Freedomain Radio

while reading Everyday Anarchy.  On page 10 (of my printed version of the pdf) Stef says something along the lines of 'applying foolish black and white thinking to complex and ambiguous situations is just another species of bigotry.'  So my question is how does that relate to strong atheism?

One of my problems with strong atheism has been that none of us really knows what happens after we die and so when either a religious person tells me they know exactly what's going to happen (heaven and hell or reincarnation or whatever) and an atheist tells me they know what's going to happen (or that nothing happens, you just die, etc.), then I just question the basic premise that either of them has enough information.

I keep coming back to the idea, well you all have interesting things to say, but really none of you has died and come back to tell us what it's all about.

Which of course is what the real genius was about the Jesus idea and why he had to die in the story I guess.

Dtomboy:

when either a religious person tells me they know exactly what's going to happen (heaven and hell or reincarnation or whatever) and an atheist tells me they know what's going to happen (or that nothing happens, you just die, etc.), then I just question the basic premise that either of them has enough information.

Can you help me understand what it is you mean by "knowing" something? And, what it is you mean by "having information"?

Thanks!

 

 

Greg Gauthier:

Dtomboy:

when either a religious person tells me they know exactly what's going to happen (heaven and hell or reincarnation or whatever) and an atheist tells me they know what's going to happen (or that nothing happens, you just die, etc.), then I just question the basic premise that either of them has enough information.

Can you help me understand what it is you mean by "knowing" something? And, what it is you mean by "having information"?

Thanks!

When you guys put on your little Socrates outfits and start asking your clearly pre-formatted questions, can you tell me why you put that annoying Thanks! at the end of your posts?

Thanks! 

And to answer your question, in my post when I said "they know," I mean that they think they can accurately predict what will happen when we die.  But no one has any actual experience with dying and coming back which means no experimentation can even be done, right?  So how can anyone say they 'know?'

Well that was pretty rude.

I don't know about Greg of course, but I use 'thanks' as a way of deflating any possible perception of confrontation in my questions.

Dtomboy:

When you guys put on your little Socrates outfits and start asking your clearly pre-formatted questions, can you tell me why you put that annoying Thanks! at the end of your posts?

Thanks! 

What triggers this?

What is your perception of what is occurring when someone asks questions like this?

What are some other examples of questions you would put into this category of questions?

Do these four questions call up any strong emotions? If so, what are they, and what is the reason you perceive they have been called up?

Dtomboy:

When you guys put on your little Socrates outfits and start asking your clearly pre-formatted questions, can you tell me why you put that annoying Thanks! at the end of your posts?

Apparently, you find this a completely trivial question, that can only be meant condescending, but I think it is pretty relevant. If knowledge is about reality, it is pretty clear what happens after you die: your body gets eaten by worms. 

Stefan Molyneux:

Well that was pretty rude.

I don't know about Greg of course, but I use 'thanks' as a way of deflating any possible perception of confrontation in my questions.

I suppose it could be taken that way.  I was just trying to make a point (in an admittedly horribly failed way.)  First of all, I guess it hits upon a pet peeve of mine about the use of the exclamation point.  It's to show extreme excitement, and we all know you guys can't be having extreme excitement everytime you perform the socrates script. A simple thanks, would suffice.  And to me it also makes everyone looks like unthinking robots who are only following what someone told them to do.  You can't even tell any differences in who made the post when this script is all that is done.

I guess it bothers me too because I use the socratic method every day in my job (education).  For it to work best, the questioner needs to give some sort of feedback, some information about the question about to be asked, and then ask the question.  Example, "When I see someone use the term "knowing," it makes me think....  So can you tell me what you mean when you used it in this post?"  Then the receiver of the question has more to go on as they communcate with that individual.

I think (only my opinion of course) that some people here view the socratic method as a way to "trap" people, rather than being about both sides learning and I guess those feelings came out in this post.  I almost edited it before I went to bed, but was too tired.  I'm obviously still working out my issues of how I felt when I first came here and started reading posts where people did not seem to be treated all that well and were asked to leave.  I was also uncomfortable with some conversations that I saw happening on the Gold forum as the group talked about some posters who were not donators and it seemed to be talking behind people's backs.  I know there is a back and forth with that LiMi board but at least those people say everything out in the open.

But anyway, here I am talking about rudeness and also doing the same thing back.  Is it me just saying what I should have said when I was able to be in the donator forums?  Is it a pre-emptive move on my part?  Why didn't I just honestly state what I was thinking from the start?  Sorry about the rudeness Greg.  Geez, apologies twice in one week.

Dtomboy wrote

"I was also uncomfortable with some conversations that I saw happening on the Gold forum as the group talked about some posters who were not donators and it seemed to be talking behind people's backs.  I know there is a back and forth with that LiMi board but at least those people say everything out in the open."

 

You mean they talk about us behind our backs. Shame on you Freedomainers.

