Psychodiagnostics

The Last Word

If you are a regular visitor to this blog, it’s a pretty safe assumption that you have an interest in at least one of the two most polarizing topics of conversation--religion or politics. Really, the only way to heat up a conversation faster is with sincere “yo’ mamma” jokes. I try to keep the dialogue civil and keep up the appearances of a meeting of open minds...but let’s not kid ourselves. Arguments are battles. It’s perfectly natural for us to want to win. It’s a desire that, at times, even clouds our judgement.

Simply being aware of this aspect of the human conditon can offset it, but only to a point. To get me the rest of the way to fairly assessing my opponents’ points, I’ve started ending debates with an admission of sorts. If I’ve learned anything new, I let them know. Not only that, I let them know in the order that they would want to hear it. For example, if they actually offered an argument that makes me think the possibility of a deity is just a little more likely then before, I’ll point that out. If they corrected a flaw in an argument I use, I’ll admit to it and assure them I will no longer use the faulty argument. If they bring to light a novel way of looking at things, even if this way doesn't change my mind about anything, I will still offer whatever praise I can for originality. And if all I can commend is my opponent’s friendly disposition, then I will do so.

Examples of general phrases to end a positive exchange with another human being:

Thanks for the conversation, you are a congenial voice for your worldview. I hope to chat with you again.

I feel better about Christianity/Islam/Hinduism/Magic: The Gathering now than I did prior to our talk.

Gosh, you're swell.

You get the picture. Truth be told, I get to use these closers more often than not. Many religions pride themselves on brotherhood and non-confrontational missionary work and it shows. Your results may very, especially if you tend to engage trolls.

Still, they can't all be winners. Some people are too passionate about their faith to have a calm conversation with someone who isn't seeing things as they do. Others are going through a type of cognitive dissonance which makes them so uncomfortable they attempt to make it stop by sabotaging the debate. In poker, we call this going on tilt. A player gets mad about a bad beat and starts to play sloppy--this can quickly end a game by, most often, the tilted player losing all his money, or the tilted player gets lucky with their erratic behavior and hits big--taking the other player out of the game. The "tilted" debater can force the same two outcomes by either descending into irrational name calling or prompting a similar reaction from you. My advice? Don't return crazy with crazy. Diffuse the argument with a simple closer and move on. Atheists have a bad enough wrap as it is without more of us throwing around f-bomb laced ad hominems.

Examples of general phrases to end a negative exchange with another human being:

I understand your frustration. I'll think about what you've offered, please consider thinking about what I've offered. (this works even if you have no intention of thinking about their argument further.)

At least we can agree that one of us is right. (I like ending this with a winking emoticon.)

God bless. (Sure, you don't believe in God, but they do. This may or may not be said mockingly depending on your nature, and may or may not be taken as mocking depending on theirs.)

An Open Letter to Theists

Theists, we need to talk. I know your kneejerk reaction toward this blog and myself is dismissal. I do, after all, regularly attempt to disprove your one true God, but the fact that I just used the phrasing “attempt to” should be seen as an olive branch. I know I’m not always right, but I’m pretty damn sure the following is in all of our best interest. Please, humor me.

I’m prepared to let you keep on believing what you believe without constant badgering...as long as you try to understand. I don’t mean understand me, or understand atheists, I mean understand in general. You believe God created life, the universe and everything--fine, just don’t stop there. Try to understand how God did it. Supernatural explanations are dead ends in knowledge and poison to curiosity  As a member of humanity, you belong to an enormous team who has never given up searching for answers even when a wall is hit. Walls are temporary. We learned how cells work, but, wanting to learn more, we looked deeper. We found atoms and still strive to understand further. The discovery of protons, neutrons and electrons allowed for us to make our life and the life of others easier through invention and innovation, so it stood to reason that more could be gained by looking deeper. We did and continue to do so. Saying that Thor or Zeus brings the lightning is an explanation of sorts, but it wasn’t until we attempted to know how Thor brought it did we understand that lightning had a completely natural explanation. Consider that abiogenesis, the ultimate origin of the universe, and other gaps in the knowledge that divides us might have a natural explanation as well.

Einstein said “I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details.” Do that! Seek to learn the mind of God by accepting science, learning it, and doing some of your own. It’s not playing God to be master of the reality He made us to have dominion over, if in fact He did. Maybe what you learn will shake the foundations of your prior beliefs or maybe it will reinforce them. Either way, you’ll be closer to the truth you claim to seek. The secular don't tend to believe that claim, let's say you prove it.

