/atheism/ - Atheism

Most people are unaware of the fact that the atheist community wasn't split evenly by atheism+, it was more like a 9 to 1, with + on the 1. Maybe 8 to 2 at best, because the most prominent YouTube atheists are anti.

>>5394
Maybe after a dozen generations or so, when atheists start outnumbering theists

>>5397
I would imagine that it would be sooner than that.

Neither of those things resulted in me finding religion. They have caused me no harm. There is nothing to recover from.

>implying namecalling and misrepresentation has any effect

If anything the fedora meme damaged Christianity, as Christians can no longer play the 'we can be intellectual too' card.

>>5406
Were christians ever intellectual?

>>5419
Plenty of smart Christians back in the day who helped preserve and expand on knowledge. If you can overlook their religion, I would say so.
Nowadays, "intellectual" means little though.

>>5421
I seriously doubt that they accomplished any thing with their religion that they couldn't have accomplished without their religion.

No they will not, people who cannot take criticism (religious people) will always be offended at atheists because you are saying they lived most of their life in a lie. They will get defensive and emotional.

Look at /christian/ for example, skim through the post where someone disagrees with christianity and you'll see 10 replies saying that it's bait, sage posts, and angry posts calling it fedora. In every thread, there's no discussion to be had there. They will say that no one can criticize christianity because every atheist has "taken it literally" and doesn't know what he's talking about. No seriously, go take a look at the atheism posts in there. It's easy to win when you can't argue back. I don't even care to talk about /islam/, bunch of savages.

Now look at /atheism/, if people here don't agree on each other we still argue with them and try to tell us our opinions and where they are wrong. Of course, if people prove that they do not want an argument people will shit on them, but most people here are understanding.

Fedora calling will always exist because religious people get offended.

>>5451
>CNS news
>Atheist: Richard Dawkins
>Not Evolutionary Biologist.

Please tell me you don't take this source seriously. Take a look at some of their other articles.

>>5394
Those of us who don't give a shit have already recovered.

>>5449
I blame the information age and globalization for this trend.

>>5452
To be fair, atheists can also start flinging shit when told they are wrong. I don't think it's a religious thing, I think it's human thing, we don't like being told we are wrong and we don't like being called out on what we are wrong about. People tend to react emotionally to that.

I think this is the great weakness of atheism. It's a movement that tries to apply to reason and only to reason. It forgets that humans are emotional creatures.

I'm not going to post the studies here, but science has, at this point, firmly confirmed that people make decisions based on emotional not reason. This confirms what marketers and salespeople already knew, you don't appeal to reason, you appeal to emotions.

Now I am religious, and I am also slightly autistic. So I am not in touch with emotions and it is strange to me. I was an atheist during my university and graduate studies. I believed that reason held some special access to truth and emotional decisions would lead to lies and disasters.

It was only in my graduate era that I realized I was wrong. Now, I would still agree that it is wrong to appeal to people's emotions or make emotionally charged arguments. But I don't think it's always wrong to decide based on emotional considerations.

Is it wrong that a man favors his wife and his kids over others? Is it wrong that we want others to like us?

There were many reasons to go to WWII but it was sold on the basis of protecting others and stopping the march of evil (which looking at history, stopping Hitler and Facisim turned out to be the right thing). The American civil rights movement was sold on sympathy, but even /pol/ would admit that, provided blacks are not given special treatment, equality is a good thing.

We make decisions largely on emotions, emotional considerations and that is not always a bad thing.

That doesn't mean I expect you to worship god or convert or renounce atheism. All I am saying is, leave room for emotion, don't force people to be completely rational in their decision making, because that is trying to force them to be something other than human.


here is the study

http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/decisions-are-emotional-not-logical-the-neuroscience-behind-decision-making

>>5465
>blame

>>5467
>I think this is the great weakness of atheism. It's a movement that tries to apply to reason and only to reason. It forgets that humans are emotional creatures.
Well we see plenty of arguments where people appeal to the negative consequences of religion. That's not a rational argument why the religion is incorrect or inaccurate.

>It was only in my graduate era that I realized I was wrong. Now, I would still agree that it is wrong to appeal to people's emotions or make emotionally charged arguments. But I don't think it's always wrong to decide based on emotional considerations.
>I don't think it's always wrong to decide based on emotional considerations
>it is wrong to appeal to people's emotions
You fucking what mate? How would you ever convince someone of something if it's wrong to appeal to emotions, but that's what people respond to?

>Is it wrong that a man favors his wife and his kids over others?
No, but it's not necessarily rational. They might be shit. It's efficient, because it's a way to divide people's attention without much effort, and it's sensible given evolution. It's definitely not inherently good.

>Is it wrong that we want others to like us?
No, but it's usually not the best way to live your life.