 

Dtomboy:

Example, "When I see someone use the term "knowing," it makes me think....  So can you tell me what you mean when you used it in this post?"  Then the receiver of the question has more to go on as they communcate with that individual.

It sounds like a strange lesson in proper communication after a rude remark. But your new phrase would become a script as well after a while, what do you do next when you want to know what someone means by the word 'knowing' ? There are lots of scripts in life, handshaking, don't plunge your tongue in a date's throath the first time you meet,  general politeness... Someone could respond angrily to that with: "All that politeness is just a trick to make me feel inferior to you", but to others that remark might look like projection.

Dtomboy:

I was just trying to make a point (in an admittedly horribly failed way.) 

It seems to me you succeeded at making your point, but that could just be me jumping to conclusions.

 script....script

Useful method of exploration = script?

 For it to work best, the questioner needs to give some sort of feedback, some information about the question about to be asked, and then ask the question.  Example, "When I see someone use the term "knowing," it makes me think....  So can you tell me what you mean when you used it in this post?"  Then the receiver of the question has more to go on as they communicate with that individual.

From both sides, I find the questioning much more powerful with no guidance. I give feedback of the type you mention only as a fall-back when mere questions are not leading anywhere,. As I become more able to ask useful questions and whittle out as much "leading" as possible, the value of this method seems to increase.

I think (only my opinion of course) that some people here view the socratic method as a way to "trap" people, rather than being about both sides learning

If one is "trapped" by answering questions, would this not tend to mean they did indeed have an error in their thinking? Is realizing a mistake and being able to correct it a form of captivity? It seems quite the opposite to me.

Dtomboy- I understand your frustration with some of the responses on this board. It can be a little unnerving to consistently have your questions responded to by more questions (especially questions that would take 5 pages to answer). Although, I do think you handled it the wrong way… ANYWAY, the point:

 

If I understand correctly, you are wondering how people arrive at the conclusion of strong atheism opposed to agnosticism, since there is no actually way of testing what happens after death, correct?

 

First, you have to recognize the burden of proof. Assuming god has never directly communicated to you, the only relationship you have with god is through others telling you about him. Since the only evidence you have is others telling you about god, it can be said that it is a man-made concept. It is also true that the human mind is capable of error, even in large numbers, as shown with the flat earth theory. Thus, for any claim to hold water, even mystical claims, they must be reinforced by evidence. If not, there is no way to determine truth in anything. If evidence is not necessary, then I could tell you my mother is a bat and it would be just as valid as Jesus is god, because the need for evidence is not mandatory. The people who come to this board do not believe sufficient evidence has been provided to prove the existence of god, rendering it opinion instead of fact. Since the concept of life after death is religious based, and religion is false, then it would be valid to say there is no life after death. I understand what you’re trying to say in that, there is no evidence that NOTHING happens after someone dies because it can’t be tested. But this has been tested- have you ever communicated with the dead?

 

Obviously, there is more investigation that can go into this topic. I would recommend starting with podcasts #392 and #393 and if they interest you, continue through the rest of the Introduction to Philosophy series. If I can explain anything more clearly, let me know and I’ll try.

LOL, I guess it does sound funny to have me talk about a good way to respond to people when using the Socratic method right after I irritated some people.   What I gave was an example, it doesn't have to be a script per se.  The point is that it is often very helpful to give additional information and feedback of some sort before asking a question.  From my standpoint it can make it feel more like a nice discussion full of interesting give and take, instead of an interrogation of sorts.  This is especially true when communicating in online forums since you have no body language and other nonverbal cues to check.

Dtomboy:

while reading Everyday Anarchy.  On page 10 (of my printed version of the pdf) Stef says something along the lines of 'applying foolish black and white thinking to complex and ambiguous situations is just another species of bigotry.'  So my question is how does that relate to strong atheism?

One of my problems with strong atheism has been that none of us really knows what happens after we die and so when either a religious person tells me they know exactly what's going to happen (heaven and hell or reincarnation or whatever) and an atheist tells me they know what's going to happen (or that nothing happens, you just die, etc.), then I just question the basic premise that either of them has enough information.

I keep coming back to the idea, well you all have interesting things to say, but really none of you has died and come back to tell us what it's all about.

Which of course is what the real genius was about the Jesus idea and why he had to die in the story I guess.

So, you believe that the crucial distinction between theism and atheism is the question of what happens after you die? That has nothing to do with the question of whether or not there is a god, everything to do with whether or not there is a heaven. Certainly there is no necessity for  heaven to exist in order for there to be a god, or vice versa.

I would guess you are intelligent and highly educated, so you either consciously made the distinction and chose to ignore it or you just happened to not realize they are different. So you're either being disingenuous, or for some reason a bit foolish.

When I first read your question I felt annoyed and didn't choose to respond.

In your response to Greg you make fun of him, saying that he is part of some groupthink that puts on little Socrates outfits and spouts pre-formatted questions.

