Are we going about discussing these topics the wrong way?

[DataBrain]

I'm new to this forum, but I have been lurking quite a bit to see what kind of people listen to FDR. I've been looking at quite a few threads in the "Atheism and Religion" section, and found that a lot of posts seem to be getting downvotes, mainly when the thread is started by a Christian. I myself am an atheist, and I already know the standard laundry list of "Arguments against God" but I've began to question the effectiveness and productivity of most online argument, especially when it comes to arriving at truth. The one thing I love about Freedomain Radio is that it does not post videos about structured debates, but rather open discussion where we can get to the heart of the issue. Molyneux's "Introduction to Philosophy" is what taught me how to think, and even to question many of the things I've learned from Stefan himself.

 

To not poison the well, I won't make any argument for or against religion in this thread, or arguments for or against any users in particular or their arguments, but simply point out the mistakes made, by both atheists and theists, in the discussion of these topics and why they can be very ineffective. To do this, I will begin by analyzing two of the top threads of this subforum, with a religious OP, and the approaches made at discussing these topics in both threads.

 

1) Can't we just get along?

The OP, a Christian starts with an honest question regarding whether religion can be a good foundation for a free society, or if atheism is necessarily required. This post has three downvotes. Now, the tone by which the question was asked does have a bit of arrogance, but the question, nonetheless is the main focus of the thread.

"Yes. No." And so we begin with a non-argument.

The next post has a better argument on why religion can clash with the values of a stateless society. 2 upvotes.

The next post points out a sort-of strawmanned claim by the OP about Stefan, 4 upvotes.

Then is dsayers' post. He points out why the strawmanned claim was made, and says:

 

This was my reaction as well. I wouldn't hold your breath though. If you check his brief post history, you will find that this level of manipulation is consistent. Just look at the title of the thread itself. It proposes a standard that he isn't willing to adhere to himself.

Three upvotes

Next post:

 

This is why I can't get along with you. I am not blind, and I am not going to hell because god didn't make me see him. This is bigotry.

The OP then defends himself (I'm not saying this was an unjust defense or not), and then points out the escalation, including him being called a bigot. He brings his counterargument and returns to the main question of "Why can't we focus on convincing the masses of the importance of freedom, self-determination, intellectualism, critical thought, challenging the status quo, free markets, competition, and societal evolution?  Why can't I simply be tolerated as a minority opinion, where the small amount of divergence that exists is almost completely irrelevant to the construction of a free society?"

Finally, one more post from dsayers, and it escalates into a full-on debate. I'm not arguing whether dsayers' arguments were right or wrong, but showing that they provoked and escalated the argument further. In the end, dsayers et al. got the upvotes, and the OP got quite a few downvotes. The OP gave up on the discussion. "It was worth a shot, I guess." Four downvotes.

2) can atheists be moral

The OP has gone under the downvote threshold here. He posts a video that brought him to want to discuss this subject. The OP has obviously not read UPB, and he gets bombarded with the following reply.

 

Though I do agree with the arguments being made, every possible argument for secular morality and against religious morality is thrown right at the OP, and the OP receives all of the downvotes the more he tries to argue from the last apologetic assertion of circular reasoning. And, of course, there are way too many downvotes, and perhaps rightfully so. Yet still, the OP wants to debate more, and the atheists are doing just that.

 

 

 

What I've concluded from threads like these is this:

We assume that the OP has the same level of intellectual understanding for the discussion, and so we use arguments against religion, or against the OP's claims, whether they are valid arguments or not. Posts like this are not too common, as the forum is mainly secular, and online, pithy metaphors like these are made against religion. Online (from an atheist perspective), atheism VS religion is usually treated like a chess game, where the atheist knows the correct strategy, and the religious apologist knows knocks down the chess pieces and asserts that they've won. This is a very bad way to look at the debate, and almost always, as see in the two threads mentioned, leads to a backfire effect.

