If understanding does not provoke belief, then what does?

[Boojatta]

First we need to distinguish between belief in the correctness of some system of ideas and mere understanding of the system of ideas. No matter how thorough one's understanding may be, if one is not a believer then the element of belief is absent.

How does one's belief in the correctness of some system of ideas help one convert nonbelievers into believers or help one to increase the odds that a believer will continue to believe?

Is the answer that a believer is motivated to find arguments in favor of the beliefs and not motivated to find errors in those arguments? Yet, why should that be the situation? If you actually desire to know the truth, then shouldn't we expect you be interested in knowing whether or not a given argument that you are relying on is faulty?

Are there any propaganda techniques that believers are able to apply and that nonbelievers are unable to apply?

[bluerum]

1. Shock and awe. nt

[Finder]

2. Shunning, threatening, etc...

Just ask BMUS what would happen if she came out of the closet. How many are NOT believers but afraid to speak out for fear of a blacklisting of sorts or even worse?

It is said there is power in numbers--even if those numbers are false.

The perception that belief is the norm enables that system to retain legitimacy and stay in power.

Resistance is futile when it comes to the religioborg.(in some communities)

[Boojatta]

3. The topic is actual belief rather than belief in name only.

Shunning, threatening, etc...
How many are NOT believers but afraid to speak out for fear of a blacklisting of sorts or even worse?

Aren't you then showing that shunning, threatening, etc. can provoke people to claim to be believers?

[Finder]

5. Yes, I am....

because I have yet to meet a self-decribed believer who understood what they supposedly believed in according to the theology of said belief system. Most identify with a religion rarely because of theology but because of popularity in the community, single issue stances/politics or because they were raised in said system.

Religion has become philosopy and/or politics rather than theology for the majority of "believers" IMO.

Most religions do not demand their supporters and tithers believe in strict terms as long as the money keeps flowing. Those that do(think phelps)usually only have a handful of members, mostly family.

I would also point out that attempts of conversion is usually between sects or religions, not unbeliever to believer.

[Boojatta]

7. Let's not argue about words.

I would also point out that attempts of conversion is usually between sects or religions, not unbeliever to believer.

When I used the term "believer" I meant it to be understood that we had first chosen some particular (unspecified) system of ideas that the believer believes in. So anyone who doesn't believe in that particular system (whatever it may be) would be classified as a nonbeliever. Now that you mention it, I can see that someone might resent being classified as a "nonbeliever."

[charles22]

9. Not really sure what you are going after, then.

Could you restate what your thesis statement is? You seem to be wanting to discuss something that looks productive, but not clear yet. You want to know how to convert believers into non-believers?

[beam me up scottie]

8. Thanks, that's a very good point.

Before I moved down here, I went from an I-could-care-less-about-religion agnostic to an angry uppity atheist because of the way * and his cabal stirred up religious hatred towards atheists and non-christians. I hadn't realized it still existed in such quantity until then.

As for my closet, I hate myself for staying in here sometimes, but it doesn't stop me from defending other minorities from the bigots that surround me. And I have convinced more than one to look at life from another perspective.

[NMMNG]

11. Interesting

Before I moved down here, I went from an I-could-care-less-about-religion agnostic to an angry uppity atheist because of the way * and his cabal stirred up religious hatred toward atheists and non-christians. I hadn't realized it still existed in such quantity until then.


When I first lost my faith I was a very passive "don't care about religion/the religious" atheist. I treated religion as I did sports--I'm not interested, I don't care, I don't pay attention.

Then * and the RW whackjobs came along and things changed. There were people who were trying to take over the country and they were using their religion to do it. Suddenly I could no longer be the passive, uninvolved atheist. I had to fight back or suffer the consequences.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Militant atheism is a reaction to militant theism.

Frankly, the people who don't want to give up their nice safe "I'm an agnostic, I don't have an opinion" position are helping the dominionists and their stooges destroy the Constitution.



Shields up, Mr. Sulu.

[salvorhardin]

13. Exactly! n/t

[NMMNG]

14. "Militant atheism" is far different from militant theism however

Militant theism seeks to force all to be believers (or at least pretend to be), to kowtow to the demands of believers, and to live under laws created for the benefit of believers. Militant atheism merely seeks to prevent this.

[kiahzero]

15. Clearly you've missed the "Ban all religion" posts, then.

Believe it or not, there are atheists who seek to destroy theism. They're a definite minority, but they do exist.

[NMMNG]

16. I haven't missed anything

I've seen many a post from atheists who believe the world would be better off without religion. However I've not seen posts from atheists "seeking to destroy theism". There is a difference.

[beam me up scottie]

19. Point them out.

I must have missed them too.

[kiahzero]

20. Next time I come across one, I'll PM you. (n/t)

[beam me up scottie]

21. Translation: You made it up.

The next time you want to level accusations at us, maybe you should do your homework.

[kiahzero]

23. No, I really didn't

I just fail at using the DU search to find a single post containing multiple keywords... when I do a keyword search, it searches for a thread containing those same keywords. Combined with the fact that I'm not entirely positive of the exact phrasing used, it makes for far more effort than I'm willing to go to. If I run across it again, I'll PM you, as I said.

