Atheist Tactics that Work

[Suggestologist]

After reading the thread on whether the Agressive Atheistic Stance Hurts the Cause: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93474

I think people really don't have good tactics for making their case. If anyone has convinced someone to change from being religious to atheistic, I am very interested in a detailed description of what you actually, objectively did. I'm not saying that I have tactics that work, I'm saying they need to be developed. And I have some directions I feel are useful to consider.

Time Frames​

I think a misconception atheists may have about making their case is that a believer should change his mind after one good and convincing argument against religion, or even several of them. And if they don't, then they're just being stubborn. For some people, one good argument might work, for others it can only happen as a gradual process that may take months, years, or decades.

But there is a process involved, not a single event. We should work on better defining the process involved.

Benefits of Belief​

People don't just believe because they were brainwashed as children. There are ongoing benefits that must be addressed. I will list a few that come to mind, but this is not an exhaustive list.

1. Family Cohesion (Don't want to hurt Mom's or Granddad's Feelings)
2. Social Cohesion (Friends, Parties)
3. Emotional Highs (During Religious Services and Individual Prayer)
4. Excuse for Normally Unacceptable Forms of Emotional Expression
5. Hope for Immortality
6. Excuses for Strange Behavior that Leads to Altered Conscious States (Such as Fasting)
7. Control of Others Behavior (Excuse to Demand "Righteous" Behavior of Others, Especially Your Kids)
8. The Approval of Others

These and other factors keep people from seeing what's really going on (the matrix -- used as analogy of course).

If you can't address them, you can't really change someone without causing emotional distress. Given the choice of not seeing reality or feeling emotional distress; guess which people will usually choose?

Locked to Unlocked​

"People don't care what you have to show, unless you first show that you care." I've probably mangled this rule-of-thumb in sales, but it's true. Demonstrate that you care about them as a person, before you try to convince them of anything. A stereotype of atheists is that they're uncaring, unfeeling, miserable human beings. Unfortunately, I think this is often close to true. Don't be that person, show that you care, don't be afraid to show your emotions.

By default, people are locked into their beliefs and locked out of considering that they are wrong. Before you can convince someone, you must unlock their ability to reconsider their position. Arguing with someone who is locked is like talking to a brick wall. But even someone who is unlocked won't automatically change their position if arguments don't convince them.

Hmmm, perhaps saying things like, "I'm not going to convince you or anything, but just think about this."

Under the Radar vs Direct​

I think that both approaches can work.

In persuasion, two types of argument are most likely to work. The small argument that is not defended at all. And the large argument that is said with certainty and authority, and is not allowed to be questioned.

The small argument is said in passing. You don't wait for them to argue back. You just immediately continue on to the next sentence about the topic that you were discussing. And if questioned, the questioning is ignored, or it is answered as being unimportant.

The large argument is said with certainty and conviction and emotion. You don't let anyone get away with questioning it. This is the aggressive atheist stance, in my understanding of the term.

The worst type of argument is the wishy-washy type. The one that is only partly defended. The one that has some certainty, some emotion, but not a great deal of either. This is the one that will most build immunity in the other person.

Name the Game​

Are they pawns indoctrinated into nonsense? Who convinced them to feel the way they do? For what purpose did they convince them? Would they have acted the same if their parents or whoever convinced them were of a different belief system?

What games are they playing with reality? Name them.

Questions​

The questions that need to be answered are these:

1. What are the stages a person goes through, when they go from believer to atheist?
2. How can a believer be moved through those stages?
3. Who should we try to move? (People already in some sort of distress, or those who are relatively emotionally stable? Children or Adults?)
4. What support structures might be needed to move large numbers of people?

I could probably add a few sections of things to consider. But that's all for now. I'm interested in what others have to add.

 

[tsg]

After reading the thread on whether the Agressive Atheistic Stance Hurts the Cause: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93474

I think people really don't have good tactics for making their case. If anyone has convinced someone to change from being religious to atheistic, I am very interested in a detailed description of what you actually, objectively did. I'm not saying that I have tactics that work, I'm saying they need to be developed. And I have some directions I feel are useful to consider.

That all depends on what "The Cause" really is.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not interested in converting people. I would be perfectly happy to leave them alone to believe whatever the hell they want provided they did the same.

My crusade is against intolerance, specifically the "faith is a virtue" meme that makes some believers think they are automatically superior to anyone who doesn't believe in a magic man. That intolerance extends into criticism of the beliefs themselves. Criticize the claims of a belief system and the people who hold those beliefs will very often see it as a personal attack. And the insistence that their beliefs not be criticized is nothing less than hypocrisy: they want the freedom to say whatever they want and don't want to extend that right to others. The insistence that beliefs automatically deserve respect is nothing less than insisting that we also value those beliefs. This whole "Suck it, Jesus" debacle is a prime example of that. "Suck it, Jesus" is only offensive if you believe Jesus is automatically worthy of respect. He's your prophet, not mine. That you value and respect him does not mean I have to. Insisting I do is nothing less than forcing your beliefs on me.

