Why Should We Bother Having These Conversations?

I use to call them beanie when I’d forget yamakah. But no, it’s not worth discussing if the person is set on those issues like that. Tribulation is coming…oh boy, a nut job.

For your conversation with the Catholic, she is simply incorrect; “communion wafer” is the correct term: see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communion+wafer?qsrc=2446
certainly when it is being discussed with nonCatholics, and there should be nothing offensive about the term.

On the conversation with the fundamentalist, perhaps the fundamentalist would also view it as a waste of time, since his belief is based on the experience of miracles and the atheist dismisses the miraculous a priori

I would ask the Tribulation guy to put his money where his mouth is. Ask him to define some clear criteria to determine whether or not the Tribulation has occurred, and then each of you put up a $100 bet, with the winner determined by whether the criteria have been met in nine months.

If he waffles, point out that if he really believed and was truly certain, then there’s zero risk in making the bet.

When it will actually cost them something to be wrong, people start to think a little more deeply about their beliefs.

Is it even worth having that discussion when everything you say just goes in one ear and out the other?

Probably not. There might be a small chance you can plant a few seeds of doubt, though. You never really know what they take away from the conversation. It’s not like they’re going to admit to you that you said some things that made them think.

Otherwise, you could just see what you get out of it. Do you like having discussions, or does it just frustrate you?

For your conversation with the Catholic, she is simply incorrect; “communion wafer” is the correct term

No, not once it’s been magically transformed into the flesh of Zombie Jesus.

It would have been cooler if PZ had mixed it in with a batch of unconsecrated ones and asked them to figure out which one it was.

Say “I’ll call it the Consecrated Host. But from now on, you must refer to me as the ‘High Exhaulted Grand Pooh-Bah of Atheism, Excelsior!'”

But seriously, I might call a yarmulke a hat or a head-covering. But usually not, because I’m well aware of the actual word.

It’s not technically wrong to call it a hat, though. Nor is it technically wrong to call a communion wafer a wafer. However specifically it was the fact that the wafer had been consecrated that made it potentially offensive to Catholics when it wasn’t handled according to their protocol. Oh shoot. I said protocol. I’m sure that’s offensive in some way, because I didn’t use the right inside baseball term.

At some point, in a live-and-let-live society, religious people will need to come to grips with the idea that not everyone is going to know all the right ways to act when handed a wafer, or the right way to talk about that wafer.

“You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves in to.”

“You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves in to.”

CosmicThespian, from where did you get this quote!? LOL 😀

the atheist dismisses the miraculous a priori

Simply not true. We dismiss it if there is no evidence provided to support the claim.

The version of that quote I know, “You cannot reason people out of positions they didn’t reason themselves into,” is from Ben Goldacre. I got it from a Guardian article, although he says the same thing (slightly rephrased) in Bad Science.

Is the Tribulation where the Tribbles finally eat all the food?

What is the point of having these conversations? If your only goal is to change someone’s beliefs about a fundamental part of their worldview, then you’re bound to be frustrated.

If, on the other hand, you are interested in trying to learn more about others, to understand them, and perhaps help them to understand you, then conversations with religious people can be very rewarding.

We’re realists. We’re rationalists. Let’s be realistic and rational about engaging with people.

Simply not true. We dismiss it if there is no evidence provided to support the claim.

Ok; since the fundamentalist did not have “no evidence”, but instead had the evidence of his personal experience and the experience of others, then he should not be dismissed as a “religious nut” (as Richard did).

Ok; since the fundamentalist did not have “no evidence”, but instead had the evidence of his personal experience and the experience of others, then he should not be dismissed as a “religious nut” (as Richard did).

This is one of my least favorite sticking points. When I say “evidence”, I mean, probably, “non-anecdotal, scientifically verifiable, testable evidence”. I have to hash out a good definition of “good evidence”, but until that point I will continued to be slightly annoyed when people say “they have evidence, just bad evidence”.

I would ask the Tribulation guy to put his money where his mouth is. Ask him to define some clear criteria to determine whether or not the Tribulation has occurred, and then each of you put up a $100 bet, with the winner determined by whether the criteria have been met in nine months.

If he waffles, point out that if he really believed and was truly certain, then there’s zero risk in making the bet.

When it will actually cost them something to be wrong, people start to think a little more deeply about their beliefs.

if anyone actually tries this, you may get the “that’s gambling, that’s a sin” excuse, as I have. The appropriate retort is a) It is the only way he can actually convince you, and b) If he thinks its a gamble, he’s not as sure as he thinks he is about it.

To the other point.

