways you deem incorrect.

Nope, atheism is NOT having the belief that accepting theism IS merited (more precise: that there is a god). One word in a different place, huge implications. Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack thereof. In order to be an atheist you don't have to believe anything about any theistic belief having any merits or not. You don't have to have any even remotely connected belief about theism at all and still be an atheist (without knowing it). An atheist just doesn't hold that belief himself. A-theism means not being a theist. Being a theist means believing in a deity. It is literally that simple. Check these videos out: The Atheist experience with Matt Dillahunty: Shifting The Burden Of Proof - The Atheist Experience 438 Burden of Proof - Atheist Experience Response to: "Atheists have faith, just like theists." Take My Burden of Proof Please! - The Atheist Experience #747 You've done a tremendous job of showing why I harp on getting away from the words. I could respond to your points and we could go back and forth for hours. But what would it accomplish? Those with a vested interest in focusing on the words rather than the meaning will spend all day making a fuss over the subtle distinctions you make. I disagree that those distinctions make a difference as you claimed. But more importantly, the entire argument can be ignored completely by going to the %'s. So what possible motive is there to waste time debating them? I think you can roughly categorize two groups in this: One group primarily wants to know as much as possible, as accurately as possible about what people's beliefs are regarding God Another group primarily wants to bicker about the subtle distinctions in the labels we give to the people with various beliefs and non-beliefs I am in the first camp. I find that a much higher priority and much more important to the world. To me every minute wasted on debating the labels is time wasted on what really matters - understanding and responding to the actual beliefs. Imagine a patient comes in to see a pair of doctors. They both agree on what the patient has wrong with them and what they need for treatment. But instead of treating him, they sit there debating for hours the name of the condition. Does that seem worthwhile? Perhaps if they are linguists. But not physicians. So I guess it depends on what role you feel you take on these issues. My concerns are more of an activist nature, wanting to improve the world as much as we can. So I'm focused more on getting the information needed to understand what's going on. Once you have that in the roughest form - pure data - you can then name categories. But when the debates over category names start taking up more time than the focus on the actual data and what to do about it, I think it is misguided.

Accepting that theism implies contradictory premises is all that has to be "believed." Since that's a pre-requisite (a == a && a != !a) for all rational thought, I don't think it matters one iota what percentage one wants to put behind their conviction. My point is that it's a completel waste to ignore the fact that by-definition theism is a non-starter: Something is everywhere all the time != Something is unknowable and undetectable (ever) : Implies that the speaker knows about the entire future of human knowledge. Something is unknowable != We know something about it (theology) : Obvious contradiction. Theism is not Deism. Atheism is not Adeism. You basically keep sharing your belief system about this topic while not understanding that others have different ones, even if you might find them incorrect. However wrong you might find them, billions of people do not believe theism is a non-starter. If we want to know their beliefs, we have to ask them. I've offered a method I think is more effective for asking them and learning as much as possible as clearly as possible about what they believe. That's all. It's not really that difficult a concept. There are atheists of many different stripes with many different beliefs. I understand it doesn't interest you what they believe. You are not obligated to have any such interest. I am interested in understanding the spectrum of beliefs among those labeled atheists, as well as others. And this thread was started because of a question about the level of knowledge necessary to be an atheist. My point is atheists are a more diverse group than some consider so there is no one-size fits all answer. 0%'ers claim certainty, while 10%'ers would not. So the answer to OP's post is that it does not require certain knowledge to be an atheist, only to be a 0%'er atheist.

I thought the thread was started because of a frustration the OP had with the fact that people fail to respond to attempts to persuade them to what he sees as truth using logical forms of communication. I am focusing here only on what type of persuasive strategies are most effective. It is not relevant to me whether the parent has a rational reason for hugging the child, for example. My point is that the parent communicates to the child in that scenario non-verbally, not through argument or attempting to reason anything out. So I'm focused on communication methods, not on whether there are rational motives involved (or even just motives of any kind, which we might call a 'reason' whether it seems wise or not). I'm focused on a discussion of persuasion strategies, contrasting things like logical argument with other methods of attempted persuasion. You say that reasoned argument is most likely to change people's minds in a sustainable way and for the right reasons. I'd be interested if there is research on this. I would imagine there is. I'm not as married to that idea as some here seem to be. Other methods of communication can be used manipulatively, but they don't have to be. The example I just gave of using story to teach lessons is a good one. The lesson can be learned very sustainably and for very good reason through modeling from characters rather than from explicitly stating logical arguments. Role modeling is often how children learn far more than by what they are verbally told. If told false stories with false morals, they may learn those. If told stories that demonstrate true dynamics, even if not literally true, they may learn valuable lessons. I'm not sure where you saw an "attack" on Rand. I simply said that it seemed if someone was against self-interest as a method to improve the world, they would probably not like her ideas then. But I also just realized that Rand mostly used story herself as her method. Her main impact on the world came through her stories, not her non-fiction. So she is an interesting example of someone who used alternative methods to get her points across, for better or worse. I'm not a fan of her, but I just thought she is an interesting example that many people here are familiar with.

