Related posts

• Ideas About Atheist Groups (1)
• Atheists Deserve A Community Too (19)
• What Level Of Woo Would Make Someone Undateable? (20)
• What Are You Doing November 19? (10)
• The Nicest Compliment Ever (14)

Partial Transcript:

37:18 If the goal is not to score points, if the goal is actually to persuade people, if the morally superior goal is to win minds rather than just make people look stupid, then tone really does matter. Psychology has some things to say about how we should best go about trying to persuade people to really, any position, but even more specifically to a scientific position that they may otherwise feel threatened by,  or may conflict with their worldview.

38:07 It’s an empirical issue. What is likely to be persuasive or off-putting or not is a testable question. There are people right now researching how you package factual issues and seeing if that affects the rate at which people believe, disbelieve or deny them.

One of the examples of this, there is a researcher who’s name is Geoffrey Monroe from Towson University who has done some studies on peoples’ willingness to agree with belief consisting information as opposed to information that’s inconsistent with beliefs as a function of things like how the information is presented to them.

So he had a piece on Science and Religion Today where he folded this into the debate about, do you alienate people by using blunt language that offends them. The theory behind this that people don’t, as most people probably realize, they don’t simply make up their mind on the basis of factual, cognitive, cold type calculations. This is one aspect that frustrates us, is that when we are debating with somebody, it quickly becomes apparent that the facts of evolution in some cases won’t make a difference, if the person has an emotional investment.

So people hold attitudes because they are linked to aspects of your self-identity. As stated in Terror Management Theory, if you have a worldview that can be threatened, you get defensive. You circle your wagons as if attacked. In the same way, with factual issues like scientific-type things, religious people hold these as part of their broader self-identity.

So if you’re saying, “I’m a creationist”, you’re not just saying, “I favor the arguments for creation”, you’re saying, “I, as a person, my identity is as a creationist”. So if you’re attacking creationist claims, you’re attacking that person as well, their self-identity. So how do you challenge the beliefs, but don’t threaten them on a personal level?

40:14 Geoffrey Monroe did a study that is very sobering, because what he found was that, his particular study used stimuli that had to do with things like homosexuality and mental illness. He had people who thought homosexuality and mental illness were the same thing, and he had people who had the view that there’s no connection. Then he presented them both with statements that confirmed or disconfirmed that.

What he found was disturbing. People who’s views were challenged by this evidence, so believed disconfirming information, so if I thought that homosexuals have higher rates of mental illness, then I read a scientific article that said the opposite, those people tended to devalue science itself. That is, they rated lower the ability of science to answer questions like that, even beyond that, that it generalized to other issues other than the one that was challenged.

So it wasn’t even just, “this is a bad study”, or “I disagree with the conclusions” it was that “science itself cannot answer a question like this”. They become almost postmodernist. They would say, “well, you can have your science, but that doesn’t answer these questions.”

People at my university usually reserve two areas where “science can’t touch this”: religion and things like love or sexuality. They say, “Yes, you can have your data but these things are immune to faith or the wonders of the emotions, but science can’t address that.”

It seems also that a lot of pseudo-sciences tend to cluster together. You’re going to hear on a christian radio network, typically, obviously creationist stuff, but climate denialism comes in there, a lot of times there’s a lot of pseudo-science-y herbal remedies that you’ll hear late night on the christian talk shows.

It does seem to be that once you distrust one area of science, it’s not all that hard to start being more skeptical of others.

42:07 It spreads. So, what Monroe’s work is suggesting is the reason that happens is the person has some sort of cognitive dissonance. “My view is apparently disconfirmed by this study, so therefore this study cannot be valid, and studies in general probably aren’t valid.” They bring out things like, “even scientists disagree” or “facts can be twisted”.

What Monroe’s broader point to the debate of how information is presented is that often you can change that, or you can blunt that response by packaging the information in a less threatening way. That is, if somebody’s emotional factors are involved in this, if they are hurt, or if their worldview is challenged, if you present the information in a way that allows them to maintain part of their worldview, they are less likely to have that compensatory defensive response.

His argument is that you can use language that is relatively more accommodating. Like instead of saying, “we argue” that you instead frame it as, “here’s what the data says”. Or that you allow them to affirm part of their identity in another area.

