|
|
|
|
|
|
by deciplex
4295 days ago
|
|
|
You're right it's a poor way to change someone's mind, and certainly doesn't foster inclusion, but what of people who are still making up their mind? Mainly, I'm talking about young people who have been raised in a mostly religious context, but haven't gone head-over-heels yet. It might be that challenging superstition in the most brutal way possible (outside of physical violence, that is), serves to promote more rational beliefs among this group. |
|
|
I think it's calm, rational argument that has swayed me most away from religion. Just a simple thought experiment:
1. You think religions like scientology are crazy. 2. You believe in a man who was born of a virgin, died, rose from the dead, and who hundreds of millions of people eat and drink every weekend. 3. How can you call them crazy when you believe that?
Even still it's hard for me to get off the fence but simple arguments like that, which aren't arrogant and totally patronising, but lay out the facts in an honest way, are what convince people.
I think the problem with a more aggressive approach is arrogance. Most religious people probably accept they could be wrong - their belief is based on faith. But aggressive atheists argue that religious people are wrong and stupid when from a religious persons perspective the atheist has no proof they are wrong. Evolution is real and correct but isn't proof their is no God. Atheists say it's not up to them to prove their is no God, it's up to religious people to prove their is. But if you're calling someone out as wrong they will think you need to prove it. Because there is and never will be a way to disprove the existence of a God I don't think this approach works. You have to present the facts in a way that is honest but in a way that the other person hasn't thought about before.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8289140