aggresive skeptics

[pointzeroenergy]

Hi, long time reader, first time poster so please bare with me.
I wanna know HOW to act as a skeptic. Should we be aggressive in pursuing religous fundamentalists or should we sit on the sidelines and let them battle it out, there are many who believe that doing nothing will just lead to more holy wars. My problem is that by pursuing and questioning these fundamentalists a certain aggressive attitude seems to follow that seems typical of skeptical people. I feel like an {!#%@}, our position seems almost impenetrable afterall who can blame someone for not knowing? So are we doomed to be forever disliked by the world or is there a way of being skeptical and still pursue the theists and atheists without seeming like a dick?
I fear this aggression flows through other modes of thinking and may make us outwardly a negative people. any thoughts?

[Kiless]

I personally have a big problem with dic... uh, those who aggressively slam religions, regardless of the label 'fundamentalist' or whatever.

Mostly because it puts all people who may change their views (as have many people who eventually join skeptic groups or choose to leave a religion or are deists) on the wrong foot. You don't get far if all you do is sneer and jeer in their faces when they may be nurturing doubts inside. It isn't something we admire in credulous people, so why lower the tone ourselves?  

Secondly, a fraud is a fraud. If someone is doing fraud, they may be a religious leader, they may not. I know America has certain laws about religious freedom and there are legitimate ways to protest any wrongdoings and venues who will support you if you bring a case forward against someone doing it in the name of religion.

Certainly Scientology continues to shoot itself in the foot without any effort on my part to laugh at them...

Finally, I'll post the views of a man whom I hold in high regard, despite his tag of 'Dr Stupid' - Mr Stimpson J. Cat:

I look at it this way. A skeptic is somebody who thinks that all beliefs about factual things should be based on reliable evidence.

Now before somebody asks me the obvious question of whether there is evidence to base this belief on, it is not a belief in that sense of the term. That is, it is not a belief about some factual state of affairs. Technically speaking, it is an epistemological viewpoint.

A couple of points can thus be made:

1) A skeptic may hold beliefs which he simply does not realize are not supported by reliable evidence, either because he is mistaken about the evidence he has based the belief on, or because it simply never even occurred to him to question the belief.

2) Different skeptics may disagree on what constitutes reliable evidence, due to differing levels of knowledge concerning the methods used to gather that evidence, misinformation from sources the person thinks to be reliable, or a number of other reasons.

3) No skeptic holds only beliefs which are justified by reliable evidence. That is something skeptics strive for. A skeptic differs from somebody who is simply "open minded" in that whereas the open minded person will believe claims when they are shown to be true, and cease believing them when they are shown to be false, a skeptic strives to withhold judgement until enough evidence is available to decide one way or the other, and a skeptic actively strives to make sure that he does not hold beliefs which are not justified. But this is something which we strive for, and not a perfect state which can actually be attained.

That said, I think that it is certainly possible for a skeptic to be a theist. All that is required is one of the following:

1) It actually never occurred to the skeptic to question whether his belief in god was justified or not. This may seem strange in our society, but in some societies the idea is so thoroughly ingrained into a person's way of thinking that it might be quite some time before it ever occurs to them to question it.

2) He may actually think that his belief in god is justified by reliable evidence. This is what I thought until about the age of 13. I had been repeatedly told by my parents (who are both very scientifically knowledgable people) that Christianity had tons of scientific evidence supporting it, and I considered them to be reliable sources of scientific information. When I began to learn that (a) they were not nearly as reliable as I thought, and (b) that most, if not all, of the "scientific evidence" that they had told me about was thoroughly debunked, I stopped believing.

Likewise a skeptic may believe in a deistic conception of god, based on various logical arguments about causality, complexity and structure in the universe, and so on. If they consider these arguments to be valid, and consider the apparent structure and complexity of the universe to be reliable evidence for the existence of their deistic god, then they can still be skeptics.

They are just wrong.

Dr. Stupid

I would add that the notion of 'faith' is perfectly acceptable too, IMHO.

Not all religious people are fundamentalists or bad people - you may find a fundamentalist who is quite a nice, caring person. I've certainly lived with hosts who believed some very strange things (Masaru Emoto's theories about water, for one), so it's not that unlikely. I've worked for (as a teacher) in pretty much every major religion.

I prefer to look at the educational systems rather than tilt vainly and harshly at gigantic windmills of religion that have time, history, money, people and often a desire to oust hurtful fundamentalism themselves.

Choose your fora, choose your fights. One step at a time.