Also one other example that comes to mind is the use of story. Does using story to make a point automatically constitute an appeal to bias? What about the use of parables to make points, often more powerfully than can be done through straight logical argument alone. Is this always manipulation? Humans seem to have a possibly biologically-based affinity for processing stories. Often a story is far more persuasive than just giving syllogisms. Is it unacceptable to you to use story rather than straight logic to provide a lesson?

You make some very good points. I guess my point with the hugging, for example, is that often the irrationality is a symptom not of faulty thinking but of wounding or unmet non-cognitive needs. Stef's work focuses heavily on this and that is one of the reasons I find it worth consuming. Imagine, for instance, that a person was hurt at a particular place that is almost always safe. You can argue until you're blue in the face, using every rational means, that that place is not dangerous and it was a fluke. You can point out repeatedly that they are less likely to be hurt there again than they are driving their car to work. In fact, they may even already know all of this logically and still their behavior and beliefs shape themselves around the fear. The human brain simply does not work on pure rationality. It didn't evolve to do so and likely our survival is partly becuase of that. Well you'd probably agree the best approach to this may be therapy. How many therapists would approach this with simple rational appeals, given that this has likely already failed? Well they may try, but many of them wouldn't be the least bit surprised when that fails to work. In fact, they'd expect that to usually be the case. And what would we do then? Well we would use approaches you would probably call "subjective" and "appeals to bias." And yet these methods are quite what such a person may need to heal and become healthy and able to be whatever their potential is to be. On the other hand, continuing to try over and over to appeal to logic would really be pointless and actually even possibly malpractice. It would be a disregard for how the healing process works in such a case. So psychotherapies, other than maybe pure cognitive therapy and probably even not including some of that, are usually not based on rational appeals. And yet do you doubt that performed competently they are a crucial part of people becoming healthy and our society becoming healthy? At an even more basic level, when someone is starving they are unlikely to be in a state of mind to think rationally. What do you do in such a situation? Try to make a better logical appeal? Or help them get food? If you help them get food is this a "subjective appeal to bias"? Well perhaps if you use the food to bribe them to see things your way. But if you are simply meeting that unmet need so they are in a healthier state and more able to be open to reality, I think that's simply a wise approach. So what I am getting at here is that irrationality stems from many things. Faulty reasoning is only one of them. When faulty reasoning is the origin, it makes sense to focus on logical argument. When faulty reasoning is only the symptom, it may be missing the point to keep focusing on that surface level. And I don't think it is an appeal to bias to focus on the actual origin of the dysfunction.

I'm finding it strange that you keep responding to my posts in language unrecognizable as being from what I said. I talk about using means other than rational - which can be anything from music to art to poetry to healing touch, heck even Stefan focuses mostly on parenting which involves tons and tons of not only non-rational but non-verbal behavior - and you keep responding as if I said things like "appealing to bias." I don't consider those the same. If your child is hurt, which do you do, reason with them or hold them? Do you go for rational communication or non-verbal communication? I would hope at least you go for both. Is the hug "appealing to individual bias?" I don't think so, yet I think in many cases it is far more effective than anything you could verbally say, much less get across rationally. I bet there are thousands of situations where simply hugging someone would be more effective than any logical argument you could make. And I don't think that's necessarily "appealing to bias" or manipulation. It may be precisely what they're needing and crying out for while you're focusing on rationale. In fact, we know that intellectualization is a defense mechanism so you may even be manipulating by continuing to focus on reason and logic while they are needing emotional support. >>However, bias isn't going to get those people to rationality...And I think many people want to get to rationality. Again I don't think "getting people to rationality" is a reasonable or even healthy general goal. It's too specific. It's not only that only some want to get there. It's that only some are even "supposed" to get there. Do you really think the world's great artists are all really meant to be rational thinkers? Are all sensitive intuitive feelers meant to become rational thinkers? Not only do I disagree with that but I don't think humanity would even survive if that was the case. A planet full of 7 billion purely rational thinkers would be a very barren place. Thank goodness for artists, designers, massage therapists, healers of all kinds who rely more on their strengths in other areas. And thank goodness for the proportion that are rational and who are becoming rational who will play their role in the whole system. I think it's a grave error to put reason on a pedestal to such an extent that you think reason = morality and other forms of communication and thinking = immorality and harmful bias. I think that's dangerously prejudiced and an overcompensation to the level of irrationality we now have.