For God So Loved the World that He Drowned It

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:15-17

but first...

I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.
Genesis 6:16-18

God's timing always confuses me. Why was Jesus born when he was? Was it because humanity really needed saving at that point? If so, didn't humanity really need saving in Noah's day? I thought the reason God sent the flood was because they were so sinful. Jesus probably could have helped then. Unless of course, they were beyond saving....but if this is beyond God's abilities, then why call Him omnipotent?

Gamer

I’ve been playing the strangest game. It’s not “fun” in the traditional sense. In fact, it's quite frustrating, especially at the end, which I’ll get into later. I’ve clocked in enough play time that every new game results in the interactive equivalet of a re-run. Funny thing is, it didn’t take much play time to realize I was in for this kind of monotony. There’s a term for what this game is lacking--replay value. I’ve basically been playing a remedial Street Fighter. There is a button to jab, kick, block...and that’s it. There’s no cool button combinations, no hadouken, I just grind until the anticlimatic end. There’s no knockout, just an end. Game over, roll credits...I lose. Inexplicably, the game says I lose--even though the game’s difficulty is stuck on easy, my score progressive rises, and my opponent never lands a punch.

This is how I feel debating theists. It’s always the same debunked arguments and empty rhetoric, easily blocked and parried. I can not concieve of any flaw in my logic, yet I’m told it is faulty. I see myself as the clear winner, and yet I lost to apologetic eyes. I ask (often) why I seek out this conflict. Is injecting a little rational medicine into apologetic sites and forums my version of missionary work? Yes, I believe we’ll all be atheists one day, but I’m tired of waiting. I want to be the catalyst...but the meds don’t take. Their brains reject it. So why bother?

An afterward for atheists reading this post: I know, I know, I’m planting a seed in their brain that may one day grow into a sanity tree. Or maybe someone more "on the fence" in regards to religion is watching my seemingly fruitless debate and sides with me. I can dig it. It’s still fucking frustrating.

An afterward for theists reading this post: I know I’m not making any points here--for those, check my other posts. The analogy presented doesn’t represent these debates, just my subjective feelings about them. Basically, I’m venting. I’m sure you get frustrated too. Just...consider that you could be wrong. Please? For me? After you’re done considering, we can debate again another day.

The Obligatory Atheism Plus Post

I recently reached out to past interviewees for questions as a "turn the tables" interview for an upcoming post. Atheist Revolution’s Vjack asked what I thought about Atheism Plus. I decided that since I haven’t yet touched on this (and I’m one of the last atheist blogs that hasn’t) I might as well throw my two cents in the hat.

Why the delay on the A+ post from a guy who is obviously starving for content? I didn’t want to encourage what I expect to be a short-lived blip on the radar of a very niche community. I didn’t think Atheism Plus was a good or bad thing, just an unneeded thing. Now, I’ve kinda turned the corner. I think it's a bad thing and it should be addressed. To be clear, the concept isn't bad. It’s bad because it is divisive. It’s causing arguments within the atheist community that serve no purpose. The atheists who promoted atheism “plus” equality or “plus” skeptisim already did so before they adopted the label of Atheism Plus. Those who promoted atheism and skipped the rest, still do so, which is fine. Now sects of both groups are burning calories attempting to shame the rest. To what end? I’m not sure. Probably just to get back to the status quo.

It’s not Jen McCreight fault that this happened. She fired the first shot when she kicked off the movement, but she didn't know it would be a war. There's a shared blame among everyone who is still bickering about it. I think the backlash the BlagHag felt after her original posts showed the worst in an otherwise rational community. She fell in love with her idea (that wasn’t entirely hers) and expected her friends that love it too. Not so much, a perhaps rightfully so.

Politically, Atheism Plus has become a mess and for this reason alone we should cut bait. It’s not a concept that needs defending, it’s just a bundling of values that isn’t as one-size-fits-all as it appears on the surface. Atheists are more likely to support equality with women and gays ONLY BECAUSE theists follow holy books that explicitly DON't support equality with women and gays. I’ll vote in favor of gay marriage whenever it comes up and I’ve debated about equality within larger debates about religion, but feminism and rainbows aren’t my cross to bear. I won’t be guilt tripped into thinking I’m not doing enough for this or that group.

