51. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

Comment #81892 by clunkclickeverytrip on October 25, 2007 at 11:14 am

Never use the words "belief" or "faith" to present the atheist position.
That there is no God is a peer-reviewed scientific fact.
If they scoff at science, ask them if they take aspirin.

52. That's not MY God or Religion you're criticising

Comment #81888 by clunkclickeverytrip on October 25, 2007 at 11:02 am

Comment #81426 "Autophenomenological solipsism won't get you laid."

It won't make you blind either.

53. God's honest truth?

Comment #79787 by clunkclickeverytrip on October 18, 2007 at 2:13 pm

I just wanted to add to this thread my congratulations to the Swedish Government for their approach to religion in schools.
I don't know if they're the first to go this far, but to my knowledge this sets the benchmark for what constitutes responsible government in protecting the most vunerable members of society, children, from the misguided act of love (religious indoctrination) that some parents force upon them.
I hope the Swedish legislation forces debate, and ultimately change, within as many governments as possible around the globe.

54. The New Atheism: An Interview with Mitchell Cohen

Comment #78883 by clunkclickeverytrip on October 15, 2007 at 8:57 am

Russell,
I see from your bio that you're a writer and I can understand your reluctance to give up a word that you're accustomed to using in everyday language. By the way, I am a patent agent, and former research chemist, and am also very wary of the choice of words for specific application. Historically, I have used the word "belief" along the lines of your example simply because it seemed to be adequate and innocuous - however, because I have come to realize it is such a loaded word, particularly in the religious context, I am comfortable avoiding use of the word "belief" in referring to my "understanding" in all conversation. I do suggest that people consider whether it really is the best word for a particular usage.
I'm trying to think of an example where the best way I could choose to express my position on any topic would be in the form of "belief" and I don't think I can, with perhaps the exception of a dialog where I would put in a position where I had to decide whether to trust the words of another person.
Son - "Dad, I was in an accident with the car and it's wrecked - it wasn't my fault".
Dad - "I believe you, son".
This requires trust - if you had evidence that your son might not always tell the truth you might be inclined to rephrase your statement to:
"I hope you are telling the truth, son".
Your example is "If I desire some chocolate and believe that there is chocolate in the cupboard....." - why do you believe there is chocolate in the cupboard? Assuming you put it there earlier, this is not "belief", but is "understanding" based on direct observation. In this context you are thinking to yourself "I put it there earlier so it should still be there".
I think you could have said it more accurately, i.e. without the word "believe", another way - as a writer your job might be to say it more eloquently, which could be the real challenge. In science, figurative language is not usually desired.

55. The New Atheism: An Interview with Mitchell Cohen

Comment #78218 by clunkclickeverytrip on October 12, 2007 at 7:32 am

I don't think "New Atheism" is a suitable term - the questioner seems to be trying to reinforce this term throughout. The word "New" adds nothing and only confuses. Atheism is not "new" or "old" and is not a belief.
Leave the words "belief" and "faith" for the religious, and insist on the words "understanding" and "science" for the atheist position.

56. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73782 by clunkclickeverytrip on September 26, 2007 at 7:08 am

I completely understand _J_'s frustration in the debate setting. I was never in a debating club at school but it is a skill that one cannot understate. I never enter a debate on god/religion hoping to convert the other person to atheism - that would be setting the bar too high. A realistic goal would be to "sow the seeds of doubt" with the best anecdotes from evolutionary biology and astronomy that can be found in TGD and many other sources.
I usually characterize all dialogues with persons of opposite positions as "discussions" rather than "arguments", and if I find myself raising my voice I can say it's a "heated discussion"! Let the other side call it an "argument" - it seems pedantic but it helps me keep a perspective on the interaction. All of us who are putting forward the rationalist view in our circles of family, friends and aquaintances can learn from the poise of Dawkins, Hitchens et al. in video clips of their debates.
Debates with believers remind me of the study of "sets" in math at school a long time ago - I see two non-overlapping circles side by side with (a) science/reason in one, and (b) god/religion in the other. A "leap of faith" is required to get from circle (a) to circle (b), but once in circle (b) there is a "holy book" logic that makes coaxing a person to jump back from circle (b) to circle (a) extremely difficult, regardless of the logic/evidence provided by science - this is of course the thing we find frustrating in a debate. To flog the analogy to death, all we can hope to do is throw enough raw materials across to their circle to help the believer build themselves a bridge to get them back to circle (a). Ultimately, they will have to want to cross the bridge.