 

I think there is a much better way to go about this. Instead of treating it like a "Chess game" where the more knowledgeable or experienced player will win, it should be treated like a team mud run, where you go the pace of the slowest runner. In both threads, there were downvotes, attacks, counterarguments (or really arguments in the first place) that created an "Us VS them" environment which started from simple curiosity where the religious person themselves asked the question. The threads on this subforum don't help those who are religious to understad why they could be wrong about their beliefs and why they should think more for themselves and be interested in the facts you are presenting.

 

This video is by Anthony Mangabosco, who makes an amazing YouTube videos called "Street epistemology" where he spends five minutes with strangers, then afterwards gets them to think critically about their beliefs. In five minutes, he does not give the arguments against religion, converting them to the "truth of atheism" but simply gets them to think, which is the most important thing a philosopher can do. He creates a friendly environment where the religious person themself is willing to come back to think more and discuss more honestly, with no contempt whatsoever, all in five minutes.

 

[dsayers]

1) Can't we just get along?

The OP, a Christian starts with an honest question regarding whether religion can be a good foundation for a free society, or if atheism is necessarily required. This post has three downvotes. Now, the tone by which the question was asked does have a bit of arrogance, but the question, nonetheless is the main focus of the thread.

You're leaving out the most prominent feature of that opening post:

 

in many of Stefan's videos, and certainly in most posts in this forum, the conclusion ends up being something like, "and that's why anyone with faith in the unseen is a bane to society and should be drug out into the street and shot."

Do you think that the accusation of saying people should be drug out into the street and shot is a light one? Do you think that somebody who could make such a demonstrably false accusation, and later try to minimize and cover it up is somebody who should be taken seriously, let alone coddled?

 

Your thread is about methodology of communication and you've deliberately left out the part of the story that makes your claim of it asking "an honest question" go from true to false. I'm sort of curious what you have to gain by misrepresenting that thread. I'm also curious how, if methodology of communication is your interest, why you'd be talking to those who responded to him instead of to him.

 

If you see somebody committing a rape, you should restrain them first. You can worry about communication methodology afterwards. I for one will not let lies and manipulation (damaging behaviors) go unchecked. If he wants to have an honest conversation, I would say he's welcome. Until that time, it's not my job to babysit him. We've had the internet for a while now. Anybody who was curious about these topics could find the answers they seek. That person was not curious. He was hostile, accusatory, manipulative, and dishonest. Shame on you for trying to conceal this.

[Will Torbald]

Any vegan going into Burger King to tell people how wrong they are is going to meet resistance. Any religious person going into a philosophical debate is going to meet resistance. There is no wrong way to go at it when the initial error is from the religious person.

[A4E]

Thanks to OP for the video. Very interesting! And there seems to be a wealth of interesting talks with people on his channel. Hours and hours of engulfing and entertaining videos. Thanks again.

[wdiaz03]

...

 

Your thread is about methodology of communication and you've deliberately left out the part of the story that makes your claim of it asking "an honest question" go from true to false. I'm sort of curious what you have to gain by misrepresenting that thread. I'm also curious how, if methodology of communication is your interest, why you'd be talking to those who responded to him instead of to him.

 

...

 

What seems interesting to me is how in an effort to change people's minds some people (consciously or unconsciously) seem to ignore points that weaken their argument. The OP wants to promote the value of street epistemology. But before doing so, sites a number of threads where not using this approach was counterproductive. This I imagine in an attempt to make his argument for SP stronger.

 

When I read his post his points seemed valid, and now reading yours I can see how he misrepresented his examples.

 

Had him been honest and just posted his argument. For example "I think the use of SP when interacting with theist is a much better way to engage them"

and open that for discussion, it would have been a more productive thread.

 

I saw the video. I admire the guy for engaging people this way, like he said at the end, he does not know how effective SP is in changing people's minds, and he is working on finding out,

 

I can see how SP on an online forum can be challenging. One would have to ask a simple question, wait for the reply a day or two later, ask another question...etc. the interaction that takes 5 mins on the street would take weeks, not to mention the other people jumping in and expressing their opinions.

The equivalent would be engaging someone in mail chess across the world while each player being surrounded by a crowd. each person in the crowd jumping in with suggestions and derailing the game, because it is no longer about what move each person wanted to make and why they think they are making it. It becomes the best strategy for either black or white to win. how much can each of the players learn about their own game and how to improve it no longer being the focus.

