Phil Plait, "Don't Be a Dick" (Part 3 of 3)

[imslicc]

great. just one thing. there's no such thing as "Human Nature". we pass on eye color and skin, but regarding the personality - all is given you by the environment in which you're grown.

watch?v=hdanzXgtHMw

[Azivegu]

This is a good video for people that comment on anti-religous videos on youtube. It would save so much time and internet space.

[PlateMailArmored]

It's not me that be a dick first, it's the religious people trying to convert me to their bullshit in the first place, THAN I get my dick over them for good!

[philosopher3000]

I agree with everything he said, just remember that it is also the sign of a good diplomat when you know where to draw the line. It is OK to believe what you want, if it doesn't hurt other people, but when a creationist or an evangelical comes up to shoot an abortion doctor, or refuses to inoculate their children, or wants us to go into another religious war to conquer the infidels and bring on Armageddon, it is fine to be a dick, put yourself in-front of the tank, take a risk.

[DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs]

@philosopher3000 You're making a very good point. Plait is primarily speaking to the dialogue of atheists with other atheists or with general religious people. I do believe he would agree that severity is warranted at times. However, I'd only caution that most interactions are not going to require it. Not sure where I heard it, but a good assessment: 90% of your time will be working with your allies; only 10% is in actual engagement with the enemy. Plait is arguing for the quality of the 90%

[Duke1839]

Very good talk but I must point out a fallacy he stated which is that Christianity has caused millions of deaths. This ignores a possibility that more people would have been killed under a secular belief system. Most of the mass killings and genocides of the 20th century were secular. You can make the argument that having faith in God makes you less likely to do awful things not more.

[tidydannyboy]

@Duke1839 But there have never been mass killings etc because of secular systems. It's just coincidence that Stalin, Pol Pot and all that lot didn't believe in God. However, religion is definitely directly responsible for these things and even glorify it.

[Duke1839]

@tidydannyboy I agree with promoting rational thought and questioning beliefs (especially one's own beliefs). But I don't understand this need some skeptics and atheists have of attacking any religious influence. Just attacking religion won't promote rational thought, religious beliefs will only be replaced by other beliefs as Plait mentioned.

[Duke1839]

What is gained by removing a cross from a war memorial, or a Christmas tree from an airport terminal? Some of these rabid atheists see Christianity as a threat to their own version of religion, Statism. "There can be no higher power than the state". In the end, you can't disprove the existence of God, you can only take a leap of faith that everything happened by accident.

[tidydannyboy]

@Duke1839 Agreed. Phil has hit the nail on the head (without damaging the wood lol) here. If everyone is encouraged to think freely then religion will surely soon die out.

But it still doesn't take away the fact that religion has been the direct cause of so much hatred and violence over the years.

As steve Wienberg said "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

[Duke1839]

@tidydannyboy Weinberg's famous quote has been proven to be a myth. We know that good people do bad things for a variety of different reasons. Look up the results of the Milgram experiment. Most people don't set out to do bad things, they end up doing bad things because of a variety of pressures and sometimes rationalizations for the greater good. The Occutards in LA destroyed a park and probably killed some trees that couldn't be watered for a couple months, but they think they're "green".

[jaq074]

@Duke1839 A quote like that is opinion, not a fact that can be proven absolutely right or absolutely wrong. And the sentiment of the quote is that religion can influence good people to do bad things, and I'm sure that that is something you can agree with. Please understand that atheism and satanism are two very different things, by doing your own research on both of them, and also understand that using the phrase "occutards" makes *you* the person phil is asking to stop being a dick.

[Duke1839]

@jaq074 I guess I was being a dick. I get that way when bratty freeloaders do millions of dollars worth of damage to a city park that the taxpayers are now on the hook for. Btw, you say that good people do bad things because of religion, I'm not sure I would classify Muslim terrorists as good people who were corrupted by religion. I think they are bad people doing bad things. They just happen to also be Muslim. Osama was a bad person, period.

[tidydannyboy]

@Duke1839 Why would you not classify Muslim terrorists as good people who were corrupted by religion? How do you know that? There are plenty of cases of people who HAVE been influenced by others into committing atrocities in the name of religion. It's easy enough to brainwash someone. Some of them are bad yeah but they would have been bad anyway. Religion just makes it easier for them.

With regards to the occupy movement, do you actually know why they are protesting?

[hardinmichael1981]

@Duke1839 the available evidence would seem to suggest that accident is more plausible than magic.

[leconfidant]

As someone on the fence between atheism and religion, I have to say I find the creationists put me off because they select and deny the evidence. But the new atheists frequently reveal a fabulous arrogance and contempt - "Debating with religious people is like pushing a slug with a stick"., etc, etc... What Plait is saying has been clear to me from the start - The reason why new atheism struggles to take hold at a mainstream cultural level is very simple - they delight in being disrespectful.

[DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs]

@leconfidant There is nothing inherent in "new" or "old" atheists to make them "delight in being disrespectful." It is no small fact that an atheist is less likely to "select and deny" evidence, and that for the entirety of human history heretofore atheists have been ostracized, tortured, and killed for favoring evidence to bias. It's to be anticipated that atheists might appear contemptuous as they test the new freer ground, unsure of its stability, so Plait tries to preempt excess and reorient

[leconfidant]

@DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs The old atheists (readers of Nietzche, Russel, Hume, etc) knew how to be devastating with their ideas, which I really respect. With the new atheists, they read two books of Dawkins and they figure they're tooled up philosophers. Then as soon as they meet significant opposition, they switch to playground jeering. I agree that given their apparent reasonability, there's no reason why that should happen, but I can refer you to plenty of posts where the examples are abundant.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : What significant opposition? What fucking significant opposition?

There is nothing on the side of the superstition. Thats the whole problem here, religious people have absolutely nothing to offer.

We have had these debates for decades, and we come across the same idiotic "arguments" every day, all the time. They just never change, and never go away, no matter how many times they are debunked. That "playground jeering" did not start overnight. It started after years of debates.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 I agree that most of the arguments I've seen were rather repetitive and I didn't see much learning happening on either side. But the comments I'm seeing on posts regularly vary from "f--- you", "die f------- bitch" and so on. I don't mind, people are going to offload. And I'm taking it you're plainly against the position proposed by Plait. Presuming you're into communicating rationality, what do you feel was the effect of anger on learning and what other approaches did you try?

[bary1234]

@leconfidant Well, from the religious side we get "arguments" like: "Atheists are going to hell, to burn in unimaginable screaming agony for billions of years, and they deserve it, because god is loving and just." To shit like that, I think its ok to vent some rage back at them. That is pretty fucked up world view right there.

Even if they try to be moderate, and speak softly and politely, that IS their message. Its a horrible, sick message from a barbaric tribal cult. It deserves demolition.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 I think the 'burn in hell' people live for conflict and reacting with anger is like feeding a troll. I imagine that reacting with a damp, "Let's look at the evidence for your 'burning in hell idea' and see if there's even much evidence inside the Bible' is probably what they're keen to avoid. I used to do this stuff when I was working with young offenders and, trust me, it works way better and they actually do back off and learn a bit of respect.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : But yeah, I do all approaches. I usually start with a troll, just to get emotional response. Then I start to provide facts and links and backing up my point of view rationally. And asking for evidence, off course. I call christianity a zombie-cult, and I say muslims believe in mohammed and the flying horse. And religious people usually talk to me for page after page, laying out all same idiotic arguments every time. Its so annoying and frustrating, they are very badly damaged.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 I just clicked up on your ID (I hope you don't mind) and I noticed that the responses I see coming to you from other posters who happen to be religious are rather benign and polite. Are these the people you're trolling? Also, like Plait says, what's your motivation for communicating? Is educative, compassionate, or is there a purpose or are you just led by your anger, or what? I'm not judging you, I'm just asking to clarify.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant No, go ahead. Thanks for your time, I´m happy to have conversations. And to receive critique, if thats due. Only way to learn and improve.

I want to make this planet the best place I can for my children. And organised religion is the second biggest problem on this planet, so I want to kill religions. So my motivation is love, pretty much?

I have never converted anyone, and I have had maybe ten thousand debates in 20 years. Some were maybe 50 pages long, or atleast felt like that :)

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Yeah I liked the circus video. I have a few cousins who trained in clowning.

I think wrong religion is pretty heavy shit. (But it's only one problem among many)

As a Buddhist, I rather value the atheist side of the debate because it clears away so much crap. (Atheism was kind of integral within Buddhist philosophy from the get-go and remains so). So I'm concerned why this argument is stagnating rather than sophisticating, because I don't see much value being generated.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant Thanks, that circus-clip got like zero attention from my subbers :) I should get a new card-clip on pretty soon.

We are pretty much concentrating on acrobatics with everyone, its the base of all other skills. And base for acrobatics comes from strength, flexibility, balance and coordination.

You dont believe in the supernatural claims of buddhism, do you? Like that Buddha never passed through the birth-canal, not in or out.

Religions are still in the year zero. Pretty stagnant.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Yes and no. I think a many-gods / spirits model of the universe is a pretty good description of viral / memetic communication models and modern systems theory, so I'd go for that shit. Buddha as a thinker was against the supernatural and said that what god you believed in or not doesn't make you good. Doing good and developing compassion makes you good. Incidentally, that's an example of a kind of truth which was developed by religious thinking, way before science even got interested.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : And humans knew that doing good and developing compassion makes you good, way before any religions were invented.

So you dont believe in the supernatural stories of buddhism. You say buddha did not come out of his mothers armpit, and he did not walk through walls and on water. So you are pretty much not a buddhist? Not trying to make you mad or anything, just quessing here. Wondering if you actually are superstitious or not.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Well this example is two sided, because Buddha is borrowing a good deal from atheist arguments which were a significant current in Indian thought at the time, using them to get rid of superstition prevalent in Brahmanism in his day.. Superstition? I actually wasn't aware of these examples you've given. I think compassion and happiness are the only 'miracles' necessary to have faith in. Bear in mind that science in 500BC was full of nonsense too, and neither of us believe that either.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant Compassion and happiness are not miracles, and we dont need superstition to believe in them.

