Atheists Need to Do a Better Job of Communication

Most of humanity is very responsive to stories. I think my husband does a pretty good job of emotionally engaging people, as well as Jerry DeWitt, and Teresa MacBain (all former pastors). We are trying to harness that power, getting people to tell their stories, for others to learn from and to foster understanding. A lot of people are engaged in this, and some people are not. Just kind of depends on your venue. 

As for the comment above about the culture at Pharyngula, yes it can be harsh, that is what some people like, though. You received a lot of flak there because you were trying to tell those people what to do and how to do it. They get that same comment over and over again, and don’t like that there. I personally don’t like it when people tell me over and over again something I’m supposedly “doing wrong”. It chaps my hide, and I bet it does yours, too.  The problem is not with being an accomodationist, the problem is when you try and silence those who are not. Just let PZ and his Horde do their thing and you can do your thing. It takes all voices, and all inputs to be part of a social movement. 

If you are personally not a fan of harsh criticism of religion and relentless mocking of bad ideas, you are free not to read it and participate. You can and should hang out here at FA, or go to other blogs, read and share other pieces that are more to your liking. Write your own things that you’d like the world to see in the tone that you want.  And then people will come on your blog and tell you that you are being too harsh and you can tell them to fuck off.   😀

I just came across this post by a believer (Christian) on another board ~ he expressed having new doubts and this is his reply when asked about it:

What has changed is how I view the bible. What caused this? You and folks like
you asking great questions.

I see a risk in this of creating a series of fairly tiny echo chambers, each tuned to one pitch only.

I think we have these stories, they just aren’t loud enough yet.   When Nate Phelps spoke at Reason Rally there were thousands of people on the verge of tears, if not actually in tears.  Same goes for Taslima Nasrin. 

I also think that the shitty things that happen to atheists aren’t what make us atheists but rather further proof of the non-existence of a loving god.   The death of my 4 month old nephew and the illness of my father-in-law (from cyclist to quadriplegic) were not causation of my atheism but merely assurance that I am correct in my non-belief. 

However… The same stories have driven my family members in the opposite direction.  Towards religion.  So that same story can be used either way.  I think theirs would be more compelling in the scenario played out above where an audience is the judge.

Compassion for those who can not distinguish between their ideas and themselves is precisely what what led us to create our own blog, Mr. Mehta. Much of the atheist movement has become a phalanx of insolent teenagers snickering at the different kids in the hall. This marginalizes the work of so many, like Carl Sagan, who shared his perspective with love instead of malice.

I think the people coming out of the Clergy Project can teach us some things about this. Give a listen to Teresa Macbain or Jerry Dewitt. Their story telling is absolutely captivating! We could learn how to communicate our message with a bit of ‘grace’ from these folks.

I think that this is a good idea in some respects and a dangerous idea in others. On the one hand, I agree that people are more responsive to emotional stories, and that telling our personal emotional stories might help people identify with us.

On the other hand, it is one of the virtues of our movement that so many of us didn’t get here for emotional reasons. We got here using reason to figure it out. That type of thinking is valuable, and I think we would be mistaken to rely too much on emotion, because I think in some cases it is better to convert fewer people if the end result is that when those people finally are converted, they convert because they recognize the validity of the reasoning, rather than because it makes them feel good.
I don’t want a society where people think it’s okay to evaluate truth claims based on the level of comforting emotional response they get from them. I think that, insofar as we can do both–incorporate stories into our arguments *and* emphasize that those emotions are *not* the reason people should convert–that adding stories is a worthy idea. Can those be separated though? Can you tell an emotional story when answering a question about what is true without implicitly suggesting that the tugging of the heartstrings should be a factor in the audience’s decision about the truth of the claim? If not, do we really want to be encouraging emotional thinking in that way?

I’m not entirely sure what I think, but I think it’s a worthwhile consideration. If we could convert more people quicker using emotion, but converting people more slowly would mean that in the end, more people would have learned the valuing of making decisions rationally instead of purely emotionally, I’d be tempted to say the slower route is the better one in the long run.

At the Reason Rally, I think Nate Phelps was a perfect example of the type of compelling, emotional storytelling that exemplifies a combination of a persuasive message with beautiful communication.

While I was at Elements, my brain shut down into “almost listening” mode whenever the Christian pastor opened her mouth, like it does whenever I listen to particularly uninteresting sermons. She essentially devolved into “pastor mode”, where you get to spout about any vague, Jesus-y concept (“love” “grace” “salvation” “rebirth”) until you run out of breath.

I didn’t find her story compelling at all…I thought it was incredibly poor reasoning for choosing religion. Essentially, she meets a wonderful person when she is young and hurting, and simply adopts the religion of her mentor. 