 

Thoughts?

[DataBrain]

You're leaving out the most prominent feature of that opening post:

 

 

Do you think that the accusation of saying people should be drug out into the street and shot is a light one? Do you think that somebody who could make such a demonstrably false accusation, and later try to minimize and cover it up is somebody who should be taken seriously, let alone coddled?

 

Your thread is about methodology of communication and you've deliberately left out the part of the story that makes your claim of it asking "an honest question" go from true to false. I'm sort of curious what you have to gain by misrepresenting that thread. I'm also curious how, if methodology of communication is your interest, why you'd be talking to those who responded to him instead of to him.

 

If you see somebody committing a rape, you should restrain them first. You can worry about communication methodology afterwards. I for one will not let lies and manipulation (damaging behaviors) go unchecked. If he wants to have an honest conversation, I would say he's welcome. Until that time, it's not my job to babysit him. We've had the internet for a while now. Anybody who was curious about these topics could find the answers they seek. That person was not curious. He was hostile, accusatory, manipulative, and dishonest. Shame on you for trying to conceal this.

I didn't mean to hide this under the rug, and I know this comment was a terrible argument and accusation, and I don't mean to say that the OP was a philosophical angel who makes perfect arguments (as you pointed out, the OP had a history of making accusations like this in his posts).

 

The problem is, in a thread like this, the only person who agrees with the accusation is the OP himself, and pointing out the accusation by breaking down and counter-arguing the OP's post is a very bad way to start a discussion with someone who is not on the same level as you intellectually. If the atheist argument is correct and the religious argument is incorrect, you are the only one who knows why you're correct, and the religious person needs to know how to think themselves out of their own argument to understand why they're wrong.

 

I am not saying that the method by which the OP's points were attacked was a wrong method of argument, but simply an ineffective one, one that backfires.

 

A more effective methodology of discussion would be to ignore the attack on Stefan and get to the main questions of the thread, unless the attack becomes specifically relevant.

 

From my perspective, most religious people are not to be taken seriously or "coodled". But attacking their arguments will only get them to want to google for more counter-apologetic answers to your argument. I would say that it is much better for the OP to understand why they're wrong, and come to that conclusion by themselves in friendly terms with you, than for you to be right, no matter how correct you are. Religious people tend to be very bad at taking criticism, which is why criticism does not work.

[dsayers]

I can see how SP on an online forum can be challenging. One would have to ask a simple question, wait for the reply a day or two later, ask another question...etc. the interaction that takes 5 mins on the street would take weeks, not to mention the other people jumping in and expressing their opinions.

The equivalent would be engaging someone in mail chess across the world while each player being surrounded by a crowd. each person in the crowd jumping in with suggestions and derailing the game, because it is no longer about what move each person wanted to make and why they think they are making it. It becomes the best strategy for either black or white to win. how much can each of the players learn about their own game and how to improve it no longer being the focus.

 

Thoughts?

I agree with this completely. I remember a recent thread where someone said porn was immoral. I asked them how they arrived at that conclusion. Before they could answer, many other posts were made, driving the topic forward when I thought there was a productive reason to pause. Why in this very thread, I've expressed curiosity as to WHY he left the most prominent feature out and why he is less focused on the toxic person than those who reacted to his toxicity.

 

When I'm deciding how much time and attention to give someone here, that decision is based on how much integrity and rapport (with me) that person has. It's sometimes challenging when a person is brand new. For example, the first OP he references raised a red flag for me. But I gave him the benefit of the doubt because he expressed curiosity and people have different knowledge and experience.

 

Here, we have someone who has spent a good amount of effort gathering his thoughts, being deceptive, and not expressing curiosity. In other words communicating poorly white trying to advise others how to communicate. A person cannot give advice to you unless they understand what your goal is. By speaking without integrity, he certainly doesn't relate to my goal of rational thought.