So the way that some of these studies work is, let’s say you’re studying group boundaries like nationalism or patriotism. If you present the information like, write an essay on things that are good about America, and then present them with information that might be challenging, like slavery or something like that, then the person is more likely to accept that information because they’ve had the chance to affirm their broader values in a different context.

If I’m somewhere talking to a christian face to face, and we’re getting into a theological debate, I found myself instinctively but then later deliberately using a lot of morally loaded terms when talking to them. Instead of just saying, “you’re wrong on this position, that’s not the most valid argument”, you say things like, “well, I know you believe in integrity, I know you believe in worshiping god with all your heart soul,  and mind. I think integrity requires us to use the same standards to judge our own arguments that we would others.” Now what that’s doing, I’m still making a critique of their position, but I’m affirming some part of their moral identity. I’m not attacking them, “you’re a bad, ignorant person”, I’m saying “you’re a person who wants to live a life of integrity. Here’s an opportunity to have more intellectual integrity.”

45:05 The evidence suggests that if you frame a response within the person’s own worldview as much as possible, that it’s less likely to be alien to them and they can just dismiss it. For example, about the environmental movement becoming more christianized, or rather that the christian left movement, that if you package things in terminology like “creation carer” or “global warming stewardship”, that the persons are more likely to receive that rather than deny that.

The point is that if you frame an issue that is less likely to be threatening, or if you allow the person to affirm other things, like “religion is really great for you, it sounds like it’s done great things, but”, then that makes the person less likely to have a defensive response where they just say “No, I’m not going to listen”

45:54 So the question is, can we do this in a way that preserves our intellectual integrity? Do we have to lie to them, and coddle them and say, “oh this is really great” when we don’t think it is? Or can we frame things and still preserve our own beliefs?

~What follows is the RD guys hashing out their ideas and thoughts, which are interesting. They don’t really agree that it’s a good way to handle arguments with religious people, but have a listen for yourself to get their full thoughts.

What do you think? I want to mull it over some more, but I think affirming someone’s moral identity, appealing to their sense of integrity, would be a good way to go, to not alienate them. But I agree with the guys that winning a tiny little battle isn’t really that satisfying. Although part of me thinks it might help, another part thinks it might be harmful, as the guys mention how people mix pseud0-science with real science readily, which isn’t acceptable. I also don’t believe that science and religion can mix.

It’s a delicate issue. I look forward to hearing what you think about it, if you care to chime in.

Related posts

• Why People Defend Their Dogma (5)
• People Trust Peers, Not Science (4)
• More Groovy Science 5 (6)
• God Thinks Like You and He Personally Cares For You, Plus a Video To Cheer You Up (3)
• Dark Chocolate and Other Tidbits of Goodness (0)

Why am I going on about this? Well, there is one thing I absolutely have zero tolerance for; a bible thumping movie. I can’t stand religious propaganda shoved down my throat. Not long after Left Behind went to DVD my dad rented it thinking it was Sci Fi. (we used to go out to dinner and watch a movie afterward as sort of a regular family night) I saw that Kirk Cameron was in it, thought that was a bad sign, but gave it the benefit of the doubt and promptly wasted 2 hours of my life to that dreck. That night Butch (my nearly perfect husband) and I made a pact never to sit through a horrid movie again.

So when I see a movie preview that could look like it’s a “God Movie” I would rather steer clear. Unfortunately a lot of god movies mask it in the previews, and some movies that really don’t have a strong pro-god/pro-religion tone might look like it in the previews.

Enter Christian Answers Movie Reviews! My friend Dan shared this site with me and now I am passing it on to you because I actually found it useful.

I picked a movie I was leery about, The Book of Eli, and here’s what I discovered. First, they describe a lot of scenes so it is a bit of a spoiler. Second, I learned it’s a pretty god-heavy movie that would probably set my nerves on edge. Here’s part of the review:

“The Book of Eli” has an incredible Biblical message, which tells the story of Eli’s unwavering faith as he honor’s God with his life and follows God’s will no matter how hard the journey may be. We see Eli’s faith remain steadfast as he faces many trials and tribulations,

After Solara joins Eli on his mission to preserve the Bible, she inquires about Eli’s inner-strength. He explains to her that he walks by faith and his commitment to follow God’s will has kept him strong. Later in the film, Solara asks Eli to read some passages from the Bible to her, so he recites several passages that he has memorized, and the beauty of the words move her.

