this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
38 points (89.6% liked)

Atheism

3954 readers
8 users here now

Community Guide


Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.


Statement of Purpose

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.

Inadvisable


Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.


If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.

Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.

 ~ /c/nostupidquestions

If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!


Connect with Atheists

Help and Support Links

Streaming Media

This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.

Orgs, Blogs, Zines

Mainstream

Bibliography

Start here...

...proceed here.

Proselytize Religion

From Reddit

As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago

Is it "I have better things to do than to argue about religion?"

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago

IMO it's more useful to learn how to identify and reply to fallacies and bad premises in general, than to focus on the ones that Christian proselytism uses.

For example, the ones in the video are:

  • "Either god created us, or we are here by random chance" - false dichotomy + strawman
  • "God exists because you can't disprove him" - inversion of the burden of the proof
  • "Objective morality proves god exists" - naturalistic fallacy + bad premise
  • "Everything that exists was created. Therefore god exists" - bad premise
  • "You're not educated enough" - ad hominem

Others that you need to look for are:

  • invincible authority (a type of appeal to authority) - X was said by authority, thus X is true. Christians love this crap.
  • fallacy fallacy - X is backed up by a fallacy, so X is false
  • ad populum - lots of suckers believe it, so it's true
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I suppose it’s improper to point and laugh?

I see no reason to respond to bad faith arguments.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

I suppose it’s improper to point and laugh? // I see no reason to respond to bad faith arguments.

It's improper, sure, but I do worse. You seriously don't want proselytise Christian babble in my ear if I'm in a bad mood. It sounds like this:

[Christian] “God exists because you can’t disprove him”

[Me] "Yeah, just like you can't disprove that your mum got syphilis from sharing a cactus dildo with Hitler. Now excuse me it's Sunday morning and I want to sleep."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It’s important to respond to (some) bad faith arguments, not for the sake of the one making that argument, but for observers who might still be on the fence.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I disagree that it’s important. First off, I’m not a cleric or priest, there is no need or obligation for me to propagate my lack of religion. I feel zero responsibility for providing spiritual guidance (for lack of a better phrase,) to some hypothetical randos that may or may not be questioning their faith.

For one thing those randos lack any form of trust, anything aside the most basic, is unlikely to alter anything- they’re just gonna have to sort through it on their own.

For another, these sorts of debates are rather unlikely to happen in a venue with persuadable randos. No apologist sets up a conversation like this in a venue they don’t have at least some control, and those in their flock that are persuadable will unlikely to be there. Either one is the sock. puppet there to feed questions for them to “answer”; or one is there to prove the point by being the Awful Atheist. Either way, it’s a set up.

and in more personal conversation; that’s unlikely to happen where you can be randomly overheard. If the person starts arguing their point, rather than listening to what you have to say; then they haven’t given you the respect of accepting they might be wrong.

In short, you’re not gonna persuade that person; they’re not going to persuade you, and it devolves into name calling and wanting to prove the other wrong. (Or someone walks away before that happens.)

Any one who’s generally trying to understand your worldview, or your beliefs, aren’t going to be trying to change them. They’re simply asking questions to understand; which is an incredibly different sort of conversation.

They might ask about morality, for example, but there isn’t any of the “but morality must come from god” crap.

Ethics and morality all stem from our social nature. Morality is part of our cultural understanding- and while we might all have different takes on it, generally, what is right or wrong stems from that shared understanding; (to the inevitable: that shared understanding is with those around you. Not necessarily society writ large.)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You will literally never change anyone's mind by pointing and laughing. You'll only make them believe harder. If you really have any interest in changing someone's mind you need to be empathetic.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

There's no point trying to change the mind of someone who actively goes out and argues for why Christianity is true when there's far more fence-sitters you could talk to.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

You're not wrong. but read that line again. "I suppose it's improper to..."

I also contend it's not my duty, obligation, or place to try and change anyone. as long as they do their thing where it doesn't impact me, then their beliefs are none of my business.