 

But he's not JUST communicating poorly, he's engaging in toxic behavior while protecting a toxic person by concealing his toxicity. We live in a society where we are surrounded by people who would have us harmed for disagreeing with them, who would try to hamper the way we think, and otherwise subjugate us for their benefit. As somebody who has been victimized by all of this, particularly in his formative years, I'm very careful to not let toxic people into my life.

 

As I said, I cannot let damaging behavior go unchecked. I would be erasing myself if I did and allowing the people who willfully engage in those behaviors to harm others.

[Jer]

This video is by Anthony Mangabosco, who makes an amazing YouTube videos called "Street epistemology" where he spends five minutes with strangers, then afterwards gets them to think critically about their beliefs. In five minutes, he does not give the arguments against religion, converting them to the "truth of atheism" but simply gets them to think, which is the most important thing a philosopher can do. He creates a friendly environment where the religious person themself is willing to come back to think more and discuss more honestly, with no contempt whatsoever, all in five minutes.

 

I have changed my entire approach to talking to theists and statists after watching Anthony's vids and reading Peter Boghossian. Highly recommended.

[Will Torbald]

If the atheist argument is correct and the religious argument is incorrect, you are the only one who knows why you're correct, and the religious person needs to know how to think themselves out of their own argument to understand why they're wrong.

 

It is up to them to first admit fallibility. It is them who have to be humble first and admit they could be wrong. When a religious person starts preaching and pseudo-debating, but all they are doing is a one sided sermon about their religion, we owe them no grace.

[shirgall]

To not poison the well, I won't make any argument for or against religion in this thread...

 

I think there is a much better way to go about this. Instead of treating it like a "Chess game" where the more knowledgeable or experienced player will win, it should be treated like a team mud run, where you go the pace of the slowest runner. In both threads, there were downvotes, attacks, counterarguments (or really arguments in the first place) that created an "Us VS them" environment which started from simple curiosity where the religious person themselves asked the question. The threads on this subforum don't help those who are religious to understand why they could be wrong about their beliefs and why they should think more for themselves and be interested in the facts you are presenting.

 

 

I usually look for postings where someone is asking a question, or making a wild assertion, and use it as a teachable moment. To date, I have witnessed no argument for the existence of gods has met standards for logical rigor. Most of the time I spend is refining definitions and explaining logical operations. I admit I haven't seen a promising new approach to the argument in a very very long time, and I know Jesuits.

 

Once I determine that the basic rule of argument is missing, that both side are willing to accept the conclusion of the argument, I stop playing.

 

The most wonderful thing I see in Stef's call-in shows is the actual changing of someone's mind, or outlook, or self-knowledge. It is so very satisfying. And I really do expect that if Stef encounters an argument or evidence he does not expect that he can change too.

[MagnumPI]

Eh, can it just be that we're sick of hearing about god and christ and all the other fairy tale bullshit? Something bad happened, pray. Something good happened. Keep praying. Something neutral happened... PRAY! NO! Fuck that, I'm sick of hearing about how I'm supposed to sit around talking to myself to fix the world's problems. And I'm just as sick of seeing other people doing nothing else but talking to themselves to fix all the problems in the world.

[dsayers]

The problem is, in a thread like this, the only person who agrees with the accusation is the OP himself, and pointing out the accusation by breaking down and counter-arguing the OP's post is a very bad way to start a discussion with someone who is not on the same level as you intellectually.

I reject the claim that somebody has to be intellectually on any particular level to understand that putting something forth as factual something that is unknown is irresponsible.

 

In your OP, you said you didn't want to debate religiosity, but rather methods of communication. I understand everything you said in this post. But it does nothing to address my question of why you wouldn't be approaching that person about the way he communicated instead of how those reacted to them. I think the problem might stem from

 

A more effective methodology of discussion would be to ignore the attack on Stefan and get to the main questions of the thread, unless the attack becomes specifically relevant.

I can't speak for others. Stef's a big boy.

 

When I addressed him, I was addressing him as somebody who just accused ME of saying he should be drug out into the street and shot, because that's exactly what happened. If you think that "A more effective methodology of discussion would be to ignore the attack on Stefan and get to the main questions of the thread," again I ask: Why wouldn't you hold that person to this standard instead of the people who responded to him? HE started the thread. HE set the pace for discourse in that thread. HE did not ignore the attack on people. HE didn't get to the main questions of the thread. And it was his thread!