Let's just say you're right about your implied evaluation of Greg, he is not much of a thinker, he holds mistaken idea, and he's just parroting a method, idea, or tactic that just happens to be popular with his particular peer group. Now you say you're in education, so that mean you're a teacher, administrator, or what? Now certainly as someone who works in education you've you probably come across countless students who aren't deep thinkers, hold mistaken ideas, and parrot methods that are popular with their peer group. When you speak with a student like that, do you as a matter of practice make fun of them? Do you call them mindless drones, and imply that they are agressing against you?

Thanks.  

Ryan Amerikan:

Dtomboy- I understand your frustration with some of the responses on this board. It can be a little unnerving to consistently have your questions responded to by more questions (especially questions that would take 5 pages to answer). Although, I do think you handled it the wrong way… ANYWAY, the point:

If I understand correctly, you are wondering how people arrive at the conclusion of strong atheism opposed to agnosticism, since there is no actually way of testing what happens after death, correct?

 

Yes, correct.

Ryan Amerikan:

First, you have to recognize the burden of proof. Assuming god has never directly communicated to you, the only relationship you have with god is through others telling you about him. Since the only evidence you have is others telling you about god, it can be said that it is a man-made concept. It is also true that the human mind is capable of error, even in large numbers, as shown with the flat earth theory. Thus, for any claim to hold water, even mystical claims, they must be reinforced by evidence. If not, there is no way to determine truth in anything. If evidence is not necessary, then I could tell you my mother is a bat and it would be just as valid as Jesus is god, because the need for evidence is not mandatory.

 

Thank you for taking the time to explain it this way.  This was really helpful and very concise too.  I was not really thinking about the fact that all of my information is through others telling me about god.  Of course, religious people would tell me that they do have evidence, in Jesus and the bible and such.  But the bible has never held any special place for me.  And that is due to something my father told me early on, after I learned to read.  I remember him telling me to never believe everything you read, because it always includes someone's opinions and biases and such and you have to realize you are getting an interpretation of ideas and events that are already colored by their experiences, beliefs, etc. 

 

Ryan Amerikan:

The people who come to this board do not believe sufficient evidence has been provided to prove the existence of god, rendering it opinion instead of fact. Since the concept of life after death is religious based, and religion is false, then it would be valid to say there is no life after death. I understand what you’re trying to say in that, there is no evidence that NOTHING happens after someone dies because it can’t be tested. But this has been tested- have you ever communicated with the dead?

 

No luck with that so far.   And I guess if someone tried to tell me that they did, or could communicate with a dead person, then all I'd have to say is that if that's true, then to tell them to contact me because I want to talk to them too.  And if they don't come and talk to me too, then I can say they have no evidence, right?

 

 

Ryan Amerikan:

Obviously, there is more investigation that can go into this topic. I would recommend starting with podcasts #392 and #393 and if they interest you, continue through the rest of the Introduction to Philosophy series. If I can explain anything more clearly, let me know and I’ll try.

I'll have a listen to those, thanks.

J-William:

So, you believe that the crucial distinction between theism and atheism is the question of what happens after you die? That has nothing to do with the question of whether or not there is a god, everything to do with whether or not there is a heaven. Certainly there is no necessity for  heaven to exist in order for there to be a god, or vice versa.

Oh, well I always put them both together.  I've never thought of a heaven without a god.

J-William:

I would guess you are intelligent and highly educated,

Oh my, what do you feel you know about me that would cause you to make such a gross mischaracterization?  

J-William:

 

so you either consciously made the distinction and chose to ignore it or you just happened to not realize they are different. So you're either being disingenuous, or for some reason a bit foolish.

Ah, so that must be it, I'm foolish.  Thank so much for your perceptive insight  Truthfully I always just put those ideas into the same mix.  Seemed to me that most people believe in god because of the idea of a heaven.  If that makes me foolish in your eyes, they I can handle that.

J-William:

When I first read your question I felt annoyed and didn't choose to respond.

So why are you responding to this foolish person now?

J-William:

In your response to Greg you make fun of him, saying that he is part of some groupthink that puts on little Socrates outfits and spouts pre-formatted questions.

Let's just say you're right about your implied evaluation of Greg, he is not much of a thinker, he holds mistaken idea, and he's just parroting a method, idea, or tactic that just happens to be popular with his particular peer group. Now you say you're in education, so that mean you're a teacher, administrator, or what? Now certainly as someone who works in education you've you probably come across countless students who aren't deep thinkers, hold mistaken ideas, and parrot methods that are popular with their peer group. When you speak with a student like that, do you as a matter of practice make fun of them? Do you call them mindless drones, and imply that they are agressing against you?

Is the reason you are responding now because you feel you need to on Greg's behalf?  Did you read this entire thread which included my apology?  If so, could it be considered foolish to come into a thread and rehash old stuff after the person apologized for the mistake?  What did you hope to accomplish? 

J-William:

Thanks.  

You're welcome!