I respect the right of everyone to believe whatever the hell they want. That doesn't mean I have to respect the beliefs any more than respecting the right of people to make their own decisions means I have to think those decisions are good ones.

In an ideal (IMO) world, rational thought would lead people to the realization their religion is nothing more than ancient superstition. But all I'm asking for is the right to believe what I want, including nothing at all, the very same right we extend to the religious.

 

[Suggestologist]

That all depends on what "The Cause" really is.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not interested in converting people.

This thread is really directed more to those who are interested in converting people. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that goal.

I would be perfectly happy to leave them alone to believe whatever the hell they want provided they did the same.

There are people on their side whose goal is to convert people. There's nothing wrong with that as a goal on either side.

My crusade is against intolerance, specifically the "faith is a virtue" meme that makes some believers think they are automatically superior to anyone who doesn't believe in a magic man. That intolerance extends into criticism of the beliefs themselves. Criticize the claims of a belief system and the people who hold those beliefs will very often see it as a personal attack. And the insistence that their beliefs not be criticized is nothing less than hypocrisy: they want the freedom to say whatever they want and don't want to extend that right to others. The insistence that beliefs automatically deserve respect is nothing less than insisting that we also value those beliefs. This whole "Suck it, Jesus" debacle is a prime example of that. "Suck it, Jesus" is only offensive if you believe Jesus is automatically worthy of respect. He's your prophet, not mine. That you value and respect him does not mean I have to. Insisting I do is nothing less than forcing your beliefs on me.

I respect the right of everyone to believe whatever the hell they want. That doesn't mean I have to respect the beliefs any more than respecting the right of people to make their own decisions means I have to think those decisions are good ones.

In an ideal (IMO) world, rational thought would lead people to the realization their religion is nothing more than ancient superstition. But all I'm asking for is the right to believe what I want, including nothing at all, the very same right we extend to the religious.

I was going to add this anyway, and it sort of answers this last section:

Logic vs. Emotion​

I think an error atheists make is in believing that rational arguments should convince emotional people that they are wrong. More generally, atheists fall into the "day is night" trap. If a theist says it's day, the atheist feels obligated to say it's night.

You have to make your arguments emotionally relevant first. Then back it up with rational arguments. People are convinced first by emotion, logic is only there to anchor their emotional decision in place. And atheists often come across as way too dry, or way too caustic. We need to express the full range of emotion in our arguments. The positive and the negative. Sagan showed some positive emotion in his awe of the universe, but even that, I feel, was much too dry. We don't want to be like the overly effusive, crying, screaming televangelists, but we can move much farther in that direction. And I think we must.

Look at the stem cell debate. I feel there was much too little emotional argumentation on the pro-stem-cell side. Yet the anti-stem-cell people had plenty of emotion in their position. And yet, there is much emotional material that could have been utilized to make the emotional point for the pro-stem-cell side. And some it was and is present (Michael J. Fox), but not enough, in my opinion.

So I say, don't be straight-jacketed to rational argumentation. Emotion sells first. Reason only backs it up. Show your genuine emotions, as full of a range of emotions as is appropriate. If you are emotionally closed, people will pick up on that, and they won't be persuaded. It's as if you have something to hide, ulterior motives at work. If they can't trust your emotions (because they don't see any), they can't trust you as a person. Work on being more expressive. You may have to exaggerate your emotions for them to seem even normally expressed. A logical rational argument will almost always lose to an emotional argument.

 

[plumjam]

of course, there's always the possibility that they are right and you're wrong

 

[Jimbo07]

of course, there's always the possibility that they are right and you're wrong

Always.

Of course, the likelihood is not in their favour...

 

[plumjam]

Of course, the likelihood is not in their favour...

in your opinion

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

of course, there's always the possibility that they are right and you're wrong

Of course that is possibility. One of the strengths of the scientific method is the use of provisional conclusions and the willingness to reexamine those conclusions when new evidence is brought to bear. Have any new evidence?

 

[joobz]

I don't like the idea of conversion in terms of a belief/no belief system, no matter whose doing it.

Rather, I simply want to maintain an environment where science and skeptical learning is allowed to fluorish(E.g., fight against Intelligent design, creationism, prevent lies from going un-refuted). The goal of this environment isn't to convert but to foster learning and science.

I view it like an oxygen rich environment. It doesn't intentionally kill religion, but like anerobic bacteria, most religions (especially the most foul and gangernous ones) can't survive the exposure to such concentrated levels of radical scrutiny.

 

[plumjam]

Of course that is possibility. One of the strengths of the scientific method is the use of provisional conclusions and the willingness to reexamine those conclusions when new evidence is brought to bear. Have any new evidence?

because of the nature of the subject matter the evidence for the existence of God is of a different nature to that generally accepted by empirical science.

the evidence is of a spiritual nature, experienced internally.. and thus not amenable to the scientific method of external (intersubjective) verifiability.

so if (some) scientists want to dismiss such evidence they can easily say it's "anecdotal, subjective and unverifiable", and that's the end of the matter for them.
such an attitude has behind it the assumption that empirical science should be accepted as an arbiter for the existence or non-existence of absolutely every phenomenon in reality.
it's an assumption I don't make.

