Atheists are sounding more like evangelical Christians.

[Captain Utopia]

I don't know any Evangelical AMs, but here is a tack I'd try:
"If I were a God who had invented Emergence (with Evolution as a by-product), I'd sure be proud of my creation. In fact, I wouldn't bother doing anything else, I'd just throw some shit together and let everything else work itself out inevitably. If I got bored, I'd just invent myself some patience. If you can't explain the force behind Emergence, aren't you just.. agnostic?"

..then back away slowly.

[Kai]

to which they'd answer, wtf is emergence?

[Golden Applesauce]

On personal reflections of belief in one or more Gods - Most of the time I don't believe in a God, sometimes I believe in the absence of Gods, and very rarely I even believe that a God could quite possibly exist, although he'd better have a pretty damn good explanation for all of this.  That said, I'm the kind of guy who was never entirely convinced (when he was younger) that the aliens from the Animorphs series were fictional, and that the world really wasn't being run by gray brain-infesting slugs, and who always wondered if the reason he couldn't move/set on fire things with his mind was because he just wasn't concentrating hard enough.  I still wonder about the questions "Do other people have inner lives?" and "Did the past really happen?" which is apparently not commonplace?

My mom says when they told me about Santa Claus when I was 4/5 I pulled an all nighter and set traps by the tree, which ironically actually worked and somehow injured my fathers leg, or knee or something. Then when my father tried to tell my baby sister about Santa Claus four years later I immediately ruined it for her...


I think Im incapable of belief lol

Oddly enough, I figured out Santa Clause pretty early on.  It was obvious that the Santa stories were written is the same register as any other fairy tale, and all the "save Christmas from people who don't believe in Santa" TV specials were so condescendingly banal.  That, and beardy fat strangers in red suits always scared the shit out of me.

I honestly don't understand creationists. I can understand the religious (I'm one of them, in any case) but I don't understand supernatural creation scemes that go so far from the current scientifically revealed reality. It seems like wishful hoping that reality is wrong. But furthermore, how is creationism satisfying to anyone but the most small minded? To be told your place in the universe instead of seeking those answers yourself is stiffling to the circuits of any person, especially when those answers turn out to be false. It's only really possible to keep creationist when you have an insular community backing you up. Science can operate in isolation, somewhat, because it is at least based on real measurements, but a creationist among non-creationists who has no community of creationists to run back to will quickly be unable to operate in that society under their held beliefs, unless there is some sort of change of worldview and acceptance of other ways to see the universe.

Unrelated tangent, of course. This thread was about evangelical atheists.

The central story among many of the more fundamentalist Christians is not the life, death, and Resurrection of Christ but the old Adam and Eve story.  Specifically, God created a perfect utopia for humanity, who promptly fucked it up through their own sinfulness which taints humanity forever.  (Except for Mary, who still has her hymen intact after bearing multiple children.)  What is important is that the death of Christ is payment for the Original Sin, not your own personal sins.  Accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior is the only way to be forgiven for the Original Sin committed by Adam and Eve, and is necessary (and some say sufficient) for getting into Heaven.

For this to work, the events in the Garden have to have actually happened.  You can't have Christ paying price of death for something that only happened metaphorically.  Likewise, humanity has to fall from grace of its own volition - if the story is just an allegory of how humanity is inherently sinful, then that means that God created humanity to be naturally sinful.  Humanity has to be made in God's image, and then mess it up through the liberal application of their own dang free will.  Otherwise there's nothing to be forgiven; seeking forgiveness for basic human nature is as meaningless as asking forgiveness for having four appendages.  There needs to be a definite point in time where humans were not sinful that God's grace can return you to.  And humans need to have been humans at said time, rather than single celled organisms looking forward to having a functioning nucleus.

And of course there's a lot of theologically important stuff in Genesis that's relevant to all branches of Christianity.  Specifically, that God looked down on creation and saw that it was good is important (especially to the more affirmative versions of Christianity) as is that humans are created in the image of God.