You do realize that I wasn't attacking you, or the post I replied to, right? I was simply pointing out that there exists a minority which do seek to eliminate theism; I wasn't saying they are a majority, or even a large minority, merely that such people exist. Given that some have interpreted Marxism to require the abolishment of religion, I don't see why it's so hard to believe that such people exist. In every group there are people that the group members would rather not associate with: Christians get stuck with the fundamentalists that we all so revile, pagans like myself get stuck with the fluff-bunnies, and atheists get stuck with the militantly antitheists. It's not " accusations" at Christians to say that fundamentalists exist, I don't feel accused when someone points out a fluff-bunny, so I don't intend to make anyone feel so accused when I acknowledge the mere existence of those who seek the destruction of religion.

[kiahzero]

24. Here's one

I know I'd say I'd PM, but that was on the assumption that it would be a bit before I saw one again (I never said it was common), but I happened to be poking around and found this one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=92044&mesg_id=92048

4. Is God dead?

I certainly hope so!
That asshole did nothing but fuck people up for thousands of years.
We'll get along just fine without him!
Goodbye and good riddance.

Now if we can just rid ourselves of the people who still think he's somehow relevant...

The poster backed away from the "Kill all the believers" connotations his post had later on, and this wasn't one of the posts I was thinking of when I made the original comment. I vaguely remember them being the first reply to two different threads on two different civil rights issues involving religion. However, it was at least a few weeks ago, so I don't remember the specifics.

[Realityhack]

22. Same here. Haven't seen them. n/t

[Igel]

4. Kierkegaard.

I vaguely remember that I had little disagreement with him overall. Just quibbles.

The problem is that one can understand a theology without belief that it is "right", believe in a theology without proof. But one can also believe in God with little theology behind it; typically that's a nascent believer in search of a set of dogmas. (On edit: or a believer that disillusioned with a particular set of doctrines, and in search of another.)

For example, my wife is a believer in most of the pragmatic, practical aspects of Christian theodicy; she is a confirmed atheist. She believes there is no god (or, more accurately, that there is no proof for any god's existenced and no reason to assume one, therefore the default hypothesis is that there is none); she also believes that Xianity is a fine standard of behavior, so much so that she wants me to raise our kid in a church. Which church is entirely up to me.

To get from the systematic theology to belief in a diety ... Kierkegaard. Run up against something that you cannot understand, and have every reason to think that secular understanding is impossible. It's a way to impose order on chaos, to humbly find meaning in things; for others, it devolves into a way to be superior, have "special knowledge" a la Gnostics. Some use a diety, others use secret conspiracies, others use alternative sciences to find meaning or to boost their self-esteem.

Believing in a system of belief helps to convert outsiders because we're primates. If you trust a person you're likely to believe him/her; if they believe that a theology is the will of some deity, then you're more likely to seriously entertain the idea. If they testify to its usefulness in behavior or their inner life, you're more likely to adopt it. They argue its good points; you're unlikely to be able to argue its bad points. But if you believe in no deity then the argument is unimportant, by and large.

The principles of propaganda remain the same within a culture, and there are some commonalities, I suppose, across cultures. The details change. As in belles lettres, religious texts can provide a commonality for shorthand; but one must know the shorthand, and get "inside" the community's thinking to understand and combat it (few dems that I've seen successfully manage to understand the fundie community's culture, usually relegating it to a few stereotypical slogans). One can be cynical and appeal to in-community virtuals and aspirations, show that one is in-group and appeal to quasi-tribal differences: "Hey, I'm one of you!" As with other communities, there are salient aspects of behavior that serve as shorthand; reading a list of doctrines, religious or political, won't say which are important and which are less important.

This is different only in trivial details from how you propagandize other communities, Xian or Muslim, progressive or conservative.

[charles22]

6. Kierkegaard: Belief in God does not require His existence.

something like that.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. Early instruction confirmed and refined by experience

in my case and for many other people I know as well.

Some people who were raised without religion become seekers, and eventually they find something that "clicks."

[bryant69]

17. I can't speak for anybody else

But for me it is the experience of the divine that puts it all into context. If you experience the divine than the rest of the system fits together - but if you don't - well you can see how it is all supposed to work, but it won't do anything - it's like a car without a battery - you might be able to see how it is supposed to function, but it won't actually take you anywhere.

Bryant
Check it out--> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Realityhack]

18. Unbeleivers are unlikely to chose to try to convert you.

A beleiver in a message inwhich a central tenent is you should convert others will likely try to convert others. In fact there are reasons for a bleiver in anything to psychological wish to convert others.
Someone who understands but does not beleive is generaly free of many of those factors and unlikely to chose to try to convert someone in the first place.

A salesman can be quite good at converting people to things he/she does not bleive in. The skill is seperate from the beleif but motivation is generaly important.

Running short on time but in answer to:

"Is the answer that a believer is motivated to find arguments in favor of the beliefs and not motivated to find errors in those arguments? Yet, why should that be the situation?"

Commitment and consistancy, avoidance of cognative disonence, avoidence of embarasment, and a number of other psychological factors.