You dont need to be a buddhist to be a good man. And you should not claim to be a buddhist because you reject the supernatural nonsense its based on. You can say you like the good stuff of buddhism, just realise that those good bits can be found on all religions and philosophies and ideologies anywhere, ever. And those good bits existed way before any religions were ever invented.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant They give these same bullshit lines always:Atheism is a religion, Hitler was an Atheist, evolution is not science/proven, Evolution is a religion/fate-position, fate is evidence, bible is historically true, quran has scientific miracles, global flood has been proven archaelogically, ark of noah has been found, young earth can be proven, Atheists believe big bang started life on Earth, Kalam cosmological argument is good, Pascals Wager is good, what proof and evidence you have for..

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Hahaha. Yep, check, check, check... Actually, I could probably offer you some different flavours of religious crap if you want more variety, but I'd rather stay on topic. From the NOMA fence-sitting side, I have to say though, that the atheist positions are often just as predictable and some of them have a lot of evidence and reason to support them and some of it is more like an\ general anti-religious bias (understandable) and some of it is just... well trolling I suppose.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : Atheist position is that we reject their position as superstition. And we ask for the evidence for their position, cause they claim its not superstition.

And they dont have anything. So we remain as Atheists.

And that should be the end of the discussion.

After that, what is there to talk about? Nyancess of their fairytales, different ridiculous points from their stories that we can roll our eyes on?

What can we give to shockofgod? How can we help a mind so badly damaged?

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Actually looking at it from the side, what it seems to me is that atheists, especially new atheists are extremely concerned with evidence-based truth. Religions are interested in values and stuff. And as Hume says, "there is no logical connection between an ought and an is". The problem is that recently religious fundamentalists wanted to back up their values - which are decisions about questions like "Is peace more important than honour", etc, by pretending they were provable facts.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant Yeah, Atheist care for the truth. Religious people are satisfied with lies and superstition.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Well to get out of the well-worn arguments, why did philosophy and the humanities and social sciences give up logical positivism after the 1950s and why is the science wing still stuck there? Is there no truth but hypothesis testing? The same scientific arguments which remove religion would also remove philosophy and the arts. This is why I go for 'old atheism', because they have a sense of this, which Dawkins lacks.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant I have no idea about that philosophy thing.

What other truth is there than hypothesis testing?

And who wants to remove art? Seriously, what the hell? Nobody wants to remove art.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Well in the main argument between (creationists v new atheists) they all treats the bible like a list of facts and scientific hypothesis, which is obviously bollox. Right or wrong, the bible is more about values than facts.

Ideas like 'Equality before the law', 'A peaceful world is a good thing', 'Beauty is valuable' are all things we hold to be true but cannot be tested as hypotheses.

Nobody wants to remove art, but if you dismiss what cannot be proven rationally, art goes too.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant bible is about abhorrent repulsive disgusting sick values. But yeah, its meaningless as evidence either way.

Cant we test those hypothesis? I think Sam Harris could talk some rings around you even if I cant.

Do we dimiss what cannot be proven rationally? I mean nobody wants to remove fiction and fantasy and imagination and fairytales and stories and myths and comics and movies and plays and sockpuppets. We just dismiss the labeling of them as "facts" and "science". Big difference.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 No I looked at Harris. He's good but not that good. Utilitarianism is a minefield in ethics and he's not going to cover ethics with decent stats, Truth does help ethics but it can't replace it. Hume's point that values and facts are logically separate is something new atheists are very slow coming round to.

The real issue is that there is truth also in art, but new atheism wants to relegate it to entertainment. Most real artists feel they're generating real kinds of truth not dreams.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : Are you saying that art is generating real emotions and feelings? What do you mean by "truths" from art?

Truth wont replace etics, and all morals are shades of grey. There are no black and white-answers to moral dilemmas. And there is nothing superstition can give that truth cant give.

Are new Atheists slow to coming round that values and facts are logically separate? And by that, do you mean we need lies in there somewhere? As in "lies and values are logically not separated?"

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Art does generate emotions and feelings, but it also communicates insights which are vital.

One truth the Ugly Duckling describes to me is that your own true potential is something you develop within yourself, not by conforming to social norms. This is something I would want anyone to have a sense of. But it's not data.