She went on a Jesus-flavored Gish Gallop because “I imitated my role model” is not nearly as compelling as “I followed truth where it led me”. 

Her story said nothing about the value of the actual religion – just in the importance of her personal experience with “grace” and “hope”. The trick is be able to recognize when your brain is in a half-listening mode (when I’m more apt to just absorb whatever is being said to me instead of listening purposefully) and give yourself the critical thinking skills to be able to see beyond the rhetoric. 

I don’t know about how atheists fit in all this – I’ll have to sit on it a while. But I do think you’ve got a point about our obsession with making sure our arguments are flawlessly logical and cold. Now, to ruminate…

Carl Sagan, by the way, was an agnostic rather than an atheist. (I am, too.)

Let’s not forget that many of those stories that Christians tell are either blatantly untrue or overwraught with so much exageration that they might as well be fiction. The institutions are supported by this emotional manipulation and couldn’t exist without it. For atheists to offer that would be to offer the same poison and it just is not needed.

I don’t think it would be entirely difficult to have stories which are compelling on both reasonable and emotional terms.  The trick may be not only to include the reason and logic that brought you to leave the church, but to really emphasize the differences in your life and mindset before and after (like the woman who has been saved), as well as to paint leaving as something that required you discover great inner strength.  For me, leaving the church freed me from inane fears and impossible standards and allowed me to see and appreciate the universe for all the glory inherent to it.  I was -and remain- a generally good person, and yet the dictates of the church I was in had so beat me down that I didn’t believe it, that I always felt inadequate, dirty, sinful, bad… and I was like 11 years old.  If that doesn’t move your gut what will?

Critical thinking is a pleasurable thing, and I think that’s why atheists do so much of it and enjoy doing it. Unfortunately, there are millions of people in this world who don’t know HOW to think critically. So what’s the next best thing??? Emotional thinking – it makes you feel good, takes you from a high to a low to a high (how exciting), and doesn’t require much reason at all. Oh – and because it’s emotional, it goes to the same “places” within us as love, kindness, charity, etc. So it FEELS true and inspiring.

I still haven’t “come out” to most of the people in my life, but for the few I’ve told, I have been forced to convey the emotional part of the de-conversion, simply because without it my story is sad and cold to them. Religious people, especially, have come to see emotional vulnerability as closely related to honesty and truth. In the Christian church, if a person isn’t emotionally vulnerable when he is saying something important, he will probably be warned about pride. Human weakness is often praised in the Christian church…when we are weak, then the message (and God himself) are strong.

Unfortunately (as far as connecting with the religious goes), critical thinking is empowering. It is strong – it asks questions and accepts facts as the answers. You don’t get “reason credits” when you grovel, repent or cheer with joy…or when you speak in gibberish that no one can understand but God.

The only way I know to come close to bridging this divide is to talk about the humanity of atheism. Most of us arrive at atheism because we realize that we don’t know what we thought we knew. We come to accept that the religious people in our lives are inspiring but not necessarily right. There is often disillusion, confusion, hurt and loss involved. And then we have to find a way to know what is ethical and good in a world where there is no definite guide from above.

Even if a religious person thinks that we are 100% wrong, he may, for a few minutes, imagine what it would be like to try to live without this perfect God who makes everything better. Maybe instead of hating us they will sympathize and actually understand that some people function in the world without all the “answers” that they hold dear. And then, who knows, maybe one day when they have a scary question, they will think about it without as much fear.

Hemant. You are a writer. Your book was personal and honest, and reached many people. Perhaps a new book, sharing compelling and personal stories of deconversion and atheist life. Proceeds going to a politics-free cause, so that there is no pulpit “shaming” based on where the money goes. Ironically, the majority of visible atheists are folks whose personalities are inherently unlikely to articulate such stories. Additionally these same personalities are unlikely to draw “wobblers” over. Think about the attributes of the atheists you know: Strong-willed, publicly unconventional, independent, introverted, self-motivated. These are precious traits for some citizens to have, but they do not necessarily draw(or seek to draw:”They should figure it out on their own”) others to emulate them. We need stories of moms who provide their kids a morally structured childhood, complete with charity and good works. We need brothers who realized that when their sibling died suddenly that the emotional help they needed was not from church, but from therapy and community. We need teens who have chosen to limit their drug use and sexual partners because they love themselves enough, and want to protect their own bodies…

Emotional communication is what marketers do(including the Rick Warrens of the world). Using this tool in the service of helping others see that atheism is a “normal” (not rational, normal–you have to grok the difference) way to exist is the strongest way of reaching the most people. Solicit stories from people. When you have a few hundred, keep the ones that made you cry. Have a therapist read them. Have a marketer read them. Keep the best 15-20. Edit aggressively. Work hard on a title. Get a haircut for the Today show…

Many people need to see others modelling a “lifestyle” in order to conceive it for themselves. This is not about “hiding” the iconoclasts of atheism, it’s about holding a mirror up for regular folks to look into and see a new version of themselves free from the emotional tyranny of “faith.”