As to how creationists can maintain their worldview in the modern world - it's surprisingly easy.  Kids love dinosaurs, so you just replace the sciency dinosaur books with creationist ones that hasten to explain that scientists are fallible just like everyone else (true) that the mechanics underlying fossilization are still largely unknown (almost true, and possibly true for books that were published early enough) and very controversial, even among scientists (false) and that all forms of geological dating are wildly inaccurate and very controversial (false) and that the whole thing is just one model and theory about reality, which is kind of silly given that we already know what happened - it's written right there in the Most Important Book In The World.  Those wacky evilutionists!  If you combine this with the belief that Satan Is Real, and that everyone who isn't a member of your sect is willingly or unwittingly an agent of Satan, it's pretty easy to generate the kind of insularity you require.  (This involves not watching degenerate television, not going to schools controlled by the Athiest Zionist Homosexual Satanists, and not reading anything not pre-screened by ultraconservative groups as being safe for Christian consumption - effectively isolating yourself from everything outside your church.)

[Kai]

see, thats just what I was saying. A single creationist cut off completely from other creationists would not be able to sustain their worldview. It's not self sustaining, it needs support and validation of coconspirators to continue. Without this it withers. Creationism isn't particularly robust in that sense, it can't handle dissent. When my people are telling me one thing and reality another, I need constant reinforcement that "reality" is "the devils work" or I start to think otherwise.

[Requia ☣]

Didn't an atheist come through here ranting about how we were no different from the Christians because we worship Eris?

[Eater of Clowns]

see, thats just what I was saying. A single creationist cut off completely from other creationists would not be able to sustain their worldview. It's not self sustaining, it needs support and validation of coconspirators to continue. Without this it withers. Creationism isn't particularly robust in that sense, it can't handle dissent. When my people are telling me one thing and reality another, I need constant reinforcement that "reality" is "the devils work" or I start to think otherwise.

I see what you're saying, but this logic can be extended to almost any ideology.  Few, very very few, individuals could sustain their worldviews without support.  Primates are too social a creature to face such constant and resounding dissent.

[Captain Utopia]

see, thats just what I was saying. A single creationist cut off completely from other creationists would not be able to sustain their worldview. It's not self sustaining, it needs support and validation of coconspirators to continue. Without this it withers. Creationism isn't particularly robust in that sense, it can't handle dissent. When my people are telling me one thing and reality another, I need constant reinforcement that "reality" is "the devils work" or I start to think otherwise.

I see what you're saying, but this logic can be extended to almost any ideology.  Few, very very few, individuals could sustain their worldviews without support.  Primates are too social a creature to face such constant and resounding dissent.

Dissent is an entirely different thing from a lack of support.

I don't think it takes a talented individual to sustain worldviews which fall into either category - I have some going back a decade or more - at least several worldviews in both categories. The difficulty in comparing maps is a motivating factor in any society, to modify your maps to match the others you've seen. But if you're prepared to put up with a little difficulty, you don't need to fully internalise that conceptual compromise.

Probably every member of this (or any) community believes that the community consensus is wrong on at least one issue - not worth fighting, but not exactly a struggle to remember it as an exception to the map, either.

Now, to take Kai's example, and to put it into my mapping above - I'd say the Creationist doesn't necessarily stop believing the worldview, but without support they stop communicating it in the same way as before. Functionally there might not seem to be any difference, but the test might be whether they go back to expressing Creationist thought when placed in a tank of Creationists -- if so, then you could make the argument that Evolution is not robust.

So I think 'robust' might be a red-herring, as isn't it the utility of the belief, in any given environment, that which drives its uptake?

[Eater of Clowns]

see, thats just what I was saying. A single creationist cut off completely from other creationists would not be able to sustain their worldview. It's not self sustaining, it needs support and validation of coconspirators to continue. Without this it withers. Creationism isn't particularly robust in that sense, it can't handle dissent. When my people are telling me one thing and reality another, I need constant reinforcement that "reality" is "the devils work" or I start to think otherwise.

I see what you're saying, but this logic can be extended to almost any ideology.  Few, very very few, individuals could sustain their worldviews without support.  Primates are too social a creature to face such constant and resounding dissent.

Dissent is an entirely different thing from a lack of support.