I value skepticism and critical thinking highly, but neither should they be bundled with atheism. If anything, atheism is a subset of skepticism--not the other way around. The political parties have bundled values to such a degree that someone who is fiscally conservative will likely adopt the completely unrelated opinions that capital punishment is a good method of keeping crime down while gun control doesn’t work. Blindly adopting beliefs for the sake of conformity is the antithesis of skepticism. It's the same need for belonging that motivated and still motivates people to gather to worship literary figures.

This speaks to a larger issue with which even Atheism Plus opposers may disagree. Atheism should have no qualifiers. The only atheist movement should take place while the nonbeliever is on the crapper. I'm not writing this blog to be part of a larger whole, I'm writing this blog to be an individual and to show that other individuals that they don't have to accept the norm. Theism is the norm. Church is the norm. Religion is the norm. Free thinking should be the norm. At least, that's what I think.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back.

God answers questions of origin, purpose and method...with another question. In essence, replacing a natural mystery with a supernatural mystery. Seeing how we know the natural exists and we don't know the supernatural exists, I'm more comfortable with natural mysteries.

The question of origin.
Q: Where did we come from?
A: From God.
Q: Where did God come from?

The question of purpose.
Q: Why are we here?
A: God put us here.
Q: Why is God here?

The question of method.
Q: How did we come to be?
A: God made us.
Q: How did God make us?

All Bets Are Off.

I’ve been debating a baker’s dozen of Christian Apologists and they all claim to have the logical high ground. After all, the best way to demonstrate that you are the most logical is simply by stating “I’m the most logical.” (read:sarcasm) This got me thinking, once you evoke the supernatural, does logic even matter?

Merriam-Webster defines logic as “a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration.” The words “science,” “validity,” “inference,” and “demonstration” all lose meaning against the supernatural. Gravity is not valid to Superman. I can’t accurately infer anything about the actions of a genie. Someone, please, demonstrate God.

If the supernatural exists, all bets are off. God can exist, but so can literally anything. You may be praying to Allah, but only because a telepath is forcing it upon your mind. Jesus could return, or he could be shapeshifter in disguise. God himself may be unwittingly doing the bidding of being that can conceal his influence even from the Lord.

If you think God is, by definition, the top dog and creator of everything thus making the above scenarios nonsensical, I ask you, how could you possibly know in a supernatural universe? Maybe an otherwise unknown mystical creature possessed the authors of the Bible just to mess with humanity. Suddenly we can’t trust our senses. We can’t even trust history since everything that once was may have been rewritten last Thursday.

An all-powerful being is capable of every deception. Just because your God wouldn’t do such things doesn’t mean a random supernatural entity wouldn’t. As a theist you must not only believe the supernatural is possible, but also that your particular flavor of the supernatural is real in the face of no evidence. Even if you suddenly you had evidence, it could be contrived by malevolent magic. All. Bets. Are. Off.

It appears as though the universe has rules that have made everything happen in a manner that is understandable, even if we don’t yet fully understand it. Sure, each rule could just be an illusion waiting to be turned on it’s head, but I choose to believe in only the natural. If a theist ever convinces me that the supernatural is possible, I’ll suddenly have many more questions...each crazier, yet entirely possible, than the last.

Survey Shmurvey

This just in, the U.S. is really fucking religious.

A new report has supported substantial anecdotal evidence on my part that the United States is among the most theist countries in the world. It’s way ahead (or behind from my point of view) the majority of Europe. It’s also troublesome that I live in a country where 60% of its population thinks they are gnostic theists, even though I just spent the last post pointing out that no one can really be gnostic of such matters.

I don’t find anything in the survey too surprising. For instance, it shows that people become more religious with age. This is likely due to the coinvent fact that with a deity comes an afterlife, an idea appealing to those contemplating their mortality. However, I have a few questions about the surveying methods. The U.S. reportedly has a 3% population that “don’t believe in God,” yet 4.4% claim to “not believe in God and never have.” The additional requirement of “never have” should make the 3% necessarily lower, correct? Or do I suck at statistics?

I little inaccuracy aside, it would be hard to get the most telling tidbit of the survey wrong. Year after year, atheism is on the rise. It’s a slow and steady rise, but the hare of lore knows that such a rise can win the race. Eventually, I predict a tipping point where the rise of atheism will escalate rapidly. At some point, believing the minority mythology as truth will just seem silly.

This tipping point won’t likely happen in our lifetime, so I’m not taking any bets. If you are reading this in the distant, secular future, just remember, I told ya so.