No, it is in fact not. It's the absence of a belief. The non-acceptance of a proposition. Atheism is a belief that accepting theism is not merited. However, knowing only that leaves so much unanswered. Do they believe it is not merited because they think the likelihood of theism being correct is 0%? Do they believe it is not merited because they think the likelihood of theism being correct is 50% and they demand 80% to accept a proposition? Or do they not believe it is merited simply because they are indifferent and are comfortable not taking a stance even though it might be feasibly correct? And so on. My point is why waste our time going for something as vague as "I believe acceptance of theism is not merited"? Why not cut right to the meat of things - what they DO believe about theism and why they react to it as they do. This is done far quicker and more effectively by just going right to the %'s.

If "moral" isn't rational, then it's an appeal to bias. That is, irrational morality is subjective and cannot rightly be described as morality because it is not equally true for everyone. Suppose I suggest murder is wrong and you ask me why that should be so. If I respond with "Because you wouldn't want to be murdered", then I'm not making a rational argument. I'm appealing to your bias of self-interest as a means to convince you to believe something which may or may not be true. While that's a boss rhetorical technique, it isn't a very powerful argument. That is a great example of language as a tool for dominance. It's subtle, because most people are conditioned to think of morality as divorced from rationality. However, appeals to individual bias are not claims to truth, and cannot describe universals. It's as-if I claimed you have $5,000,000 in your bank account and, when you questioned how I know that, I respond by saying "Think how much you would benefit from having all that money"...While you would benefit from all that money, your bias of self-interest is not a vehicle to change the condition of the world. I'm not saying everyone needs to be rational. There is no obligation to be rational. I guess you're very anti Ayn Rand then because she certainly promoted self-interest as the vehicle to change the world? So if I'm understanding you correctly you will insist on only using rational means to promote morality even if you know that very few people respond to it and you will probably not gain much traction. That is a valid standpoint if you take that view based on principle. It may be less effective, but if that is what is in line with your own morality then that's your choice. Have I understood?

I'd be very apprehensive to support any means of arriving at what is true other than reason and evidence. Perhaps a work of art could direct it's audience toward rational pursuits, but I'd really be nervous about that. If, say a movie, directs it's audience to perform some action, entirely through ethos or pathos, such that the audience then performs that action. Well, those poor people could have been compelled to do almost anything. Appeals to bias are anti-truth. They make discovering truth more difficult through the obfuscation of facts. Is it possible to paint a picture which, without appeals to bias, reveals what is true? I'm unconvinced that, other than mathematics, there is any way to arrive at valid sums. It isn't that people should think or accept rational arguments. It is entirely the prerogative of the individual to think critically or not. There is no imperative to reason. Reason is a communication style... A series of conventions which are objectively valid. What better advertisement for reason than reason? I mean, if I'm gonna advocate people reason, I better use reason to get that message out. Otherwise, I'd do better to advocate for whatever I was using to in-place of reason. I notice in your response you've made "rational" the highest goal. I think moral is the highest goal. Rational means of promoting what you believe is moral is one means. There are also other means. But there seems to be a difference in what end goal we think we're talking about. To me, rationality is one approach, one strategy. But rationality isn't the end goal itself. And if you make it one I think you're pretty much doomed. I don't think it would even be healthy for humanity to be full of 100% rational thinkers. Imagine all the incredible arts and other contributions we wouldn't have if every human brain was wired to primarily be rational all the time. I think humanity is meant to have a balance of rational and other types of thinkers. The problem today isn't that everyone isn't rational. It's just that things are out of balance and perhaps we have certain roles filled by non-rational people that should be filled with rational ones. But we also need plenty of other types of thinkers in other roles to make things work. But then you throw in the issue that in some cases it's more important that someone be a moral person than a rational person. And those are not the same thing. There are extremely logical sociopaths out there.