While “The Book of Eli”’s respect for the sanctity of God’s Word and the depiction of Eli’s obedience to God is refreshing and inspiring, especially in a mainstream film, brutal violence and language are pervasive throughout.

Carnegie forces Solara to offer herself up to Eli as a prostitute, as leverage to try to get Eli to relinquish the Bible to him. When Solara comes to Eli’s bedroom door to offer herself to him, he refuses and tries to send her away, but Solara pleads with him to let her stay or Carnegie will hurt her mother. Eli takes pity on Solara and lets her stay. He takes the opportunity to teach her how to pray and tell her about God.

There are approximately 12 uses of the f-word, and the Lord’s name is profaned approximately two times in the film.

While I was disappointed to see the end of the film momentarily stray from its powerful Biblical message by subtly implying that the Bible is equal to other religious texts, this implication pales in comparison to Eli’s last amazing act of faith at the end of the film.

Eli’s steadfast commitment to his faith and obedience to God no matter what the price, embodies Christ’s words in Luke 9:23,

“Then he said to them all: ‘If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me’.”

Ha! They said the F-word about 12 times! How horrible! And they said Goddamnit twice! Now they’re all going to burn in hell forever! lol! And they called that “extreme profanity”. That cracks me up.

Oh, and don’t get me wrong, I’m not against  a character being religious in a movie. Just don’t preach to me when I want to be entertained. It’s offensive.

Related posts

• Imagine a World Without god!? OH NOES! (8)
• How To Talk To A True Believer About Atheism And Religion (32)
• Young Earth Invasion (6)
• You Don’t Have To Pass An IQ Test To Be In The Senate (1)
• Wild Geese by Mary Oliver – My Favorite Poem (2)

Ways to Contact Us:

• AtheistHotline.com
• (304) 534-9440
• atheisthotline@morgantownatheists.com

You can call, email or post a question on the site now. The phone number is to a voice mail system. We are volunteering this service so we will get back to you as soon as we can. Leave your email address if you call, too please. It will be easiest for us to get back to you by email.

Our Goals:

• Let atheists know they are not alone
• Clear up common misconceptions about atheists in general
• Provide people with information resources when needed
• Personal experiences from atheists to help you with your perspective
• Carefully helping people who are questioning their faith – in need of reason, etc.
• Carefully helping atheists who have troubles with their family
• Offering moral support to atheists and people questioning their faith
• Friendly advice from atheists

What we’re NOT:

• Faith crisis hotline
• Not giving out therapeutic advice
• Not a debate hotline
• Not a confessional
• Not a dating service
• We are NOT professionals!
  • Anything you say is not under client professional privilege. If you say something criminal, we will alert the police.
  • We are not legally qualified in any way to give therapy. We are not claiming to do so. We are here only to give friendly advice or information.
  • Anything you do based on information you get through AH is 100% your responsibility.

Here are the Disclaimer and Terms of Service:

By contacting us through email, voice mail or AtheistHotline.com, you state you have read these Terms of Service and agree to them.
Atheist Hotline is provided for informational, educational, fun and amusement purposes only; is not intended to diagnose or treat any person; and is not intended to constitute professional therapeutic advice. While care has been taken in the preparation of the information contained on Atheist Hotline, all information is provided on an “as is” basis without any representation, warranty or condition, whether express or implied, statutory or otherwise, as to: quality; accuracy; completeness; legality; reliability; efficacy; or fitness for any particular purpose. Anyone using this information does so at his or her own risk, and by using such information agrees to indemnify Atheist Hotline and its content providers from any and all liability, loss, injury, damages, costs and expenses (including legal fees and expenses) arising from such person’s use of the information and resources on this website. Anyone who is in any type of crisis should call 911 now and receive help from trained mental heath professionals.

Related posts

• Ideas About Atheist Groups (1)
• Advice For Freethinking Kids? (14)
• What Level Of Woo Would Make Someone Undateable? (20)
• Sunday Looms Menacingly (10)
• Godblock Protects Your Kids From Religion On The Web (14)

The funny thing is, I’m not really a people person. Like a lot of atheists (supposedly), I’m quite an outsider, as much of a hermit as I can get away with, in fact. I have never liked going out in crowds or socializing with large groups of people.