In addition, science doesn't explain it the way Anderson does, so that even young kids get the idea who might actually need to know this. I think that's brilliant.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : You think science does not explain it so that young kids can understand? How do you figure that? If a kid can understand that an "ugly duckling" can actually be a bird of different species that grows up to be bigger and (by our standards) more "majestic," he can also understand if we show him examples of children learning different skills through practise. We can show him how clumsy nerdy kids learn and develope themselves, and how they can deal with bullies if they know how.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Well I got a huge stammer when I was about 6 and the psychologist diagnosed I was over-educated by my parents. He actually prescribed fairytales and I was clear in 6 months. Another aspect of artistic truths is they're multiple. What about the story's implication that success isn't just about learning or doing, but about becoming who you are? I sometimes wonder whether this is why the little buggers want to hear the same fucking story 400 times. It really is that interesting to them.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : And again, when the little buggers hear the story, you want them to pick up the real morals. The real "truths."

Not to think that chikens talk to pigs and make fun of ducks.

Or that animals envy and admire the swans for some ridiculous reason.

Or that the little child who get bullyed can just cry alone in a corner and suddenly emerge as a huge white bird that everybody loves.

And you can skip the story, and just provide the morals and science. And kids learn the same lesson.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Actually this is my whole issue with new atheism and it's nothing to do with religion and everything to do with truth. The good news is I'm probably not going to bore you with worn-out bullshit. Hypothesis testing doesn't help much with the following - honesty (the desire to tell the truth) honour duty gratitude love friendship and a hundred other things we can:t really measure, but seem to be essential. The arts and humanities communicate them, while scientific neutrality is silent.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant I smell a strawman-argument here somewhere. Are you really saying New Atheism is doing something else than just killing superstition and organised religions?

I cant see that it is.

Or are you trying to defend superstition by saying science cant measure honour? Therefore we need the zombie-jebus or something?

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 No, I'm saying that if honour exists, or any of the rest of it, hypothesis testing would be a pretty crap way to go about discerning it, right? So I'm not advocating religion, (I mean culture and social interactions are often perfectly competent at communicating them. But to say that only hypothesis testing can discern truth, you're stuck with the logical conclusion that all these terms are not only false, but (logical positivism) totally meaningless.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : What the hell? How do you think like that? Why could we not test and study honour? Its just human behaviour, we study that all the time. And its proper science, with evidence and theories and predictable results. Human behaviour is not a superstition. Its not something we cant understand and think about.

What else are we supposed to do than hypothesis testing if we want to understand honour?

Pray? Ok that was stupid but come on. We can just do science or give up.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Honour is something we test in our relationships. We observe whether people make promises they can keep and keep the promises they made. It is objectively discernable. But it's different from, say, tungsten or acceleration as we can discover those without first knowing of them.

No-one can discern honour who does not have a sense of honour himself. Those who exercise it, discern it very quickly. Those who do not struggle to understand it and if asked, say they don't believe in it.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : We are digressing here. I cant link all this to New Atheism, and my goal of killing religions.

I say this is irrelevant. Even if this is a fun conversation.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Well I'm glad I'm not boring you with it.

But this is the real issue for me, because, as I said before, if we use hypothesis testing as a criterion for judging the truth of religion, we might as well use it to dismiss art and literature, politics and philosophy, law and linguistics. History, contrary to people's assumptions, isn't a patient gathering in of facts. It's riven with controversy and paradox. If you assume the only truth is science, everything else goes.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : Again, are you saying New Atheists are doing anything other than trying to end religions and fight superstition?

Are you saying somebody is dismissing human behavioural and social and psychological studies? Why on earth would we do that? To understand humans must be one of the most important goals of our scientific work. And it is. Dont worry. Ending religion is not going to lead to some weird idiotic "burn the paintings" campaign.

You are making up paranoid scenarios, chill.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Oh I don't think there's a conspiracy to destroy art. But I think it's happening anyway. The stripping down of all these things into bare facts is something I see in the Harris project - (who needs virtues when we have stats?). I see it in the neuroscientific effort to understand people's thoughts and feelings without having to communicate with them. I see it in the assumption in genetics that we are aware of human beauty only to select a healthy mate.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant How can you see things like that? Dude thats completely ridiculous way of thinking.

Science does not set a goal and then try to bend evidence to get there. Thats what religions are for.

Science asks a question, and then follows the evidence.

So, in reality:

Harris project: Do we need virtues when we have stats?

Neuroscience: Do we understand peoples thoughts and feelings without having to communicate with them?

Genetics: Are we aware of human beauty only to select a healthy mate?

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : To find out the answers to these questions would be valuable. Can you ever get a definitive answer? Propably not.

Will a scientist ever say that he KNOWS the answer to any of these, hell no. These questions are massive, they have so many ways to intrepret and study we will ponder these forever.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : Oh yeah, I forgot Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot. That shit never gets old either.

And that Atheist just want to live in sin, and worship satan, and kill and rape and murder with no punishment from god. And Atheist have no meaning of life, they should just kill themselves and everybody else. And Atheists cant have morality.

This shit keeps coming up, year after year, debate after debate. Its as if a factory of shit was pumping in to their heads. And they dont learn. They dont listen.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Actually I kind go with the Pol Pot stuff. Spanish Inquisition 100K - Chinese realpolitik 45M. I mean it's at least relevant, evidence based and doesn't involve flying horses. But atheist responses are equally predictable - ethics is unnecessary now that Harris revamped Utilitarianism, religious teleology is rigged, religion is completely hypocritical and immoral as a value system, etc, etc... If these responses didn't generate change till now, why don't atheists change their approach?