I think what you're missing is the is/ought problem. Reason can tell us what's important to a point, but ultimately it comes down to what people value. That doesn't mean that reason isn't the best way to establish what's true. Just that it's not able to tell us what matters.

>don't force people to be completely rational in their decision making, because that is trying to force them to be something other than human.
You are assuming that we can't improve ourselves and/or that being "human" is desirable. I will continue to mock people who are convinced of what is true or false based on anything but evidence and logic. What they care about is another matter, but as far as what's true goes, the principles of science put everything else to shame.

>>5467
>To be fair, atheists can also start flinging shit when told they are wrong.
That's quite a statement to make, atheists in general don't get as angry as religious people in debates.

>I don't think it's a religious thing, I think it's human thing, we don't like being told we are wrong and we don't like being called out on what we are wrong about. People tend to react emotionally to that.
As an atheist I do want to be told where I am wrong, because I want to self correct myself. And I think most rational people would do the same, they would want to be corrected and wouldn't overreact when they are wrong. Unlike people who have reading a book for decades and get emotional when people say they are wrong, atheists don't follow a book.

>I think this is the great weakness of atheism. It's a movement that tries to apply to reason and only to reason. It forgets that humans are emotional creatures.
No it's not, atheists aren't robots or aliens, we are still human and it's sad to see that people dehumanize atheists because they aren't overly emotional when it's not needed. It's a movement that wants reason, but we also have empathy, sadness, anger, and other feelings that makes us capable of reasoning when needed. You could for example after the death of your father from some disease, from your sadness create a cure because you don't want that to happen to other people. I think your statement is wrong.

>Now I am religious, and I am also slightly autistic. So I am not in touch with emotions and it is strange to me.
Then you aren't fit to criticize emotions properly if even you admit it.

>I believed that reason held some special access to truth and emotional decisions would lead to lies and disasters.
You are getting the wrong idea. Emotions in most cases do lead to lies and disaster, you must think clearly and be objective, and control your emotions when needed. Or else you would make irrational, useless, time wasting, money wasting decisions just because you feel like it, that is not a good reason. For example, people wanted to raise $30k to demolish Adam Lanza's house (sandyhook shooter) just because of their feelings. That is stupid, stupid and stupid. It's a house, and it doesn't do anyone any harm, we aren't living in the medieval ages anymore.

https://8ch.net/news+/res/16493.html

>It was only in my graduate era that I realized I was wrong. Now, I would still agree that it is wrong to appeal to people's emotions or make emotionally charged arguments. But I don't think it's always wrong to decide based on emotional considerations.
Maybe the first step is to stop considering atheists robots, there is a time where emotions can help you give motivation or understanding but you don't need to live your life as a lie and make bad decisions purely on your emotions.

>Is it wrong that a man favors his wife and his kids over others? Is it wrong that we want others to like us?
Nobody said it's wrong and it's your fault for assuming so, if you want too favour your wife and kids, and treat other people with respect. There isn't a rule that atheists follow that says "don't like your wife, your kids, and don't treat other people well". That is quite bs what you are saying.

>We make decisions largely on emotions, emotional considerations and that is not always a bad thing.
We do, but we must not always make decisions purely on emotions, actually we must never make decisions purely on emotions but we should make decisions based on our logical thinking and feelings at the same time.

>That doesn't mean I expect you to worship god or convert or renounce atheism. All I am saying is, leave room for emotion, don't force people to be completely rational in their decision making, because that is trying to force them to be something other than human.
Your whole argument is flawed, again with the atheists are beep bop robots that think in binary without feelings.And seriously? Force people into being completely rational? No one can be completely rational, nobody is perfect, but you can strive to be more rational.

>>5467
And I also forgot to say, just because you are feeling that you are right, it doesn't mean that you are right. The whole world can't be right at the same time just because everyone feels like they are right, you can't feel your own special theory of gravity. There is a correct thing and an incorrect one, nature doesn't are about feels. And again, I am not saying that emotions are completely useless, but they should be used in a smart way and not as a foundation for every decision made.

>>5520
> Emotions are based on logical observations, this is why nobody has the exact same opinion on any subject.

one day I'm going to take a collection of these non-sensical, outrageous quotes on here and compile them

>>5522
>>http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/decisions-are-emotional-not-logical-the-neuroscience-behind-decision-making
>You don't get what they're saying. Emotions decide for you, logic enables you to understand what you're thinking about.

>Emotions decide for you,

You are right, so based on what you just said when deciding between religion and atheism people are going to decide based on:

a) reason
b) emotion

and atheists appeal to:

a) reason
b) emotion

thus atheism will

a) rise on the wings of reason
b) crash and burn like a lead zepplin

fill in the blanks my friend

>>5531
>You don't get what they're saying. Emotions decide for you, logic enables you to understand what you're thinking about.