The catholic was obviously wrong, accustomed to getting his personal creed validated. As for the yarmulke, I was calling them skull caps & “jewish caps” for years until I learned what the term meant. The difference however is huge. The yarmulke is a specific style of headgear. As I understand it, it would remain a yarmulke even if I wore it, and I’m not Jewish.

The “consecrated Host” as a term is equivalent to “the body of Christ”. To assume that this believe will be taken as granted is absurd. Furthermore, communion wafer is the best term for the catholic cracker, as other churches (like the Greek Orthodox church) use plain bread dipped in wine, so Host won’t do it.

I second what Timothy Mills has said.

As a Christian, we could say the same about you… what is the point of having a conversation with someone who is so closed minded about their adamant belief that God doesn’t exist, that they will not even consider an alternate possibility.

I have this conversation all the time, and I am a former lay preacher who knows the bible forward and backward. So how could you insinuate that I, in particular, would not even consider an alternate possibility? I already have and have found it wanting.

I would ask the Tribulation guy to put his money where his mouth is.

A 7 day adventist was telling me about the end of the world coming in 2012.
I asked him if I could have his truck. I said if he would agree I could have the papers drawn up that would give me ownership after DEC 21 2012. He got really mad and said “no”

It was worth it just to see his face.
as far as:

Is it even worth having that discussion when everything you say just goes in one ear and out the other?

Absolutely YES. It keeps you practiced for those times it will make a difference.

When I was a Christian I often challenged J.W’s to their beliefs trying to convert them. It makes me quake in my boots to think those that did convert traded one lie for another now. However that experience as futile as it was has gave me an upper hand in talking with them now. Even though I never seem to get through to them. I do have the odd chance of talking to people that are truly interested in a different point of view it is at those times that keeping it all fresh in my head pays off.

A yarmulke is not a beanie, and “beanie” does sound vaguely mocking of it. A yarmulke IS, however, a cap — cap just being a more generic word for it. And calling a yarmulke a “cap” is a MUCH better analogy for your use of wafer thaqn is anything involving the word “beanie.”

Some people are only happy when they are unhappy.

Kahomono,

Yep.

“Beanie” is mocking. It would be like calling a communion wafer “a Triscuit”.

To disrespect someone’s beliefs is not what we should be about.

Beliefs do not automatically garner respect simply because they’re beliefs. If I see someone’s beliefs as silly, I won’t respect them just because someone believes them. That’s ridiculous.

No, it’s not worth having those discussions. They are nothing more than pissing matches into a stiff wind.

“You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe”–Dr. Carl Sagan

“It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”–Jonathan Swift

Beanie
–noun
a skullcap, often brightly colored, worn esp. by children and by college freshmen, esp. in the 1940s. (from Dictionary.com)

I’m confused. How is a beanie not a cap or hat? In fact, a beanie is a very specific type of cap or hat that very closely resembles a yarmulke. It is the closest description in traditional North American culture to what a yarmulke actually is. Why would it be insulting to call it so?

Brad:

Do you really think it is a good idea and try to use straw men of atheism against atheism??? Wait, that would be assuming you think.

Find me an atheist that has an adamant belief that there is no god. I’m sure there has to be some, but please just find me one. Then show me this atheist never considered different possibilities.

Until that time, you are a troll. Go back to your bridge if you aren’t going to add something useful to the conversation.

Ok; since the fundamentalist did not have “no evidence”, but instead had the evidence of his personal experience and the experience of others, then he should not be dismissed as a “religious nut” (as Richard did).

Ayer:
If you have a personal experience, you can still have evidence. However, if I claim that I met the real Santa Claus, would you accept my claim? How about if I met the real Zeus?

The problem with personal experience is that, while it is fine for you, it is useless to everyone else unless you have evidence. It is equally (for the sake of argument) likely that this “personal experience” is just a delusion.

You have to have some evidence besides “I say so.”

RichardP@: “A 7 day adventist was telling me about the end of the world coming in 2012.
I asked him if I could have his truck. I said if he would agree I could have the papers drawn up that would give me ownership after DEC 21 2012. He got really mad and said ‘no'”

Funny how they never want to put their money where their mouths are. CFI-West (now CFI-LA) made a pennies-on-the-dollar offer to imminent-Rapturists. There were no takers.

http://www.cfiwest.org/info/Rapture.htm

If you have a personal experience, you can still have evidence. However, if I claim that I met the real Santa Claus, would you accept my claim? How about if I met the real Zeus?

The problem with personal experience is that, while it is fine for you, it is useless to everyone else unless you have evidence. It is equally (for the sake of argument) likely that this “personal experience” is just a delusion.

You have to have some evidence besides “I say so.”

I generally agree with you; however, an analogy: if X knows that he is innocent of a crime (because of his personal experience), X has “evidence” justifying his belief in his own innocence even in the absence of supporting forensic and other “external” evidence. That may not be helpful in persuading others of X’s innocence, but it does mean X is not a “nut.”