[bary1234]

@leconfidant Are you saying you can point to a historical figure and say he did ANYTHING in the "name of Atheism?"

Or could it be that communism failed on China and Russia? Or that personal cults failed in China and Russia and North-Korea?

How could Atheists not be predictable? We ask for evidence, they have nothing. Thats it. What else do we need to have? What else can we have?

None of their follow-up questions about morality or naziz or anything gives any evidence for their religion.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 I think all three were about totalitarianism and had lots in common with Hitler, Musolini and Hirohito. Religion - it's state use or state its abolishment - was a strategy for psychological domination. The conclusion I take is you don't need religion to do bad things.

Moves I'm not seeing... Arguments from within their religious texts; logical contradiction rather than factual evidence; requests for independent backup; the actual behaviour of their religion (not used enough).

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : Yeah, you dont need religion to do bad things. There can be really bad Atheists, Atheism just is not the motivation to do anything, ever.

Religion on the other hand CAN be a motivation, and CAN make ordinary good people do horrible things. Like inquisition before, and circumcision of babies today.

Arguments from religious texts is futile, they just say you dont have the "holy spirit." Actual behaviour of their religion gets the "true scotchman"-response. Their response is "magic."

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 I agree, atheism and science are ethically neutral.

And religion is one of the best ways of getting good people to do bad things.

I do see the gentle bias that a) ethics never had anything to do with religion b) nobody did religion other than out of one evil intention or another c)

The true Scotsman, yes. (And as a Scot, I can attest to the prevalence of this fallacy)

LOL - Aren't you relieved you don't have holy spirit?

Actually I agree with this whole post, so you're succeeding

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : About the bias on ethics and religions: How could it be the other way around, unless we ACTUALLY got our morals from gods or aliens or something other than human. Religions were made up by humans, and humans dictated the "moral codes" of religions. So those codes came from humans who allready had them before they invented the religion.

So religions do have "something to do" with ethics, but those ethics existed before religions.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 You get ethical behaviour in animals, but common value systems, (ethical or not,) only communicate among people through religion and culture. I don't see any scientific evidence of cultural civilisation developing without religion, so I don't think values were something freely available and largely indulged in which religions then monopolised and perverted. They might have done, but I can't see the evidence for that.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant We are poorly evolved primitive tribal primate mammals with pattern seeking brains. We have very vivid imagination, it has been essential for our survival as species. And it makes us very prone to superstition.

We easily make up fantasies that fool even ourselves. We do it every day, many times. Its mostly pretty harmless, but not always. And with education and knowledge, we can control this tendency in us. We dont have to be fooled by our own imagination, like we have been forever.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234

Your description of art robs it of any real value.

Take, say, The Ugly Duckling and apply Popper's logic to evaluate the story as a statement of truth.

The story is -

a) Statistically im / probable according data on swans.

b) Meaningless, as scarcity of data renders the hypothesis untestable. So the story is essentially meaningless.

Or some other analysis..?

Frankly, I could ask my mum or little cousin "Is the Ugly Duckling true?" and hear a much more useful reply.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : Would your mum have replied that its true? Would you reply that its true?

And where did I describe art? I did not mean to do that. 

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 My mum would probably say the meaning of the story is that opinions of a group are rarely the true value of a life. And yes, I'd agree that's true.

Do you prefer the Popperian take?

This is my concern with the new atheist position that only hypothesis testing describes truth ; it demeans the value of truths outside of science, like artistic truth.

To demonstrate this, I've taken you at your word, applied the rule to an example and shown you the result of thinking like that.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : Yeah, thats my view also. So the morals of the story are what we take from it. We dont need to believe in the talking ducks and swans, or anything ridiculous like that.

So we dont need to hold any superstitions here, we can just imagine things and reflect and process reality through our fantasies.

Why would you want to use Popperian take when it has such crucial gaps on its ontology? Why would you dismiss the psychological and subjectivist realities of humans?

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 I'd add, you don't have to believe guess of my mum's opinion. We're both writers so we're a biassed sample. Just try this - Ask anyone you know, "Is there's any truth in the story about the Ugly Duckling?" Don't elaborate, just fire that at them and sit back and watch what they say.

Then explain to them that, as a critical thinker you believe a more tangible truth could be found if systematic testing could be done. Explain hypothesis testing. Then watch what happens to their faces.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : Nonsense, dude :) Can you find a person who says that the truths in the Ugly Ducking are that birds and farmyard animals can talk like humans?

Off course you cant. Ask them what are the truths. They explain a hypothesis based on human behaviour and emotion. Its a sientific explanation, based on evidence and reality. Not some superstitious nonsense derived from the fairytale-aspects of the story.

And if you skip the story, just give the explanation, what have you lost? Or changed?