 

[Jimbo07]

in your opinion

Possibly. However, as AW said, do you have any new evidence? For that matter, do you have any evidence at all other than, "so-and-so told me that... or so-and-so feels that..."

Rather, I simply want to maintain an environment where science and skeptical learning is allowed to fluorish(E.g., fight against Intelligent design, creationism, prevent lies from going un-refuted). The goal of this environment isn't to convert but to foster learning and science.

That's sort of like what we were talking about in the "Sneaky Indians" thread. You create an environment where ALL religions are allowed, and soon no one of them has as much prominence as it might have.

 

[joobz]

it's an assumption I don't make.

It's an assumption that, thankfully, medicine makes.

 

[tsg]

This thread is really directed more to those who are interested in converting people.

I understood that but felt it was important to explicitly state that it is not the only goal of aggressive atheists.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with that goal.

There are people on their side whose goal is to convert people. There's nothing wrong with that as a goal on either side.

I agree with this with one provision: if you (generic "you", not directed at anybody in particular) would be offended by someone attempting to convert you, you have no right to attempt to convert anyone else. If you are going to refuse to examine your own beliefs, you cannot reasonably expect others to do the same.

 

[Fnord]

Pay no attention to the man in the corner ... the one with the pen and notebook ... he's just another one o'them Xian people ... nothing to see ... move along ...

 

[joobz]

That's sort of like what we were talking about in the "Sneaky Indians" thread. You create an environment where ALL religions are allowed, and soon no one of them has as much prominence as it might have.

Yeah, I repeat myself a lot.

 

[Suggestologist]

I don't like the idea of conversion in terms of a belief/no belief system, no matter whose doing it.

Rather, I simply want to maintain an environment where science and skeptical learning is allowed to fluorish(E.g., fight against Intelligent design, creationism, prevent lies from going un-refuted). The goal of this environment isn't to convert but to foster learning and science.

I view it like an oxygen rich environment. It doesn't intentionally kill religion, but like anerobic bacteria, most religions (especially the most foul and gangernous ones) can't survive the exposure to such concentrated levels of radical scrutiny.

I like the oxygen rich environment analogy. But I wonder: Is the dislike of converting people really the result of a "day is night" trap. Because religious people so often are into converting others, we have to not do what they do? I agree with not doing it exactly the way they do it, but I think those who want to, have every right to attempt to convert the religious to nonbelief. I just feel that they need a better understanding of general tactics around their conversion attempts (and I'm taking for granted that they know how to produce an argument against religion).

 

[Michael C]

I don't like the idea of conversion in terms of a belief/no belief system, no matter whose doing it.

Rather, I simply want to maintain an environment where science and skeptical learning is allowed to fluorish(E.g., fight against Intelligent design, creationism, prevent lies from going un-refuted). The goal of this environment isn't to convert but to foster learning and science.

I view it like an oxygen rich environment. It doesn't intentionally kill religion, but like anerobic bacteria, most religions (especially the most foul and gangernous ones) can't survive the exposure to such concentrated levels of radical scrutiny.

Well said.

 

[Mercutio]

the evidence is of a spiritual nature, experienced internally.. and thus not amenable to the scientific method of external (intersubjective) verifiability.

Although it is possible to reproduce such experiences artificially, find the variables which can elicit such feelings, and thus provide a simpler mechanism which does not involve evoking a supernatural entity.

This does not disprove the god hypothesis, but it does return the burden of proof to those claiming that these internally-located experiences are actually evidence.

 

[Suggestologist]

because of the nature of the subject matter the evidence for the existence of God is of a different nature to that generally accepted by empirical science.

the evidence is of a spiritual nature, experienced internally.. and thus not amenable to the scientific method of external (intersubjective) verifiability.

Exactly. And that is why you have to hit them emotionally before you go into the logical. Religion is fundamentally an emotional and social experience.

so if (some) scientists want to dismiss such evidence they can easily say it's "anecdotal, subjective and unverifiable", and that's the end of the matter for them.
such an attitude has behind it the assumption that empirical science should be accepted as an arbiter for the existence or non-existence of absolutely every phenomenon in reality.
it's an assumption I don't make.

Another great example. If you hit emotional people over the head with logic, they won't accept it. They need an emotional reason to hear what you're saying, first.

 

[plumjam]

It's an assumption that, thankfully, medicine makes.

it doesn't really.

medicine would likely struggle and make a huge mess of people's health if it refused to accept anecdotal, subjective evidence.

e.g. Doctor to patient:

what is the problem?
how do you feel?
where does it hurt?
do you feel better or worse after that?
which remedy helped you most? A? or B?
are you better now? would it be ok to discharge you, do you think?
etc...

 

[Suggestologist]

Although it is possible to reproduce such experiences artificially, find the variables which can elicit such feelings, and thus provide a simpler mechanism which does not involve evoking a supernatural entity.

We don't need to do this artificially, we actually just need to do this naturally. Eliciting emotions in other people isn't a difficult task. Movies and Books and people good at telling stories do it all the time. Being an emotionally expressive person helps a lot. I guess some people call it charisma or something.