Why am I telling you all of this? Because I have realized something that I want to share with you. Even though I’m a curmudgeonly hermit-y atheist, I love going to the 3 atheist/freethinker meetings we have every month. That’s 3 Sundays a month where I happily leave the house and go socialize with a small group of people. And I look forward to it. The one or 2 Sundays where we don’t meet I miss it.

Even people like me benefit from social community and contact. The beauty of the atheist/freethinker community is that we are relatively like-minded. We have a foundation of common ground. But we are also quite different, of course, which is good because that makes things interesting. The added bonus of freethinkers, skeptics and atheists is that we seem relatively level-headed (overall – there are exceptions,  of course) and we argue and discuss matters with interest and fairness. No drama llama is invited! So it’s actually fun and mentally stimulating.

I think we all need some type of community, which is one thing that religion has in its favor that being a lone atheist does not.

But this is easily remedied. I thought I’d share some thoughts on how to get involved with a secular group of like-minded people. If none exist in your area, you can start one up.

Tips For Finding A Local Atheist/Humanist/Freethinker/Skeptical Community

1. Do a local Google search on the type of group you’re interested in. They may have a Yahoo, Google or Facebook group, or other page set up, or a website devoted to their activities.

2. Go to your favorite organizations and see if they have local chapters, or a list of local groups associated with them. Examples would be CFI, American Atheists, AHA, UnitedCoR, SCA, etc.

3. Look in your local paper, either online or in print. We have our meetings listed in the Today section of the paper, as well as a general entry in the church section (which is really more for a laugh than anyone looking there for an atheist group, I think)

4. Visit the library or local coffee shops for possible fliers on the bulletin boards.

Once you’ve seen that no local groups exist, or you find that you aren’t interested in what’s available, it’s time to start your own.

Tips For Starting A Local Atheist/Humanist/Freethinker/Skeptical Community

1. Start a local yahoo group, Google group, and/0r Facebook group. If you are sure of the name you want your group to have, you can get a domain name and set up a blog or website for the group you are forming.

I recommend a WordPress blog that pings to many different listing sites. This gets you into Google and other search engines much faster than a plain old website, in the easiest way.

2. Go to your favorite organizations and see if they offer any tips on starting a local chapter. Examples would be CFI, American Atheists, AHA, UnitedCoR, SCA, Atheist Nexus, etc.

3. Set a date, time and place for the first meeting. Also have a topic or agenda to talk about. For the first meeting, your location can be the library or a comfortable coffee shop. Provide directions to the meeting clearly in whatever web presence you’ve chosen.

4. Set up a Gmail email so people can contact you with questions.

5. Contact your local paper. Look for a contact for the Today section, or something similar. Be friendly and polite and see if they will list your local meeting.

6. Create fliers (they don’t have to be big or fancy) and put them in the local coffee shops, the library, and any other places you can think of. If you created a group somewhere online, make sure to share that on the flier so people can read more, as well as your new email address so they can ask questions.

Also post to any groups you’ve created on Facebook, Yahoo or Google groups. Spread the word!

7. Show up to the meeting about 10 or 15 minutes early. I carry a tote bag that identifies me as an atheist (one of my Sir Lee Tees designs, a positive atheism message) to help people I haven’t met yet find me in the location. I also have my picture up on Facebook and the websites so people can see my face. Then they have no problem recognizing me when they first come to a meeting. You can do something else to identify yourself to make it easier and more comfortable to people who will need to approach you. Or if you meet at the library, put up a sign in the room you are in, etc.

Expect the first meetings to be small. Maybe get a friend to sit with you for a half hour to see if anyone shows up. For Morgantown Atheists, there were quite a few meetings that were just the original founders and no one else. But with lots of messages on Atheist Nexus and other areas, it has grown to quite a dynamic little group that meets 3 times a month and now will have a secular service project ongoing.

8. Have some flexible goals in mind for the direction you want your group to go in. My experience is that these small communities sort of take on a life of their own, but having some ideas to start off with can at least give you confidence, as well as help others to decide if they want to come to a meeting.

~ So that should get you started. If you are interested in finding our starting a group, or if you do start one and want some more ideas, let me know! We can brainstorm, as I’m always looking for new ideas for my groups.