People are conditioned from birth to submit to authority. First by the family, then by the state. The Milgram students are exactly what you'd expect from 20 years of behavioral conditioning...good little soldiers. OK, but you had said the opposite. You said: "They've been taught to use communication as a tool of dominance and authority. In many cases, people see language as more a weapon than a tool." In fact, if what you're saying here is the case, they are taught not to use language for dominance and authority. They are taught not to use it that way at all and to be submissive. Of course, that's not what I said. Though, I find it interesting that you talk about beautiful paintings and songs as-if those things cannot be used as tools of control. As-if no one has ever used a . As-if a beautiful painting cannot decieve and manipulate. Much of the communication in society is used for power. Not all of it. There are songs, paintings, and arguments which compell without dominating, though such activities can only be accomplished with appeals to truth. Where did I say beautiful paintings and songs can't be used as tools of control. I specifically said (in the part you selected not to quote): "You can use logic for dominance or not. You can use other ways for dominance or not." I think that makes pretty clear that I believe intent is separate from which method you use. The point is that whether your agenda is power or your agenda is healing and compassion, you have to ask which is the most effective way of getting your message across. And it seems pretty clear to me that logic and evidence and rationale is rarely the most effective method these days. So given that fact, if you agree with it, how should we respond? Keep using logic and evidence and rationale anyway on principle? Or use some other more effective means of communication?

First of all you're mixing up two things. There may be logic behind why beautiful art affects us. But that's quite different from the question of whether the artist is actually using logic and reason as his/her tools. Many artists are explicitly not doing so and many even do art precisely because they have learned how much more powerful other forms of communication are. I mean there is logic behind how sentences are constructed too, but that doesn't mean that every sentence someone says is them using logic as their persuasion tool. If it was, you could never again accuse anyone using proper grammar of being irrational or illogical Second, you're incorrect in claiming that the only powerful art is that art which is somehow logical even in its form. There are many forms of very dissonant or surprising music that people are very moved by. There are entire schools of art based on not being sequential or logical or even doing things that are quite random (look at Jackson Pollock, for example). Attempting to twist art which aims to communicate to the unconscious into logic/reason is not going to work, nor should it. THIS debate could go on for hundreds of years. I actually don't see what's very debatable about the claims I made: 1) Many artists are not using logic/reason as their methods of communication 2) There is art that is non-sequential, non-linear or non-logical that nonetheless moves people profoundly I'd be surprised if many people would really try to argue against these claims. Maybe a couple, but not many I don't think.

First of all you're mixing up two things. There may be logic behind why beautiful art affects us. But that's quite different from the question of whether the artist is actually using logic and reason as his/her tools. Many artists are explicitly not doing so and many even do art precisely because they have learned how much more powerful other forms of communication are. I mean there is logic behind how sentences are constructed too, but that doesn't mean that every sentence someone says is them using logic as their persuasion tool. If it was, you could never again accuse anyone using proper grammar of being irrational or illogical Second, you're incorrect in claiming that the only powerful art is that art which is somehow logical even in its form. There are many forms of very dissonant or surprising music that people are very moved by. There are entire schools of art based on not being sequential or logical or even doing things that are quite random (look at Jackson Pollock, for example). Attempting to twist art which aims to communicate to the unconscious into logic/reason is not going to work, nor should it.

We're not asking here whether you think others ideas affect you. Yes they do to varying degrees. What we're asking here is what you believe about the existence of God. Not about the idea of God or others' beliefs about God. But your belief about God. Yes objectively means has its own existence outside of yourself. So what % likelihood would you give that God in those two definitions you gave exists? Since you said "NO chance" on #1, I take it you believe there is 0% likelihood of that version of God existing? What about the second definition?