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 S'what I'm saying, init? Personification and metaphor aren't science, but I am adamant that because they're so flexible as models and so general in application. they are uniquely capable of describing some of the most important kinds of truth we have to learn

Real example - I have a hot date tomorrow night.

Do I want to...

1) Train and prepare to succeed in the seduction?

2) Explore whether this is a situation where we can both be who we really are?

Now that is the ugly duck-ism.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : And personification and metaphor should not go as far as superstition. Belief in the supernatural with zero evidence is stupid.

1. Your whole life has been "training and preparing" for who you are on that date. You will "put on a show", you will try to display the aspects of yourself that you think she should be ok with.

2. You wont be able to "be who you really are" in one date. Not all of it. You can only show a tiny part of yourself, and you will pick that part carefully.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Actually I just woke up, looked at it again. It's a little pretentious isn't it? The reality of it is, having charmed her with my upcoming Phd thesis proposal - a postmodern critical examination of The Ugly Duckling by, bla f.ing bla, I'll probably stick on some music, whip out some alcohol and wait for the right moment to grab her tits. Over the next ten minutes, any notion of fairytale naratives will have devolved into bodily fluid generation and games with pink fuzzy handcuffs.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : Yeah, Its pretentious. We are partly conscious animals, pretending and hoping to be fully conscious. Our hidden animal instincs dictate our behaviour and social reactions almost totally. We can barely control some of our most vulgar and obvious bodylanguage. Rest of it we cant control, and to a person who can read it we are an embarrassingly open book.

But hey, thats who we are, and thats what she is also. So we are "made" for each other. So its fluids all the way, for her also.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant And cudos for the handcuffs.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant I think this might be a tiny bit of evidence for a culture with no superstition.

/watch?v=BNajfMZGnuo

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Sorry couldn't connect to the link.

I think I could put forward a purely evidence and reason based argument that a) pre-religious ethics were isolated events b) non-religious ethics were similarly scarce and c) a contemporary religion free ethics aren't possible either. I could do it without stooping to religious argumentation, and I wouldn't have to go outside historical or systematic analysis.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant I try with another link for the same subject:

/watch?v=dg84mFeIsLQ

Yeah, you could do that historically. We know how stupid we have been. To think that we cant stop to be as stupid, is pretty pessimistic.

We have some 1.5 billion Atheists currently on this planet, and that number is rising.

Just as a thinking exercise, you can easily make up a system of laws and regulations that has no god in it. Or you can just open any book of laws from a civilised country. No gods in there.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : About the B-point: Religions are always lies. Might be good lies, might be to make people feel better, but they are always lies. Superstition is superstition, no matter how you try to sugarcoat it.

Holy spirit might be pretty darn interesting, and it would mean that we get to go to heaven. What would be wrong with that? Other than heaven sounds like a horrible place, and all my friends and relatives would be going to hell off course.. Actually I Am relieved I dont have the HS.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 I think superstition is a sideshow to what religion does. Questions like - What's good? Who decides that? Is death important, etc? What religion does is offer group decisions on these. It possibly helps mutual inteligability like a right-hand rule. "Facts" to justify these are irrelevant. The only thing that's scientifically relevant is their memetic survival by enhancing the survival of the host culture. Although at a human level, it would help if they were ethical and pleasant.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant Religion offers group lies. Based on superstition. That shit has to stop, its just wrong.

We have had superstition, always, because we really really like to lie to other humans. We are very good at telling lies, and we boost ourselves by lying from the first moment we can talk.

Now that we have bit more knowledge we also have critical thinking. We know we like to lie, and we dont always believe everything we hear anymore. Critical thinking kills religions, and thats damn good.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Some of religion is not true and evil, but not all. The bible is very mixed, with poetry here, history there, myth in another part. It's fine to hate all of it, but to call it all lies requires proof of the intention to deceive. The sex scandal going on in the Catholic church is a good example of widespread and systematic lying. The Song of Solomon isn't. The notion found in all religions, that we ought to treat others as we wish to be treated - is this a lie? Intentional deception?

[bary1234]

@leconfidant Nope, you are wrong on that. Take the Grimm-Brothers fairytale book. Its a goob book, nothing wrong with it. Lots of fictional stories, and fantasies with fun and actually some pretty sick ways to make children think.

Then add to it this line: "This book is literally true, all of these stories are facts, none of this is made up. This book is the truth."

Now that whole book is ruined. Its instantly completely fucked up and sick and twisted, and has to be opposed and fought against.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Hahaha! That's very true true and rather well put.

I think the same might be said for religious texts. If people understood them as stories which you have to interpret artfully to derive value from them, there would probably be no harm done. The problem is when we say "This. Is. FACT", after which, intellectually and spiritually you're out to sea.

I'm reading the history of this andclassically, most religions were perfectly aware it was bollocks. It was heretical to say it was fact.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : Thanks :)

I´m sure most religious people know its bollocks. Thats why the numbers of people outing themselves as Atheists are skyrocketing. There are very few actually superstitious braindamaged buffoons out there. Atleast I want to hope thats the case.