Related posts

• Atheists Deserve A Community Too (19)
• Talk To An Atheist on Atheist Hotline (2)
• What Are You Doing November 19? (10)
• Atheist Solidarity Day June 21 An Atheist Holiday (2)
• Advice For Freethinking Kids? (14)

Christopher Hitchens just wrote a 3 page piece for Vanity Fair about the 10 commandments titled The New Commandments. He goes through the KJV version and talks about where they are good and where they are not so good. Here is his summation:

What emerges from the first review is this: the Ten Commandments were derived from situational ethics. They show every symptom of having been man-made and improvised under pressure. They are addressed to a nomadic tribe whose main economy is primitive agriculture and whose wealth is sometimes counted in people as well as animals. They are also addressed to a group that has been promised the land and flocks of other people: the Amalekites and Midianites and others whom God orders them to kill, rape, enslave, or exterminate. And this, too, is important because at every step of their arduous journey the Israelites are reminded to keep to the laws, not because they are right but just because they will lead them to become conquerors (of, as it happens, almost the only part of the Middle East that has no oil).

So here is a rundown of how he fixes them:

• One to Three can go, “since they have nothing to do with morality and are no more than a long, rasping throat clearing by an admittedly touchy dictator. Mere fear of unseen authority is not a sound basis for ethics.” (the invisible sky daddy flexes his muscles and demands worship.).
• He also says we don’t have to ban sculpture and art (idols).
• Four. Gone. Pointless. (don’t work on the sabbath, except black sabbath, of course!)
• Five, respect elders, sure. But also ban child abuse. What a concept! (I’d add that parents should only get respect like anyone else, when they earn it.)
• Six, taken care of by modern law. Don’t murder. (Don’t kill under almost all circumstances.) (although I think assisted suicide for terminally ill people should be legal)
• Seven, he seems to destroy too.  (adultery) (and yeah, what about saying rape is bad? especially pedophilia and that kind of stuff?)
• Eight, ok. This one is good. Don’t steal. (stealing)
• Nine, don’t lie. Also basically good. (lying about your neighbor)
• Ten, women aren’t property. This one is pointless and harmful in that it makes you a sinner just from your thoughts. (don’t lust after your neighbor’s goods or wife)

Other evils of human society that should be denounced, according to Hitchens:

• genocide
• slavery
• rape
• child abuse
• sexual repression
• white-collar crime
• wanton destruction of the natural world
• people who talk on cell phones in restaurants (and movie theatres, or who talk on the phone or text while driving!)
• people who blow themselves up while shouting ‘god is great!’ (and any other kind of jihadism or crusade)
• racism
• using people as private property
• condemning people for their inborn nature (like homosexuality, etc)

And this is how he finishes:

“Be willing to renounce any god or any religion if any holy commandments should contradict any of the above. In short: Do not swallow your moral code in tablet form.”

Good advice! I think I stand by the principles I came up with for myself. What are yours? Do you agree with Christopher Hitchens?

Related posts

• Neece’s Principles (0)
• Should Religion Be Taught To Minors? (13)
• My Personal 10 Commandments (10)
• Morals, Ethics and Pope Benedict Evil (13)
• Homosexuality is a SIN, The Bible Says So! (11)

In the first episode, they talk to Monica Reinagel who is pretty neat in her own right. She’s a nutrition expert and through her short podcast and blog she helps weed through the hype and nonsense of nutrition. As a person who wonders what is fact and what is bullshit when it comes to food, diet and the like, it’s very cool to find a resource for good information.

Here are her sites:

www.nutritiondata.com: her blog is on here along with a wealth of information.

http://nutritiondiva.quickanddirtytips.com/: Her podcasts are on here. If you go to listen or read and episode, you can then find the link to iTunes to subscribe and get them all. They are each about 5 minutes long.

Do you have any great resources for good nutrition and diet that are based in science and research? Please feel free to share!

Related posts

• Delusions of Calories Dance In Our Heads (4)
• Podcasts and Internet Radio Stations You May Enjoy (0)
• More Groovy Science 3 (5)
• Dark Chocolate and Other Tidbits of Goodness (0)
• Celebrating Skepticism With More Podcasts (0)