‘Beanie’ is not necessarily insulting at all, but its ‘-ie’ is a diminutive suffix, and thus can add a note of flippancy or condescension, depending on the context.

Here, since ‘beanie’ is not the appropriate term, one might get the impression that the intention is to mock. The fundie chose this word deliberately, to create a faulty analogy with ‘wafer’ v ‘host’.

Why is ‘beanie’ inappropriate? Because these days the term most commonly refers to a tight woollen cap that comes down quite far around the top of the head. The Jewish item is usually very small, and held to the very top of the head with a hair-clip.

What would be appropriate? To me, it is strange that you all seem to accept ‘yarmulke’ as ideal. I grew up always hearing the correct Hebrew term ‘kippah’. ‘Yarmulke’ is simply Polish for ‘cap’. The correct English term to describe the kippah is ‘skullcap’. Indeed, these days one virtually never hears the term ‘skullcap’ used to describe anything but this traditional Jewish item.

So, a more sensible question would have been ‘Would you call a kippah a skullcap?’ to which the answer would be ‘of course’. End of conversation.

ayer,

To the contrary, if you reject miracles a posteriori and not a priori, then I stand corrected.

However, I have to point out that your evidentiary standard “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” does not hold up in light of Bayes Theorem:

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/01/extraordinary_c.html

We’ve been through this before. You make a false claim. I refute this claim. You make another false claim that’s unrelated to your first claim. I refute this claim, and so on.

a) You made the mistake of assuming that atheists claim they have knowledge of miracles in any sense when I stated otherwise.

b) The critique of the statement “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is unsatisfactory and is clearly countered in the comments section as inapplicable since “extraordinary” was misinterpreted. It does highlight something the statement does not address, that is it assumes the person believes the claim, and the honesty of the one making the claim is not in question.

However, I have to point out that your evidentiary standard “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” does not hold up in light of Bayes Theorem:

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/01/extraordinary_c.html

Huh? How do you get that from the post you link to? While I have some issues with the post, it doesn’t contradict the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, when used with respect to miracles. It supports that evidentiary standard, with the appropriate qualification as to what consistutes “extraordinary evidence” for certain boring “extraordinary claims” (i.e. boring in that they’re only extraordinary due to their specificity).

The post is actually an interesting read, but it doesn’t support what you said it would.

Regarding what to call the “consecrated host”…….. there are a lot of people who are unfamiliar with Catholicism so it makes more sense to call it a “wafer” which suggests the structure and size of the object.

The catholic in question seems to be miserable for the sake of it.

A communion wafer or consecrated host IS a wafer. Likewise a Yarmulke or kippah IS a skullcap but not a beanie (in the UK beanies are knitted hats that come down to the ears, very different piece of headwear to the kippah).

As for the innocent man analogy that Ayers suggested, i entirely agree.

If i get accused of a crime i know i have not committed then my own knowledge that i didn’t do it is sufficient for me. But, as in the case of religion, i do not need to prove myself right. The prosecution need to prove that I did do the crime. My innocence, like the non-existence of god, is the default.

let me expound. If someone accuses me of a crime, they must provide evidence to prove this that is acceptable to a others. Personal experience is not sufficient. The prosecutor cannot say he “Just knows, deep in his heart” that i did a crime.
Likewise, those who assert that not only is there a god, but that it is the particular god they worship, must provide evidence beyond personal experience if they wish to persuade others.

Belief in the concept of god CANNOT be the default simply because there is more than one god and all gods (or rather all pantheons) are mutually exclusive.

If believing in god is the default, can someone enlighten me as to which god is the default and why it is this god over the others.

In fact, now i think about it, i don’t think atheists should talk in terms of “god”. This allows the use of vague arguements such as ID, etc. Instead we should talk (where posible) in the terms of the specific god that we are presented with.

After all, arguements for the christian god are much easier to slap about than arguements about a vague, deist kinda god.

You’re not generally going to change someone’s deeply held beliefs about the nature of the universe in one conversation.

That doesn’t mean it’s pointless to have that conversation. People can and do change their views, but it’s a process that takes time in most cases.

Huh? How do you get that from the post you link to? While I have some issues with the post, it doesn’t contradict the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, when used with respect to miracles. It supports that evidentiary standard, with the appropriate qualification as to what consistutes “extraordinary evidence” for certain boring “extraordinary claims” (i.e. boring in that they’re only extraordinary due to their specificity).

The post is actually an interesting read, but it doesn’t support what you said it would.