[statisticool]

My problem is that by pursuing and questioning these fundamentalists a certain aggressive attitude seems to follow that seems typical of skeptical people. I feel like an {!#%@}, our position seems almost impenetrable afterall who can blame someone for not knowing? So are we doomed to be forever disliked by the world or is there a way of being skeptical and still pursue the theists and atheists without seeming like a dick?

It is entirely up to you how you'd like your movement to be remembered.

[Chachacha]

As long as religious people are not taking over my government, knocking on my door, or trying to stop me from walking away from their religious spewings, I feel no need to be aggressive towards them.

HOWEVER, I have a very major fault and that is responding in kind and also being easily reduced to the lowest common denominator, so if religious people push me, I push back; if they are rude or dismissive or threaten me with eternal damnation, the gloves come off; and if they want to engage me in a game of 'well what about this' to "prove" they're right and I'm wrong, I want to break the 6th Commandment.

[Mordread]

...knocking on my door, or trying to stop me from walking away from their religious spewings, I feel no need to be aggressive towards them.

I feel the same way, however, where I live it's very difficult to do that down here.  In the last month I've had people from the following churches knocking on my door to "spread their message: Southern Baptists, Mormons, members of the Church of Christ, Jehovah's witnesses.

Since moving into our current home, we've received an average of three visits a month.  It's gotten so old, that I have a stock answer as soon as I open the door:  "Look, I was raised Methodist, my mom is a recovered Mormon, I was a 'born again' Baptist for about two months, I'm married to a Catholic, and I am now atheist...you're not going to convince me."

Thus far it has worked pretty well.

[JO 753]

Mordread. Just for fun tell them youre a Satanist. Maybe even print up some pamphlets & try to convert them.

[Kiless]

...knocking on my door, or trying to stop me from walking away from their religious spewings, I feel no need to be aggressive towards them.

I feel the same way, however, where I live it's very difficult to do that down here.  In the last month I've had people from the following churches knocking on my door to "spread their message: Southern Baptists, Mormons, members of the Church of Christ, Jehovah's witnesses.

Since moving into our current home, we've received an average of three visits a month.  It's gotten so old, that I have a stock answer as soon as I open the door:  "Look, I was raised Methodist, my mom is a recovered Mormon, I was a 'born again' Baptist for about two months, I'm married to a Catholic, and I am now atheist...you're not going to convince me."

Thus far it has worked pretty well.

I'm wondering if a sign on your door - 'no unsolicited visits' or something like that? I know my country is in the proceedure of something like this for phonecalls and we have a 'no junk mail' on our letterbox.

I found this about the legal ramifications of unwanted soliciting by Jehovah's Witnesses: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... atton.html
another article here from a First Ammendment group:
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/d ... ntID=16431

Found these:
http://www.tiburon-belvedere.com/cgi/ho ... Soliciting
Uh, I think this one is a joke...
http://txfx.net/2004/02/22/no-soliciting-sign/

BTW - H2G2's take on the 'dangers of doorknocking'... maybe give this as a flyer in return... http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3682352  

[TGT35W]

Should we be aggressive in pursuing religous fundamentalists or should we sit on the sidelines and let them battle it out, there are many who believe that doing nothing will just lead to more holy wars. My problem is that by pursuing and questioning these fundamentalists a certain aggressive attitude seems to follow that seems typical of skeptical people. I feel like an {!#%@}, our position seems almost impenetrable afterall who can blame someone for not knowing? So are we doomed to be forever disliked by the world or is there a way of being skeptical and still pursue the theists and atheists without seeming like a dick?
I fear this aggression flows through other modes of thinking and may make us outwardly a negative people. any thoughts?

I haven't yet figured out what to do, so I take the skeptic's stance: I just seek to understand them. I recognize that we are all human, and we share a good number of things in common. I encounter people who have very different beliefs than I do, and I am usually pretty appalled at their "stupidity." But lately I've tried to tone myself down and be skeptical of their stupidity...there are a lot of reasons why people believe the things they do; stupidity is maybe not even one of the primary ones....there are a lot of psychological and cultural factors to think about, and reason/rationality typically doesn't matter (not to mention, it could be myself who is in the wrong, in any given situation). I think getting frustrated or aggressive is a result of going after the person rather than the belief. If you enter an encounter with the honest belief that you are talking with someone who is your equal, someone who has just as much to offer to you as you to them, you may find it much more civil of a discussion. You just need to realize what they have to offer - it may not be scientific evidence, but may be a better understanding of human nature.