I never said this.

>Emotions decide for you

I never said this.

I don't see how any of these choices would necessitate the rise or fall of atheism, which is a stupid remark in and of itself.

>>5531
>implying some emotional responses aren't more reasonable than others
The more dependent the emotional response is on reason the more reasonable.

>>5552
that is intersting, however, here on /atheism/ I am told we rely on science not conjecture and the article clearly says that neuroscience tells us that decisions are done through emotions not reason

>>5600
>So you are saying that decisions on whether to be religious or atheist is not personally beneficial and has no impact on your life what soever?
>When they decide whether to be an atheist or religious, are you honestly suggesting that they won't weight the cost vs the benefit?
U wot m8? Weighing the cost benefit is process of reason.

>Anyways the point is, we make personal decisions (and yes religion is a personal decision) based on emotions, not reason.
You're not reading what they're saying, just repeating the article clickbait headline. Emotion is the mechanism to make a decision, it can be guided by reason. Try it so we can end this argument.

>>5600
You say this like you are a psychiatrist. And I can tell you're not.

>>5621
>all I am doing is reading the work by Antonio Damasio

Reading? You mean misinterpreting.

>who is a qualified neuroscientist
Argument from authority, I studied neuroscience as well.

>This is how science works, by reading the experiments and deductions of experts I can know amazing things without becoming an expert in the field myself.

As long as you understand it, which you don't.

>>5625
>>5626

I am afraid both of you are too irrational and too stupid to the point of being irritation and thus I must discountinue this conversation. so that I am not seen as rude, and simply avoiding the discussion, I have included a brief synopses of your shortcomings and why any continued discussion would be fruitless.

Thank you and have a nice day.

>>5625

>Nope, because they lack the mechanism to make the decision they end up in these loops.

>What part of emotion is the mechanism for decision don't you understand?

done, thank you

>>Emotion is the mechanism to make a decision, however it can be guided by reason.

based on fucken what - based on your wishful thinking? What part of the study can you point to that makes you think this.

Can you just once act like a skeptic or a scientist and - just this one time in your life back up your statements with evidence instead of just spouting whatever nonsense you think sounds good.

Where from what - just fucken copy and paste the part that supports what you just said there.

I am sorry but after this long explaination you are still somehow unable grasp this simple concept I don't know what to do with you.

>>5626

I don't care what you studied,

yes sceintists are proper authoriyt and arguement from authority is only a fallacy when used to dismiss authority, such as what you are doing now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

As long as you understand it, which you don't.

such statements are meaningless without an explanation of the misunderstanding or the correct understanding. If you are unable to do that, it would be better that you stayed silent in the first place.

>>5626

>>5406
I gotta disagree with that. You're being too optimistic on that one. The fedora maymay may not be keeping (less stupid) people from staying with religion, but it makes non religious people not really want to think about stuff like that and focus on other aspects of their life, thus you get a lot of agnostics and people who simply don't care either way.

>>5640
>agnostics

Which are people who delude themselves into believing that they're not atheists when they're actually atheists.

And nothing of value was lost.

>people who simply don't care either way.

This is a fair position.
Apatheistic atheists are more common than you'd think.

>>5632
/atheism/ is likely the only board on the chans stupid enough to dismiss a scientific study by a leading scientist in the field on the basis of

"durr argument from authority" "muh fallacy"

>>5766
And we must be the only board smart enough to realize that just because someone is a scientist doesn't make them automatically right.

>>5449
I won't deny the fact that irreligion and nontheism has been steadily on the rise since the fucking Enlightenment, but I highly doubt we will be majority in a few decades. I won't expect it to happen in my life time certainly

>>5451
nice bullshit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Demographics

>>5394
what is atheism+?
I've never heard of it and it doesn't seem to be mentioned in Wikipedia at all

>>5786
It's in the atheism article.

>In 2012, the first "Women in Secularism" conference was held in Arlington, Virginia.[194] Secular Woman was organized in 2012 as a national organization focused on nonreligious women.[195] The atheist feminist movement has also become increasingly focused on fighting sexism and sexual harassment within the atheist movement itself.[196] In August 2012, Jennifer McCreight (the organizer of Boobquake) founded a movement within atheism known as Atheism Plus, or A+, that "applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime".[197][198][199]

>>5816
>founded a movement within atheism known as Atheism Plus, or A+, that "applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime
That's a bold faced lie if I ever read one. Atheism+ advocated for the exact opposite of skepticism when it comes to those things. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

>>5844
I know, but look at the article on Gamergate or 8chan and you realize that Wikipedia has been invaded.