Pseudo-Skeptics & Pseudo-Atheists

Here is the corresponding blog post: http://j.mp/d4rsmP

One of the hallmarks of the skeptical mindset is the ability to openly consider all ideas, regardless of their implications. A skeptic does not reject or accept ideas offhandedly and should not be quick to dismiss a claim without first considering the evidence. With that being said, Id like to address a certain problem that I see taking place on YouTube, and, quite disturbingly, in the skeptical and atheistic communities, in general.

I believe this problem is the result of the relative success of the spread of skepticism and the New Atheism, which Im largely pleased with. As memes spread, and are accepted by a larger and larger audience, there will inevitably be a greater number of extremists in that group. These extremists that I speak of in the skeptical and atheistic communities are those who merely use the term Skeptic or Atheist as a cover for hatred and bigotry toward a specific group of people or ideas. This is particularly true in the realm of religion. Christians and Muslims take the greatest amount of flak from these extremists.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Atheism
• Intellectual Dishonesty
• Skepticism
• Science
• Evidence
• Religion
• New Atheism
• Hatred
• Bigotry
• Logic
• Reason

[amayan80east]

There are no code of conduct for Atheist and skeptics. Or are there?

[TheSkepticalAtheist]

@amayan80east

It's not that there is necessarily a code of conduct, but when one begins to act in a certain way, those actions fall outside the realm of what those terms mean. I guess it's like not falling within the definition of Atheist or Skeptic.

[mzyzer19]

how could one have tolererance for an ilogicical conclusion? in many cases they're demonstably illogical.

[TheSkepticalAtheist]

@mzyzer19

The problem is that everyone has different life experiences. We all have different sets of knowledge. You came to your particular world view because of the experiences and knowledge you've gained. Others aren't necessarily working with the same knowledge set that you have.

The point is that we need to understand these differences and try to work around them. More important than "proving someone wrong" is understanding them. Then, maybe you can see why they believe what they do.

[mzyzer19]

@TheSkepticalAtheist I don't think that there is such a thing as being right atleast not completely.

[TheSkepticalAtheist]

@mzyzer19

I think you're right... ironically. At least, you can't be 100% certain that you're right. You can only side with where the evidence points at the time you make your conclusion. With that being said, you should always be willing to change your mind.

[Megaritz]

(Part 4) All that said, I am not discouraging criticism of religion or confrontation of religious people--just that a certain amount of strategy is needed. I wouldn't call a fundamentalist Christian names or make fun of them in a gratuitously *hurtful* way; I would simply argue that their holy book leads to harmful policies and is based on poor or no evidence, although I may still use humor *as needed* in the form of analogies that attempt to expose the underlying absurdities.

[Megaritz]

(Part 3) We must LEARN to be rational; it doesn't come naturally. I think in all likelihood there is no such thing as true "free will"--so I certainly cannot *expect* or *demand* that people choose to become rational. I cannot blame them for being irrational, any more than I can blame my internet connection for freezing. All we can do is try to solve the problem to the highest degree practical.

[Megaritz]

(Part 2) Being religious is an easy mistake to make, because we are not naturally rational creatures. We are driven by biases, and the appeal of an idea is a greater factor in whether it's accepted than its evidential basis. We're affected by confirmation biases, wishful and magical thinking, a desire for eternal life and a loving almighty parent figure and a book of answers, and our worldview rests on something and all our friends and family believe in it, it is hard to consider the contrary.

[Megaritz]

My thought is this: A supreme being probably doesn't exist, and the supernatural claims of every religion are certainly false. People should be encouraged to be rational in all areas, including in the area of their religious beliefs. Religion should never influence government.

However, believing in religion is a very easy mistake to make, so we shouldn't be *mean* to believers. I find myself very skeptical of the notion that assholery and name-calling are effective tactics in discrediting them.