If you try to "convert" someone to your way of thinking, you will most likely fail no matter what approach you take...people don't like to be converted unless they do it themselves. What I strive for is mutual understanding. That way we can all coexist peacefully (I know, it's a lofty goal). And that way, there's a chance that the fundamentalist/whoever will objectively recognize that there are other points of view out there, and may recognize other POVs as having merit (and then may try to gain further understanding of the other POVs).

That's my current opinion.

[USAskeptic]

I agree with Kiless' concept, that aggressiveness is detrimental. When two opposing beliefs come into contact, the predominate method of thinking will be the emotional supporting or defending of the beliefs, and where there is emotional thinking, there is no logical reasoning. The stronger one belief attempts to sway the other belief, the stronger will the opposite belief bunker-down and defend itself.

Aggressiveness is a bad behavior, and it is bad because it is not creative in the sense that it does not produce a higher state of harmonious quality. The laws of Nature dictate that where a force exists, there will be an equal opposing force. Applying aggressiveness will create an equal force of defensiveness. Attempting to use aggressiveness for creativity is basically the attempt to overcome the laws of Nature, which is not a logical behavior.

In my opinion, based upon what little knowledge I have with fundamentalism, is to approach the belief with sincere questions that politely ask for your own understanding of the beliefs themselves, and not of the individuals’ beliefs. By applying the approach of questioning, the opposite force becomes answering, which leads to a productive dialogue.

It is logical to observe the laws of Nature. It is not logical to attempt to overcome the laws of Nature.

I just put a post in Critical Thinking 101 that explains my view of how skepticism should be used and presented.

[pointzeroenergy]

hi
I may have misrepresented myself here. I don't attack people on the beliefs. I learned that the hard way, my parents are fundamentalist christians who happen to be quite wealthy, and despite my ethical quams with wealth and religion, my parents are rock steady, certainly I have learned to be more patient with people.
To restate things, I'm am still fairly young and I graduate as an engineer in a year, many of my friends who have no formal education, and they frequently present ideas and facts to me which I am often quite skeptical of.  I find myself being pulled in to directions. One to just be dosile about it and just pretend there right, in which case my ethics as an engineer may jeopordize someone, or I open my big mouth and piss someone off.
I'm 23 and I still feel like I have no idea what the hell is going on, I thought things were supposed to come together nicely by 22.

Thanx for everyones replies, it's refreshing to hear different perspectives on this, the society of skeptics seems to be in small numbers.

[USAskeptic]

To restate things, I'm am still fairly young and I graduate as an engineer in a year, many of my friends who have no formal education, and they frequently present ideas and facts to me which I am often quite skeptical of.  I find myself being pulled in to directions. One to just be dosile about it and just pretend there right, in which case my ethics as an engineer may jeopordize someone, or I open my big mouth and piss someone off.
I'm 23 and I still feel like I have no idea what the hell is going on, I thought things were supposed to come together nicely by 22.

Oh don't worry about not knowing everything at 23, you'll find that at 93 you're still wondering what the heck is going on. The instant you start thinking you know something, hey, it's time to step back and slap yourself for making such a dumb mistake. It's a nutty world, and we just fumble through the best we can.

I understand what you're saying about wanting to help others but not wanting to cause trouble. Many people have it worse during the 30 year old phase (get prepared ). Probably the best opinion of mine is to just play it by ear, do what you feel is best for each situation, and remain honest in it all. We can't do much for other people, but we can make sure our own behavior is as correct as possible.

[UseYourNoodle]

Since a position based on faith is one without any evidence it can't be debated. People of faith believe not out of reason but out of fears and desires for there is no evidence to support their belief. It is obvious from the interactions on this site that a rational debate has no effect on those who cast reason to the wind and believe in things through faith. In their mind desire trumps logic. If a person has no desire to see the world as it actually is, getting them to change their mind and abandon their comfortable myths is next to impossible. (but it is still fun to ask them questions that you know make them face facts they want to deny )

[DeusEx_Humana]

Since a position based on faith is one without any evidence it can't be debated. People of faith believe not out of reason but out of fears and desires for there is no evidence to support their belief. It is obvious from the interactions on this site that a rational debate has no effect on those who cast reason to the wind and believe in things through faith. In their mind desire trumps logic. If a person has no desire to see the world as it actually is, getting them to change their mind and abandon their comfortable myths is next to impossible. (but it is still fun to ask them questions that you know make them face facts they want to deny )

Very true, unfortunately.