I disagree. This portion in particular is particularly relevant to a miracle claims such as that of the Jesus’ disciples regarding his resurrection:

On the other hand, if there are kinds of claims and types of people such that these people are rewarded less for making such claims, relative to silence or other claims, then we should hold these claims to a lower standard of evidence. So while we should be extra skeptical of hard to check claims that would bring media attention to media hogs, we should be extra trusting of embarrassing claims from shy people, or of claims that associates will interpret as betrayal or lunacy.

Since the right standard of evidence depends on the claimer’s incentives, it is appropriate to consider these incentives. But it is not true in general that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, beyond the extraordinary evidence already embodied in the claims themselves.

Summary: Be skeptical about any claim people tend to make without enough evidence, but not otherwise skeptical of extraordinary claims.

Since the disciples faced the prospect of persecution and martyrdom from their own Jewish in-group for making their claim, the incentive structure was stacked against making the claim. (The fundamentalist Richard was talking to did not face such persecution–just a grilling from Richard, so his miracle claims have less credibility based on this criterion). Further, Bayes Theorem shows that rationally believing in a highly improbable event does not require an enormous amount of evidence, but that the evidence be far more probable given that the event did occur than given that it did not. This is particularly true in the case of the resurrection:

http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/Resurrectionarticlesinglefile.pdf

I think the best you can be ensured of doing is asserting your simple point. In the first story, your point was that you thought the headline was accurate. In the second story, the point was you had a different opinion for each topic brought up. In my opinion, when someone discusses something with the goal of sharing on a level playing field, then that person is making future encounters with people like him or herself a little better for the people like you and me. After all, we might think broad categories of people are technically nuts or at least at odds with our way of thinking, but when we are forced to deal with nuts on a regular basis, we work out the socially effective ways of navigating through those communities. I’m asserting that the socially effective ways are not obvious or common sense to someone of one world view dealing with someone with a different one, and so experience is the tool we use.

Is it even worth having that discussion when everything you say just goes in one ear and out the other?

I just want to say that yes, it is. It is worth it because sometimes even the most unreasonable, stubborn, deep-rooted fundamentalist will start to think and investigate things for themselves after you leave.

If no one had ever had those discussions with me, I would likely still be blindly following whatever the church told me. It is sad and makes me ashamed of myself, but it’s true.

So, to paraphrase Stephen Hawking, we MUST keep talking.

Ayer; using the bible to prove the bible is circular logic. Stop doing it please.

So while we should be extra skeptical of hard to check claims that would bring media attention to media hogs, we should be extra trusting of embarrassing claims from shy people, or of claims that associates will interpret as betrayal or lunacy.

Since the right standard of evidence depends on the claimer’s incentives, it is appropriate to consider these incentives. But it is not true in general that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, beyond the extraordinary evidence already embodied in the claims themselves.

Massive slip in logic right there; the extraordinary evidence of the claims themselves only works as evidence of an incentive, not as evidence for what those incentives are. It’s probably just as likely, if not more, that extraordinary claims that appear to counter reality as observed (such as X knows he’s innocent because he was talking to a leprechaun at the time) made by X are indicators that X is in extraordinary circumstances such as hallucinating or experiencing insanity.

I was going to write a comment about how when you get as old as me, you won’t be as willing to waste time in futile conversations like the one Richard had on the plane.

BUT

Thank you to all those here who have expressed their thoughts about not giving up on the process of dialogue, not giving up on their fellow human beings, and about putting the memory of a civil, courteous atheist into the mind of a fundamentalist, so that they are perhaps just a little less adamant in their prejudice.

Once again, you have renewed my resolve to keep up the dialogue.

In other words an “extraordinary claim” requires “extraordinary evidence” and evidence is extraordinary if and only if it is much more likely to occur in a world where the claim is true, than likely to occur in a world where the claim is not true.

Actually, I believe we are in basic agreement here. Bayes’ theorem requires that the evidence be far more probable given that the event in question did occur than given that it did not, which is equivalent to your statement that “evidence is extraordinary if and only if it is much more likely to occur in a world where the claim is true, than likely to occur in a world where the claim is not true.” This is also consistent with the original post, which stated that “it is not true in general that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, beyond the extraordinary evidence already embodied in the claims themselves.”

The key point being that “extraordinary” evidence does not mean “an enormous amount” of evidence (which is what those who casually throw this slogan around often believe). I am glad to see you are not in that group.

Regarding the biblical claims, my comment did not refer in general to “the miracles” in the Bible, but to the analysis of one miracle in particular, the resurrection of Jesus. I would be interested in your response to the Bayesian analysis of that event presented in the McGrew article linked to in my comment above. It holds the biblical accounts to the same standards critical scholars apply to all documents of ancient history to make the case that the evidence is far more probable given that the resurrection occurred than given that it did not.