Nope, your not a God. I know this simply because I'm the one and only God. It would seem rather absurd if people could define words (god, atheist,theist) that are being used. If that was the case then they would not be speaking English anymore. So it's important to describe the terms you are using? It seems rather annoying that you yourself use term god and Atheism continuously while never once defining what those mean to you. When we asked what you mean with these you simply state that people have different views of the words "god" and "Atheist". See what you did there? You are not defining your terms, but you rather give us a non-answer. Therefore making it impossible for anyone to get anywhere with the methdology you suggested to be used. What do you mean when you say god? Describe it's properties. What is Theism? What does a theist claim? Is the claim based on measurable evidence in the external world. Or a subjective impulse in the brain? Or something else? What is an Atheist? Is this person making a claim about something, or rather evaluating what claims others are making? On what basis do you make these percentage claims about the existence of a god/gods. Eyet again do you extend these percentage claims for Unicorns, Santa and Cave Trolls? What are you looking for in this thread? When someone says "I think it's counterproductive when asking someone about their beliefs to keep using words like 'atheist'" it's kind of silly to go "Haha you just said the word." Yes I said it, but I wasn't using it. I referred to the word, I didn't utilize the word. And I'm saying when attempting to discuss people's beliefs about God, it's counterproductive to get hyperfocused on the word and miss the point about the meaning of what is being said. I didn't say you can never use it in any circumstance. This thread is about learning about what a given person's beliefs are on these subjects. That's it. If you want to know what they believe, it's a lot more useful to ask them by being as specific as possible in terms of what you're asking about and how they express their belief. Using drawn out descriptions and making sure you're on the same page rather than using commonly misconstrued single words, as well as asking for percentages rather than general estimates (ie: maybe, kind of) is going to give you more accurate information about that person's beliefs. It's that simple. If your goal isn't to find out someone else's beliefs, then none of this applies and you're dealing with some other topic. If your goal is to, as meaningfully as possible, ascertain another person's beliefs on these issues, then I believe you'll do so more successfully the way I'm describing. My goal in the thread was to support the original poster who asked whether one doesn't need certainty in order to be an atheist. My point is that there are atheists who claim certainty and other atheists who don't claim certainty. By asking for their % estimate you find that out very quickly. By focusing on the word "atheist" you might never find it out. How about this. I'll answer your question, and I'd like you to assign a percentile value to my statement. I have 2 definitions for God. I'll address both. 1. The Christian God- He is not real. The idea of him is real because I have to deal with all those "Christians" and so the idea affects my reality, thus the idea is real. He, as a real thing, and all that is claimed of him to be does NOT exist. No chance. 2. The Thinker God- The God that even the most rigorous thinkers cannot dismiss as existing. Some form of all powerful all intellegent all powerful form from which all was doth spawned. Number 2 ^^. I like the idea, but even that idea is not real because it cannot be difined further and has too many possible interpretations. In this way, as an idea it is even less valid than Christianity as far as it's affect on MY experience of reality, though as a real THING it has a greater chance than the Christian God of being real. So, oddly enough the more possible THING has the lesser of impact compared to the thing that doesn't exist, but which as a real "IDEA" cannot be said not to exist, because it affects my reality, and my reality is the only self evident "thing". It's not up to me to assign a % value. It's up to you. You say about the #1 version "He is not real." How sure are you of that? 100%? 99%? 5%? We're not asking which idea has more impact on your life. That's a completely different question. We're simply asking how likely you think it is that either of these things actually objectively exist. Not whether people's beliefs in them affect you. Just whether you think they really do exist.

If you are trying to investigate other people's views, confusion very often seems to come from how they define things. It's clear very few people here have done much actual research because when you do research this is a basic thing you learn early on. You must define terms very carefully or your data will not be meaningful. The question in this thread was whether atheists need certainty to be atheists. This depends on whether all atheists believe there is a 0% chance of God existing (certainty) or not. So it goes right to the %'s. If you want to know why someone believes what they believe about this, I think that you will also be much more effective in doing that if you've been very precise up to that point. The more vague you are, the more you rely on them to correctly interpret terminology, rather than explicitly make clear what the meaning of it is in this instance, the more muddled your results will be and the more likely you are to misunderstand what they really believe and why.

If you are trying to investigate other people's views, confusion certainly does come from how they define things. It's clear very few people here have done much actual research because when you do research this is a basic thing you learn early on. You must define terms very carefully or your data will not be meaningful. The question in this thread was whether atheists need certainty to be atheists. This depends on whether all atheists believe there is a 0% chance of God existing (certainty) or not. So it goes right to the %'s. If you want to know why someone believes what they believe about this, I think that you will also be much more effective in doing that if you've been very precise up to that point. The more vague you are, the more you rely on them to correctly interpret terminology, rather than explicitly make clear what the meaning of it is in this instance, the more muddled your results will be and the more likely you are to misunderstand what they really believe and why.