And now I think we are pretty much at the crux of our conversation. We must fight superstition, but it has nothing to do with imagination and creativity. Right?

[DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs]

@leconfidant It's curious that you would- as a believer, after all- presume to judge who is a proper opposition to yourself. One needn't be a "tooled-up philosopher" to refute religion. Religion isn't all that complex. This isn't a matter of atheism being tried by "amateurs," but of atheism becoming popularized. It is already the same with the religious: few christians read the bible yet they deign to curse others to everlasing torment as if gods. Plait cautions atheists against the same error

[leconfidant]

@Dwkns...

Religion is highly complex even if it happens to be wrong. Look at American politics and the middle east.

Anyone can call "the Emperor has no clothes". Manufacturing clothes of your own is a different matter. The idea that science can replace religion is an obvious absurdity to anyone in the humanities, religious or not. It betrays gross ignorance

You're over-generalising.

I'm Buddhist, know the bible pretty well, never cursed anybody in my life, never seen it happen in front of me.

[DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs]

@leconfidant Religion is more of an "obvious absurdity" than its presumed inextricability from society. Its undoing has been happening for centuries with unequivocal benefits. We've seen education, technology, affluence, development, and liberty displace religion effectively. Where they lack, religion persists. It is a question of modernity... The only complexity to religion is in confounding public discourse & relationships: that is to say, religion overcomplicates, but is not complicated

[leconfidant]

@Dwkns.. It's just cybernetic law - no complex system can evolve without preserving the essence of it's origins.It's the same in genetics, literature, economics, computing. Systems don't develop by cutting off their roots. They can only supplement them with new branches. The roots remain. That's the science. If you know of any exceptions, show any example.

And again, your knowledge of the humanities is superficial. Anyone studying it will tell you modernity is as much of a crisis as a solution.

[DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs]

@leconfidant Ad homs aside, one doesn't need distinction in academic humanities (or academics at all) to recognize that modernity is a crisis. You also presume too much to claim religion is itself part of the "roots" of culture. For a metaphor religion is more a set of not-so-fuzzy handcuffs which can & indeed must be abandoned entirely. Must we preserve also slavery, child sacrifice, leech-bleeding, etc.? These were blights on humanity's past, "best respected in the breach not the observance"

[leconfidant]

@DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs

Above you suggest modernity solves everything. We survived religion. We might not survive modernity. Habermas, the star thinker on modernity, liberty and public discource (atheist) attributes Europe's scientific lead entirely to its christian roots. Which bit of european culture doesn't have christian roots including science?

And slavery? I'm a Buddhist in Japan. What did we ever do?

And while we're at it, Mr.Modernity, thanks for the radiation. That's human sacrifice.

[A86]

@DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs - "It is no small fact that an atheist is less likely to "select and deny" evidence"

I don't know if I'd go that far. I've met plenty of atheists who embrace racism, deny climate change, still believe Iraq had nuclear weapons, etc. I'd say that atheists tend to be more rational with acceptance of scientific evidence but that's a single area of life. One can embrace science but be irrational on just about every other subject, or be rational on subjects except science.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : Respect gets us nowhere. Seriously, respect does not heal broken minds.

Disrespect gets us further. It does not heal the broken minds either, but it gives proper perspective to the people on the fence. Laughter is the weapon of choice because it works. Ridicule is effective, and ridicule is the right attitiude when dealing with idiotic superstitions.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Laughter works sometimes, when it's pointed wit. Amazing Atheist comes to mind as someone who uses humour to make valid points. But derision and contempt, (which I appreciate are people's honest feelings,) following Plait's point, how effective is that at communicating rationality? Or have you simply given up trying to communicate it?

[bary1234]

@leconfidant I say we should use laughter and ridicule as the first reaction to superstitious comments. Because we DO have the debunk-arguments and videos and science and knowledge available if need arises. Laughter and ridicule provokes a reaction, it sparks interest and causes emotion. Anger and frustration mostly, but also shame and embarrasment. Shame and embarrassment should always be the payback when giving superstitious comments.

Then we can provide the info, is anyone cares to continue.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 They did some proper research into shame and embarrassment and noticed it doesn't change people's behaviour as effectively as it breaks social connections, much like Plait says. I notice from your comments below you're at war with gentle reasoning as such. I agree with Plait. I think New Atheism is losing to religion because, rational or not, they appreciate relationships come first and rationality comes quite some time after that, because without relation, there is no communication.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant But we are reaching the people on the fence. We are shouting that the Emperor has no clothes, and people are waking up to see that they knew it too.

Atheism is rising in a massive tide, we have an avalance of people leaving superstition globally, or outing themselves as Atheists because they see that its ok to be an Atheist. They see they are not alone, and that its just fine to not have a ridiculous idiotic superstition. People CAN see that religions make idiotic claims.

