A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian

by cofty 188 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  tec

  Tammy, a rational person does not allow their beliefs to exceed the evidence.

  I have not. I just depend upon other evidence... evidence that you do not see or hear, (your choice), but that has nothing to do with what I have seen and heard. (your evidence against God seems to be always changing anyway, as new discoveries reveal)

  Faith exists to make up for the paucity of evidence for a spirit world.

  Maybe that is what your faith existed to do, Cofty... so that most of your comments about faith or God or irrationality, etc, have to do with YOU and YOUR former beliefs/state of mind. But you do not speak or have the knowledge to speak for others. One thing that has been established is that there are various kinds of believers, and their faith is in various things. One does not define them all.

  I don't know what your faith was in, Cofty.

  People of faith are therefore not being rational, at least as far as that part of their lives are concerned.

  People of faith like you, you mean. (or like you once were) I know you want to put everyone in the same category... because that makes it easier to be that black and white... but that is simply false.

  Just celebrate your faith and eschew reason. It would be much more honest.

  It would be easier for you, you mean.

  It would not be honest for me. No matter how much you preach or want to beleive otherwise.

  This was not rhetorical, btw:

  "What is logical or rational behavior? Your opinion on that will define whether or not you call someone else rational... but it IS just your opinion."

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  confusedandalone

  I am not personally interested necessarily in talking someone out of their faith... yet I am not personally interested in talking someone into some form of faith either.

  I can't understand why someone would be offended by a piece of literature that is doing the exact same thing that evangelists are doing - recruiting people to their cause.
• 

  cofty

  your evidence against God seems to be always changing anyway, as new discoveries reveal

  Evolution isn't why I don't believe in god. The vast majority of christians accept the fact of evolution anyway. Its only a small fanatical minority who doubt it.
• 

  tec

  I can't understand why someone would be offended by a piece of literature that is doing the exact same thing that evangelists are doing - recruiting people to their cause.

  I think some atheists would be more offended by the comparison, than some theists that there is a book out there on how to recruit.

  (maybe that was your point... if so sorry, lol)

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  Apognophos

  I think its important to do both. I contribute a lot to science threads for that reason. The Common Ancestry Thread is a good example...

  Yes, that's it, thank you.

  I actually agree with tec that it's unfair to define "rational" in a way that excludes people who have had experiences that caused them to have faith in something. Since you cannot share another person's experiences or experience in life, is it rational for you to tell someone to ignore said experience, when the other person's experience(s) factor into a coherent system of beliefs for them?

  Personally I believe the earth is an oblate spheroid and I believe in evolution. However, I have not experienced either of those things; I've simply taken others at their word. So how can I assert primacy of my beliefs over someone that believes they directly hear from God or Jesus?
• 

  tec

  it's unfair to define "rational" in a way that excludes people who have had experiences that caused them to have faith in something. Since you cannot share another person's experiences or experience in life, is it rational for you to tell someone to ignore said experience, when the other person's experience(s) factor into a coherent system of beliefs for them?

  Thank you for saying that so succinctly.

  Peace to you,

  tammy
• 

  cofty

  Subjective feelings and emotions are a terrible foundation for belief. That is what it means to be rational.
• 

  Qcmbr

  Great tip re book Cofty, will order when available on amazon. I am surrounded by sincere believers who apply their false ideas on a daily basis to the material world to tbeir and my detriment in both the short term and long term. Faith is not rational, it cannot be, its cpnclusions are absurd but those who have faith as their primary hueristic for determining reality are the most blind to their condition. The most immune to reason are the self made mystic as they can make up descriptions of reality to suit any situation and can intellectually dance away from failed memes; close behind them are the dogmaric religionists who have allowed a creed to replace their authebtic self, JWs, Mormons, Muslims etc. fall into this area and they believe partially because all around them believe and they seek positive reinforcement from their community. Should faith and personal belief be challenged or should it be respected , nay privileged? The rational mind ( NOT ATHEIST ) can easily explain why ideas, any ideas, should be challenged constantly and both parties , if they have intellectual honesty, will accept the new consequences of that challenge.Ideas closest to material truth will yield great predictive and .explanatory power while those that dont have little use beyond novelty and entertainment. Faith based knowledge leads to a mindset of reactive uncertainty, it cannot survive rigorous examination and so tries every manipulative and devious device it can to avoid the challenge. Tactics employed by faith range from constant redefinition of word meaning, appeals to respect, attempts to change the dialogue to questions of personal rights, outrage that someone could publically call them out ( all tactics of the unempowered) through to threats, name calling, social censure and isolation, improsnment , torture, murder and war ( tactics of empowered faith beliefs).Our board faithful are blind to their own anti social tendencies because they are not in power. A simple belief in 'love','light', 'truth', is only a few steps away from censoring the media, vigilante purity patrols, imprisoning vocal critics, enforced conversion and stonings
• 

  Qcmbr

  apols phone.

  I fear terribly the old granny who knits blankets for orphans but harbours belief in faith based concepts for if she ever gains authority she may at any stage start to claim divine mandate and communication and apply all kinds of madness. History is not on tbe side of the faithful, tbey have been shown as the most harmful to human thinking, knowledge and well being. I welcome this book abd the thinking that is driving it. we need to challenge faith with reason and rationality everywhere. nowhere should be too sacred or command too much respect to be challenged. We may not reach the convinced but we sure as hell can give their chdren the critical thinking skills to notice the difference between cherished fantasy worlds and reality.

  We may end up with fewer pyramids but we will gain more space rockets.
• 

  Twitch

  Subjective feelings and emotions are a terrible foundation for belief. That is what it means to be rational.

  I would argue that subjective experience and feelings/emotions are a perfect foundation for belief, given the diversity and history of same.

  However such are poor for advancing knowledge, which is independant of belief and requires rational thought and approach.