Of course many people don't respond to logical ideas. They've been taught to use communication as a tool of dominance and authority. In many cases, people see language as more a weapon than a tool. Regardless, adopting communication as a vehicle of authority (even to communicate the truth of a matter) is a poor strategy. One may as well try to violently overthrow the state. We can abandon the idea of a good government, by rejecting force as a solution to social problems. Why is it any harder to abandon language as a tool of control, by abandoning marketers' tricks and keeping to rational argumentation? Perhaps almost no one will be convinced, that's entirely possible, but you can't purge deception and force from the culture using deception or force. We're not gonna bring math back by producing bad sums. Damn, Arius. That's pretty heavy. That's a different level for sure, to think on. Wow, thanks. I don't think it's just about being taught to use language for dominance. Heck, the whole point of the Milgram experiments was that most people do not use language to assert authority. They follow what authority tells them and don't speak up even when they should. More to the point of this discussion though, it's not a dominance vs. non-dominance issue. It's a logic vs. other ways of communication issue. You can use logic for dominance or not. You can use other ways for dominance or not. What I'm talking about is more that people are just mostly not wired for logic. There is an incentive for diversity in humanity and so you would reasonably expect many people to be more feeling types that respond to emotion. Also many people naturally think in terms of imagery or sensation or other things, rather than just pure rational, linear thought. All of these ways of thinking evolved in humanity for a purpose and have their place. Thinking that if everyone was healthy they'd all be rational logical thinkers is, I think, deeply misguided. I find it interesting that you immediately equate any form of communication besides logical persuasion to dominating and so on. If someone writes a beautiful song that touches people and gets a message across is that dominance and deceit? What about a lovely painting that goes right to someone's unconscious? The truth is that, for many, these things are far more powerful than logic can ever be.

Nope, your not a God. I know this simply because I'm the one and only God. It would seem rather absurd if people could define words (god, atheist,theist) that are being used. If that was the case then they would not be speaking English anymore. So it's important to describe the terms you are using? It seems rather annoying that you yourself use term god and Atheism continuously while never once defining what those mean to you. When we asked what you mean with these you simply state that people have different views of the words "god" and "Atheist". See what you did there? You are not defining your terms, but you rather give us a non-answer. Therefore making it impossible for anyone to get anywhere with the methdology you suggested to be used. What do you mean when you say god? Describe it's properties. What is Theism? What does a theist claim? Is the claim based on measurable evidence in the external world. Or a subjective impulse in the brain? Or something else? What is an Atheist? Is this person making a claim about something, or rather evaluating what claims others are making? On what basis do you make these percentage claims about the existence of a god/gods. Eyet again do you extend these percentage claims for Unicorns, Santa and Cave Trolls? What are you looking for in this thread? When someone says "I think it's counterproductive when asking someone about their beliefs to keep using words like 'atheist'" it's kind of silly to go "Haha you just said the word." Yes I said it, but I wasn't using it. I referred to the word, I didn't utilize the word. And I'm saying when attempting to discuss people's beliefs about God, it's counterproductive to get hyperfocused on the word and miss the point about the meaning of what is being said. I didn't say you can never use it in any circumstance. This thread is about learning about what a given person's beliefs are on these subjects. That's it. If you want to know what they believe, it's a lot more useful to ask them by being as specific as possible in terms of what you're asking about and how they express their belief. Using drawn out descriptions and making sure you're on the same page rather than using commonly misconstrued single words, as well as asking for percentages rather than general estimates (ie: maybe, kind of) is going to give you more accurate information about that person's beliefs. It's that simple. If your goal isn't to find out someone else's beliefs, then none of this applies and you're dealing with some other topic. If your goal is to, as meaningfully as possible, ascertain another person's beliefs on these issues, then I believe you'll do so more successfully the way I'm describing. My goal in the thread was to support the original poster who asked whether one doesn't need certainty in order to be an atheist. My point is that there are atheists who claim certainty and other atheists who don't claim certainty. By asking for their % estimate you find that out very quickly. By focusing on the word "atheist" you might never find it out.

There is always this paradox. If you are logical, isn't it logical to recognize that most people aren't persuaded logically? Isn't it illogical to keep trying to use logic to persuade people who don't value logic? It's a tough one and for people for whom being rational and logical is almost a moral imperative, it can tie us in knots.