I don't think it takes a talented individual to sustain worldviews which fall into either category - I have some going back a decade or more - at least several worldviews in both categories. The difficulty in comparing maps is a motivating factor in any society, to modify your maps to match the others you've seen. But if you're prepared to put up with a little difficulty, you don't need to fully internalise that conceptual compromise.

Probably every member of this (or any) community believes that the community consensus is wrong on at least one issue - not worth fighting, but not exactly a struggle to remember it as an exception to the map, either.

Now, to take Kai's example, and to put it into my mapping above - I'd say the Creationist doesn't necessarily stop believing the worldview, but without support they stop communicating it in the same way as before. Functionally there might not seem to be any difference, but the test might be whether they go back to expressing Creationist thought when placed in a tank of Creationists -- if so, then you could make the argument that Evolution is not robust.

So I think 'robust' might be a red-herring, as isn't it the utility of the belief, in any given environment, that which drives its uptake?

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

Sorry for linking ebaums but it's the only site that hasn't had the video pulled off

Don't underestimate the power of conformity.  It can be resisted without a doubt, but that is not the norm for human behavior.  To assume that creationists are any more susceptible to conformity than atheists or any other widely supported worldview is to disregard our highly social nature.

[Kai]

Didn't an atheist come through here ranting about how we were no different from the Christians because we worship Eris?

A stunning example of evangelical AM.

[Captain Utopia]

see, thats just what I was saying. A single creationist cut off completely from other creationists would not be able to sustain their worldview. It's not self sustaining, it needs support and validation of coconspirators to continue. Without this it withers. Creationism isn't particularly robust in that sense, it can't handle dissent. When my people are telling me one thing and reality another, I need constant reinforcement that "reality" is "the devils work" or I start to think otherwise.

I see what you're saying, but this logic can be extended to almost any ideology.  Few, very very few, individuals could sustain their worldviews without support.  Primates are too social a creature to face such constant and resounding dissent.

Dissent is an entirely different thing from a lack of support.

I don't think it takes a talented individual to sustain worldviews which fall into either category - I have some going back a decade or more - at least several worldviews in both categories. The difficulty in comparing maps is a motivating factor in any society, to modify your maps to match the others you've seen. But if you're prepared to put up with a little difficulty, you don't need to fully internalise that conceptual compromise.

Probably every member of this (or any) community believes that the community consensus is wrong on at least one issue - not worth fighting, but not exactly a struggle to remember it as an exception to the map, either.

Now, to take Kai's example, and to put it into my mapping above - I'd say the Creationist doesn't necessarily stop believing the worldview, but without support they stop communicating it in the same way as before. Functionally there might not seem to be any difference, but the test might be whether they go back to expressing Creationist thought when placed in a tank of Creationists -- if so, then you could make the argument that Evolution is not robust.

So I think 'robust' might be a red-herring, as isn't it the utility of the belief, in any given environment, that which drives its uptake?

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

Sorry for linking ebaums but it's the only site that hasn't had the video pulled off

Don't underestimate the power of conformity.  It can be resisted without a doubt, but that is not the norm for human behavior.  To assume that creationists are any more susceptible to conformity than atheists or any other widely supported worldview is to disregard our highly social nature.

Nice video. Both sources could be equally well explained by the subjects not wanting to look stupid. In the case of the Asch experiments, it was said that the individuals blamed things like "poor eyesight" for giving the same (obviously wrong) answer as the rest of the group. But this says nothing about what they believed internally at that time. E.g. "I really don't want to look stupid so I'll blame my eyesight". If they had no reason to remember that they just didn't want to look stupid, then it's likely the eyesight excuse would become dominant in whenever they recounted the event. Perhaps even to themselves within a short amount of time.

In the case of the elevator video, I can absolutely imagine the subjects saying something like "You wouldn't believe the bozo's in the elevator this morning - they were all looking the wrong way - well yes, I turned too - it was more uncomfortable not to - I just wanted to get to the office asap". If the subject knew the people standing the wrong way - say co-workers - isn't it more likely he'd laugh and say "Why are you guys facing the other way?".

But in both cases you're taking something which the individual had little or no personal investment in - you can't use that to extrapolate that a worldview is as easily malleable - and setting up an artificial path of least resistance seems a parlour game amusement.