 

This is also why I reject the intellectual level point you made. I spoke to that man in the very tone he spoke to me first. I can prove that before he made that very nefarious accusation, I had treated him much differently. I do not apologize for my approach with treating people with respect when I first meet them, and treating them exactly how they treat me from that point on. And his accusation wasn't just against me, it was against my tribe. He was mistreating the people who are trying to save the world. Damn right I'm going to intervene and I'm going to make it clear in no uncertain terms that his aggression would not stand.

 

There's a time for pleasantries. That wasn't one of them. See above my analogy of restraining a rapist before bothering with communicating with them.

[DataBrain]

Alright then. I see your point. In an online forum, communication to the same level as face-to-face discussion is impossible, and perhaps laying out all the arguments is more effective in this case because there is no chance for a quick exchange of questions.

 

And I can see the advantage of attacking the OP's points rather than Socratically letting them doubt when it comes to online argument. That advantage is that other people reading the thread who are religious will not be misinformed themselves with the chaos that is the internet.

[Troubador]

I'm a theist who when coming here noticed a stickied thread "For our religious friends" which I think outlines a lot of important things. Aside from the fact it uses the word friends which leads me to believe I am not implicitly unwelcome. I get the feeling not a lot of theists coming here bother to read it. Which is a shame as I think it heads off a lot of conflict.

 

I think it's also worth pointing out the wider world is actively setup against and discriminates against atheists. Which is quite frankly not on. I can quite see why the accusation of religious people being taken out in the street and shot raised some ire (which I suspect it was meant to). As 1. It's weapons grade bullshit and 2. That's precisely what happens in some parts of the world to atheists, by religious people.

 

I am not aware of a single instance of a religious person coming to harm at the hands of a atheists. I know some would point at Stalin and those like him, but that is a gross oversimplification as the ideology he espoused didn't tolerate any deviation, if one was an athiest and a capitalist in Stalinist Russia you're in the crosshairs regardless.

[dsayers]

I think it's also worth pointing out the wider world is actively setup against and discriminates against atheists. Which is quite frankly not on. I can quite see why the accusation of religious people being taken out in the street and shot raised some ire (which I suspect it was meant to). As 1. It's weapons grade bullshit and 2. That's precisely what happens in some parts of the world to atheists, by religious people.

Thank you for this

 

@DataBrain: You mention you've been lurking. I'm sure this is true of many people. There are times in public places where I might feel that the person I'm directly speaking with is closed-minded, but they're saying things that others might find believable. In these cases, I think offering up the arguments and identifying sophistry can benefit the audience even if it won't the person it's being said to.

[wdiaz03]

Alright then. I see your point. In an online forum, communication to the same level as face-to-face discussion is impossible, and perhaps laying out all the arguments is more effective in this case because there is no chance for a quick exchange of questions.

 

And I can see the advantage of attacking the OP's points rather than Socratically letting them doubt when it comes to online argument. That advantage is that other people reading the thread who are religious will not be misinformed themselves with the chaos that is the internet.

 

Conceding your point when you can't think of any counterarguments shows a level of maturity you don't see often. I admire that.

 

If you would like to explore why you chose to frame your argument the way you did I'm still interested. By this I mean why you chose the examples you did and omitted parts of the posts that would weaken your argument. 

 

In a recent call in show a caller mentioned how in his line of work (research scientist) research gets published even if the methodology was incorrect, data was manipulated, etc. There's that fine line that people come to, Like I'm sure you came to, where they see something that would waken their argument and they decide to leave it out. I'm not saying that you are at that same level of dishonesty, I just wonder how this starts and becomes a habit.

 

I'll give you another example close to home, a friend of mine used the following quote:

“Regarding the Great Depression, … we did it. We’re very sorry. … We won’t do it again.”  Ben Bernanke, November 8, 2002, in a speech given at “A Conference to Honor Milton Friedman

But he framed it as the Federal Reserve admitting how their manipulation of the economy caused the great depression and how they should have left the free market handle the correction..