[leconfidant]

@bary1234 Actually I'm on the fence, and while I think you're knocking spots off the creationists in terms of logical argument, I don't know. Will it improve the world? Because the biggest problems we have - global warming, Iran etc tooling up for nuclear war, pollution, nuclear waste... these are all technological creations and not much to do with religion as such. I don't think more tech is going to help. We need better values and I don't see atheism improving values per se, only truth.

[bary1234]

@leconfidant : Yeah, it will improve the world. Civilised countries are reducing their birth-rate naturally. Human overpopulation is reversing slowly, now that we have knowledge and understanding.

All problems we have are from human overpopulation, and lack of education.

Tech is the only thing that CAN help, because this planet is finite and will end eventually. Just one meteorite is enough to kill us all. Tech is the only thing that can save us.

Truth is base of all values worth a damn.

[DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs]

@bary1234 The emphasis of leoncinfdant on winning respect is correct- not from religious leaders but from congregations. You cynically dismissed the girl who Plait addressed inclusively with scientific answers, but in fact she may now be part of that "massive tide" you mentioned of "people leaving superstition globally." For atheism to win the majority, we must ultimately treat them as allies. Can you welcome them? That is the challenge: to be a doctor to deliver the atheist baby, not a hammer

[bary1234]

@DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs I dont dismiss the girl. I seriously want to know what happened to her. If she gave up her superstition, I happily give a standing ovation and rethink all my strategies.

But based on my 20 years of futile arguments with the insanity of the superstitious, I can pretty much quaran-fuking-tee that the girl in question remains superstitious. Nothing has changed, and she will even use those debunked moon-arguments again in all her conversations, untill death do us part.

[098anne]

It's so refreshing to have this issue discussed! I am a skeptical person of faith. That is to say I believe in God, not any religion. I don't claim to know what he/she/it is, but due to personal experience I believe he/she/it exists. I love discussing it and picking apart the component pieces of my faith, but hate when I am attacked by either blind faith people or infuriated atheists. Everyone benefits when everyone lives by 'Don't be a dick' :)

[bary1234]

I really want to know if that girl you handled so carefully is no more a young earth creationist. I´m sure she still is just as lost and stupid as before.

[bary1234]

I say do good cop/bad cop. We need to have billion dicks, just non-stop ridiculing and mocking religious morons. And we need 500 million calm, polite intelligent Atheists who just provide the science and facts.

We need both. Together they make a big lasting global impact. Together we can end superstitions.

I call dips on being a dick!

[bary1234]

Yeah, try to reason camly with Ray Comfort. Or Kent Hovind. Or Shirley Phelps.

We cant fix superstitious minds. Its ok to respect humans, but we cant respect supersition. Its important to call stupid beliefs stupid.

If we respect religious people, they gain power and think they have won. And they gain more followers. If we ridicule them, and laugh at them, they still think they have won but the new followers wont be so easy to get. People on the fence need to see that religion is bullshit.

[DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs]

@bary1234 In the case of Banana Man, etc, neither reasoning calmly or resorting to base insults will change them. However, approach can create an impression in the minds of those who witness the exchange. While skeptics act like dicks, they teach no one "on the fence" to be critical thinkers, only offend, and the religious "gain more followers." Your error is in equating not being a dick with being respectful to religion. Plait suggests to disrespect religion openly but not the minds to be freed

[bary1234]

@DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs : Yeah, and we have to create an impression that is true and proper. Example:

When Kent Hoving says he is an young earth creationist, that conversation should be over right there. There should be just massive uproar of laughter, open ridicule of his stupidity as people are escorting him out of the studio and end credits.

Thats the impression we need.

Absolute total rejection of superstitious stupidity.

And never give a platform to superstitious morons again.

[userwl2850]

first time i,ve seen vids with phil in this type. thanks.

[linkleisure]

must admit ive been guilty of being a dick, I will try harder to be a dick less of the time

[bushfingers]

A warrior is never rude

[bary1234]

@bushfingers : Warrior leaves dead bodies behind.

[MrMaika77]

Waahuu I´m viewer number 666 :-)

[glitcher21]

Watching this made me feel like a kid that got caught bullying someone.

[TurboDally]

He needs to stop being a dick about not being a dick.

[DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs]

@TurboDally I'm not convinced that this is the best presentation on the subject, but at least it's a fellow skeptic/ atheist. How do you think he's failing?

[dkinetik]

i get angry cus religious people lie and lie and lie again and it feels like every logical thing u say to them is wrong .. very frustraighting ..

[DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs]

@dkinetik As Plait says, it's frustrating working to get them to see that they're not thinking clearly when they're already not thinking clearly. So the question is what gets them to think clearly- even if only for a single but solid and genuine moment? My friend Skenzed put it this way: it's often better to show them the fine quality of your own cloth than to merely point out the threadbare aspect of their own. For sure we get nowhere with mere shouting matches and insults.

[KyouTGD]

I'm glad you uploaded these. One day after you did it I had this sudden urge to hear his speech.

Even better than expected.