Well that's still a topic focus rather than strategy. Even if you see the state as a whole as the core issue and want to focus there, I still see strategy as the bigger problem. Whether the minor issues or more major ones, the problem is reason and logic overwhelmingly seem to fail. I think this is an issue even people with different ideas of what should be done can share an interest in. One thing that I notice is that when you watch marketers, how many of them even bother trying logic or reason? They don't waste much time with that in most cases. They may throw a few convincing facts in, but mostly they are just trying to be surprising, emotional or even just plain weird to get attention. They don't even waste their time going for the conscious mind, they're going right for the unconscious.

I'm interested in this thread not because of the minimum wage issue, per se. I'm more interested in the topic the OP raises about strategy. What he seems to be realizing is that most people don't respond to reason or facts or evidence, often in self-destructive ways. In The Fascists that Surround You, Stef laid out pretty well the roots of this. We live in a society with a lot of sociopathic influence and a lot of people, like those in the Milgram experiments, who will simply follow authority and not want to question too much. So it raises the issue of what someone concerned with ethics should do in such a situation. There is a somewhat important catch-22 that goes on here. For example, Stef put out that series where he goes over pretty well why logic and evidence and reason fail. And then he puts out a new video based on logic and evidence and so on. It's almost like we're resigned to doing what we know doesn't work. I struggle with this issue a lot. I'm really wired to want to use logic and reason and evidence and to respect people enough to try to persuade with those strategies. But yet, like Stef and the OP of this thread, I know that it mostly doesn't work. Hell, a Doritos commercial with a goat probably convinces more people to eat Doritos than hours of my reason and evidence convinces people of anything. I'd love to zero in on this topic. I don't know if this is the place. OP's post was about minimum wage, but it seems to me even more about this topic. But if not, perhaps this could be a topic for another thread depending on what people's interest is. Either way, I think the topic - minimum wage, education, religion - is irrelevant. We don't even have to agree on the topic. It's the failure of logic, reason and evidence and the implications of that that I think we all find troubling.

No, it's pretty simple. Theism: A personal god that governs the universe infinitely and unknowably. Athism: No personal god that governs the universe infinitely and unknowably. If you do not define god as the personal, universe governing, unknowable, all powerful entity, you are not a theist, you are an atheist. You can claim it's simple all you want. The confusion that abounds over the notion shows that it isn't. Even on this board full of philosophical people, look how many times people have to keep defining it and discussing it and yet confusion remains. It isn't a concept that people easily grasp in a similar way whether you think they should or not. They just don't and that is demonstrated repeatedly. You are completely missing the same point in regards to "God" as you are with "atheism." Becuase people constantly misuse these words, the useful thing to do is stop focusing on the words and just ask for more precise explanations of their meaning. What I find so frustrating is that people constantly try to go back to the words which caused confusion in the first place. Forget the words "atheism" and "God" and simply ask people precisely what they're talking about and precisely what their belief about it is. Why waste our time trying to then layer on these other words that cause more confusion than help. Only people who prefer confusion to actually getting answers would do that. If you are only interested in people's beliefs about what you described, then only ask them about that. That's well within your rights. My point is that you will get a lot clearer answers if instead of saying "Do you believe in God?" you ask "How likely, in % terms, do you believe it is that this entity exists" and then describe in full what you just described earlier. This is a much more effective way to get the answer you want than to use the term "God" and then deal with people's different ideas about it. Again, only someone who prefers confusion to clarity would go out of their way to insist on using a word like "God" that they know people have different ideas of than to just spell out which definition they mean. I'm sorry maybe I'm forgetting something, but where did I use the word math before? I was quoting you where you said that by my "math" we're all practicing polytheists. Where did I use the word math before that you were referring to? I am not saying "God" is whatever people say "God" is. I'm saying since people inevitably respond to the word in too many different ways, it's rather useless to assume when you say the word that they are responding to it as you think they should. This is why in research, people have to define even the most commonplace terms. You are learning about other people, not yourself. It doesn't matter how clear you think the definition of God is. If you want to find out their beliefs accurately, you have to make sure they understand what you're asking about as you mean it. It's irrelevant if you think their idea of what "God" is is completely wrong. What's relevant is that if you want to learn about their beliefs on something you have to make sure they're responding to the question you mean to ask and not some other interpretation of it, no matter how false you may think that misinterpretation is. So my point is do people want to learn the answer to what they really are trying to ask? Then if so simply define your terms clearly for the other person. Or if they are talking about something else without realizing it, make that explicit with them so you know what they're actually referring to.