E.g. if you have three cones and set them up in a rough 1m side triangle on any thoroughfare, people will flow around it even though there's nothing wrong with the ground it deliniates. "Hahaha" - they're conforming vs. "Hahaha" - they don't give a shit and it takes a negligible amount of energy to avoid. If you do the same on a narrow sidewalk, taking up most of it, people are more likely to evaluate the situation and walk through the triangle rather than step onto the road. What does that prove?

[Eater of Clowns]

Nice video. Both sources could be equally well explained by the subjects not wanting to look stupid. In the case of the Asch experiments, it was said that the individuals blamed things like "poor eyesight" for giving the same (obviously wrong) answer as the rest of the group. But this says nothing about what they believed internally at that time. E.g. "I really don't want to look stupid so I'll blame my eyesight". If they had no reason to remember that they just didn't want to look stupid, then it's likely the eyesight excuse would become dominant in whenever they recounted the event. Perhaps even to themselves within a short amount of time.

There's no "poor eyesight" on which to blame a worldview.  They might not internalize others' beliefs, but even without fear of reprisal they're unlikely to voice their dissent for fear of being othered.  If they aren't acting on it, speaking about it, or otherwise doing anything with it, then why does it matter whether or not they have it?

In the case of the elevator video, I can absolutely imagine the subjects saying something like "You wouldn't believe the bozo's in the elevator this morning - they were all looking the wrong way - well yes, I turned too - it was more uncomfortable not to - I just wanted to get to the office asap". If the subject knew the people standing the wrong way - say co-workers - isn't it more likely he'd laugh and say "Why are you guys facing the other way?".

Probably, but remember we're talking about an individual lacking support here.  They might think it was odd for people to be standing incorrectly in the elevator, but because those people seemingly have no relation to one another and came to that practice individually, they might begin wondering who was standing properly in the first place, themselves or the others.  Consensus comes to dictate reality.

But in both cases you're taking something which the individual had little or no personal investment in - you can't use that to extrapolate that a worldview is as easily malleable - and setting up an artificial path of least resistance seems a parlour game amusement

E.g. if you have three cones and set them up in a rough 1m side triangle on any thoroughfare, people will flow around it even though there's nothing wrong with the ground it deliniates. "Hahaha" - they're conforming vs. "Hahaha" - they don't give a shit and it takes a negligible amount of energy to avoid. If you do the same on a narrow sidewalk, taking up most of it, people are more likely to evaluate the situation and walk through the triangle rather than step onto the road. What does that prove?

The Asch study is a bit more personal than avoiding a patch of sidewalk.  You're talking about people who can see very plainly that everyone else is wrong but are unwilling to voice their opinions.  That's a very damaging and disheartening thing to do, doublethink from 1984 essentially.  Now since I'm at work I can't verify this is the correct video, but if it is pay attention to the people who actually do voice dissent.  They quickly become almost lethargic and broken for not conforming in their opinion.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x44uze_conformity-asch-recreation_blog

Again, sorry if it's the wrong video or if it just plain doesn't work.

My point is, subtleties of the argument aside, that creationism is not the only point of view that will fail to stand up against popular dissent.

[Captain Utopia]

There's no "poor eyesight" on which to blame a worldview.  They might not internalize others' beliefs, but even without fear of reprisal they're unlikely to voice their dissent for fear of being othered. 

Not wanting to shake the paranoia stick - but surface agreement in many cases does not imply acceptance. One instance is when the suppressed worldview meets a person who expresses a neutral opinion - upon discussing the issues, which worldview is given the most weight in that conversation?

There isn't a right answer precisely because it depends on the complexity of the individual circumstances. However, if we're talking about how memes spread, I don't think we should discount the effect.

If they aren't acting on it, speaking about it, or otherwise doing anything with it, then why does it matter whether or not they have it?

I think this is an impossible construct. To agree with you, I'd have to insert the hidden term that the individual does not ever think about the issue again.

In the case of the elevator video, I can absolutely imagine the subjects saying something like "You wouldn't believe the bozo's in the elevator this morning - they were all looking the wrong way - well yes, I turned too - it was more uncomfortable not to - I just wanted to get to the office asap". If the subject knew the people standing the wrong way - say co-workers - isn't it more likely he'd laugh and say "Why are you guys facing the other way?".