 

This was going to be delivered in a public setting. I found the quote too shocking to be true and further research uncovered that Bernanke while admitting fault, meant that the Federal Reserve should have done a lot more, not less. I pointed this out to him and advised him not to use the quote on the context he originally planed. 

 

Thanks in advance.

[regevdl]

I have changed my entire approach to talking to theists and statists after watching Anthony's vids and reading Peter Boghossian. Highly recommended.

I'm 29 minutes in and am loving this!  I recently admitted to myself that I am an atheist.  I haven't had the conversation with my husband but we have never lived a religious life (he's Jewish I was raised Catholic) so it's not a big deal to talk to him about it, other than for 'formalities' of saying it outloud.  So I feel this was  a great 'welcome' gift to find after shedding my pseudo-agnostic skin!  

[Des]

Eh, can it just be that we're sick of hearing about god and christ and all the other fairy tale bullshit? Something bad happened, pray. Something good happened. Keep praying. Something neutral happened... PRAY! NO! Fuck that, I'm sick of hearing about how I'm supposed to sit around talking to myself to fix the world's problems. And I'm just as sick of seeing other people doing nothing else but talking to themselves to fix all the problems in the world.

Interesting. One of a number of insights I have brought with me from the (Baptist) religious views of my father (who spent a lot of time with me), is that I can re-create the calming and surrender of prayer (without actually thinking I am speaking to any being), and get suggestions from my subconscious by not beating at the issue with my conscious mind.

 

What can I do about "the stuff I pretty much can't do anything about" - I can type into the internet and hope someone else changes something and helps me fix it. So I do that. That is a suggestion from my subconscious. The "how" of communicating it : also from a subconscious level, operating under a calmer conscious mind.

 

I want clarity about what I should do, and there is no god to give me an order, but I still need a bunch of good suggestions from which to make a choice.

[Des]

"Are we going about discussing these topics the wrong way?"

 

I expect you agree that "the wrong way" is conceptually associated with a goal. So, let me ask if we all share a goal of convincing every person [with whom we interact here] that false statements are false. Do we? Am I correct in my assessment that my primary aim in participating in these forums (fora, as a former president of South Africa known to be both intellectual and incorrect, would have said [forum is a latin word{by origin}, with a latin plural]) is: to check my own information for error, and to correct errors I can identify - with secondary aims of co-ordinating action for the increase in the length of my life, and of getting intellectual stimulation for the pleasure of mental exercise.

 

I was an "adult-baptised" (meaning I was 16yo) Baptist, and I get it, that: the committed Christian is under orders to make converts. I am under no such orders.

 

What do I care about, wrt others holding that a given false statement is true? Well, I care that this may delay the development of a panacea made with nanotechnology, and I care that someone may murder me out of ignorance - so, yes, the less ignorance, the better, on each of those two scores. Also, this preference is consistent with empathy for the person making the error - I estimate he is better off without internal logic errors and without significant errors of data representation in his mind.  At the same time, I won't know if his error is internal, or if he is typing words for the sake of maintaining an external image to preserve relationships which are important to his goals.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Alright then. I see your point. In an online forum, communication to the same level as face-to-face discussion is impossible, and perhaps laying out all the arguments is more effective in this case because there is no chance for a quick exchange of questions.

 

And I can see the advantage of attacking the OP's points rather than Socratically letting them doubt when it comes to online argument. That advantage is that other people reading the thread who are religious will not be misinformed themselves with the chaos that is the internet.

 

And to be fair, at least about my post in that thread, I was purposefully giving him the chance to prove that his hyperbole was justified. Either it was, in which case we could judge his statement with better information at hand, or it wasn't and he was poisoning the well and being manipulative of anyone else who didn't know better. I think it is quite appalling to liken atheists as having murderous impulses against theists on this board, and the case, I'm just assuming considering his language though I may be wrong, is more likely that it was him who felt a murderous rage at the idea that he would accept the truth about his past abuse. Which I sympathize with in a sense as long as he is not acting it out, but we cannot let a claim like that go unchallenged. It would be careless.