Probably, but remember we're talking about an individual lacking support here.  They might think it was odd for people to be standing incorrectly in the elevator, but because those people seemingly have no relation to one another and came to that practice individually, they might begin wondering who was standing properly in the first place, themselves or the others.  Consensus comes to dictate reality.

I find this conclusion too broad.

Consensus effects an individuals reactions to an environment, which in turn effects perception, which in turn effects how that individual thinks about the world.. nudging them into a particular reality tunnel. But if we're still talking about the instance where the individual suffers fools, and acts like one because it's the path of least resistance, while maintaining their internal worldview.. then you need to define some additional parameters which would negate that individuals internal processes.

The Asch study is a bit more personal than avoiding a patch of sidewalk.  You're talking about people who can see very plainly that everyone else is wrong but are unwilling to voice their opinions.  That's a very damaging and disheartening thing to do, doublethink from 1984 essentially.  Now since I'm at work I can't verify this is the correct video, but if it is pay attention to the people who actually do voice dissent.  They quickly become almost lethargic and broken for not conforming in their opinion.

I say good! People who can't dissent with a smile and a healthy attitude and inner confidence, are not doing any cause any good.

Unfortunately I couldn't get the video to work - my flash is broken, and I couldn't find the swf video link on that page.

My point is, subtleties of the argument aside, that creationism is not the only point of view that will fail to stand up against popular dissent.

I completely agree.

Given our worlds view, where the scientific method has consistently provided tangible results, evolution is more "robust" than creationism. If we start burning scientists and anyone who uses confusing logic, then creationism would become more "robust" than evolution.

[Thurnez Isa]

I don't know any Evangelical AMs, but here is a tack I'd try:
"If I were a God who had invented Emergence (with Evolution as a by-product), I'd sure be proud of my creation. In fact, I wouldn't bother doing anything else, I'd just throw some shit together and let everything else work itself out inevitably. If I got bored, I'd just invent myself some patience. If you can't explain the force behind Emergence, aren't you just.. agnostic?"

..then back away slowly.

agnosticism deals with lack of knowledge (unless your Huxley agnostic and too wussy to actually form a position)
atheism deals with lack of belief
They are used just generally by people to give a quick position on where you place on the scale. Depending on the type of God in discussion depends on the type of term used.
It gets much more thorny when you actually apply it to certain situations. In fact you could be atheistic, theistic, agnostic, and gnostic about a specific God. For example if you show me a small idol you say is our God, I would be theistic and gnostic about the existence of that specific God (I have special knowledge of it's existence, especially if I could get independent verification) but atheistic about your claim that if you pray to the idol it rains.
Most atheists I talk to know and use the terms in these ways

[Captain Utopia]

You have a point. Reading back, what I wrote was just a silly riff on the tired old "well where do you think the universe comes from, dummy?"

[Requia ☣]

I don't know any Evangelical AMs, but here is a tack I'd try:
"If I were a God who had invented Emergence (with Evolution as a by-product), I'd sure be proud of my creation. In fact, I wouldn't bother doing anything else, I'd just throw some shit together and let everything else work itself out inevitably. If I got bored, I'd just invent myself some patience. If you can't explain the force behind Emergence, aren't you just.. agnostic?"

..then back away slowly.

agnosticism deals with lack of knowledge (unless your Huxley agnostic and too wussy to actually form a position)
atheism deals with lack of belief
They are used just generally by people to give a quick position on where you place on the scale. Depending on the type of God in discussion depends on the type of term used.
It gets much more thorny when you actually apply it to certain situations. In fact you could be atheistic, theistic, agnostic, and gnostic about a specific God. For example if you show me a small idol you say is our God, I would be theistic and gnostic about the existence of that specific God (I have special knowledge of it's existence, especially if I could get independent verification) but atheistic about your claim that if you pray to the idol it rains.
Most atheists I talk to know and use the terms in these ways

Huxley agnostic?

Given that he made the word up, wouldn't Huxley agnostic be the default form of agnostic?