Just don’t title it something lame like “Atheist Voices”

I find that the need some people have to hear the truth in an emotional, personal manner puts me in an odd position as an atheist.  My story, and the story of Grief Beyond Belief (the nonreligious grief-support network) move people, including believers, because they involve the death of my infant son.  This makes it much harder for believers to say, “You only *think* you can live without God because your life is easy.  Just go through a tragedy and we’ll see you praying!”

Grief connects us as human beings.  I have spent a substantial amount of time questioning and challenging believers who would have quickly turned away from the conversation if we had not already connected on the topic of grief.  I also challenge atheists to better meet the emotional needs of our community: to interact with each other, with former believers, and with those struggling to let go of belief with kindness, compassion and patience.  Those who are in need of emotional support, whether it is the grieving parent or the teenager coming out as gay, will find it easier to leave the church if we offer the same or better support and community than the church, but without the lies of God or the afterlife.

As for the question of whether we should speak with anger and biting humor or compassion and heartwarming stories: true, lasting change ALWAYS comes from many directions.  If my weapon in this battle is schmaltz and yours is sarcasm, so much better to win the war. 

Being an atheist is like being in or being a fan of an honest true-blue indie rock band:  you do it coz you do it and don’t make a big production of it.  Unfortunately that won’t get you many fans.  The truth sells itself, but very slowly.   We need more fireworks, sure, but we can’t lie to ourselves enough to set them off. 

In a lot of cases, atheists/humanists/skeptics aren’t going for the emotional appeal because they’re already quite well aware of how manipulative it is. Religion (and marketing) live almost exclusively in the emotional realm because that’s the only thing they have to offer. We have to ask ourselves if it’s really useful resorting to the same crass tactics (instead of, for instance, pointing out how crass they are in the first place.)

We also have to be careful about judging impact from first impressions. If, for instance, Hemant had presented just one aspect within his panel discussion that made people think, that might arise again later, he most likely would’ve thwarted whatever immediate warm-and-fuzzy feeling the christian woman brought about. Emotions are great, but they’re short-lived. When they peter out and we’re back in neutral mode, appeals to rationality still remain.

There are lots of different approaches, and it all depends on what we’re trying to do. If the Reason Rally were full of people telling their conversion stories, however emotional, it would have looked more like a support group and have been even more ignored by those ‘outside’ the group. It also would have virtually no effect on religion, since we would have been doing exactly what every religion wants by simply leaving them alone, accepting their demarcations. But part of the point was to bring attention to how often religion intrudes where it doesn’t belong, and that really can’t be addressed with happy stories. That has nothing to do with gaining converts, and everything to do with keeping religion personal.

That article, by the way, was all over the map, and showed no small amount of self-contradiction. When someone directly quotes Dawkins speaking of the beauty of evolution and then claims his only message was ridicule, I’m really not able to take them seriously.

I can’t help it people are suckers for their emotions and flowery stories. There’s nothing similarly emotional to my becoming an atheist. Nothing positively emotional at least, as it wasn’t an easy thing to become.

FWIW, Pharyngula is also where you’ll find the daily “how I became an atheist” stories by readers.  Some of them are short and to the point:  “I became an adult.” 

Others tell a story of people who WANTED to believe, who DID believe, and who experienced some particular turning-point event which changed their path.  Who went through hardships because of their decisions and yet know it’s the right choice for them to have made.

And nobody accuses any of them in the comments of being accomodationists.

“I see a risk in this of creating a series of fairly tiny echo chambers, each tuned to one pitch only.”

I believe you’ve perfectly described a pipe organ.  Those can be incredibly useful, I hear, if played in concert.

I have difficulty talking to almost any christians because they are not about to change their minds anytime soon. Most of the ones I meet are not sincere about valuing the truth and reason. All I do is say things like, “That doesn’t make any sense” and “how do you figure that?” if they bring something religiously based.

Personally, I am sick of using kid gloves and the more we are adamant about valuing truth and common sense, and being forceful about it, the more it becomes socially acceptable to speak our minds with equal force.

Just keep making noise, and don’t intimate that religious views are acceptable in certain, personal, settings. Reason is reason, the right to not have religion preached at us is fundamental, and we should act that way always. It is only by not showing deference in any situation or manner that changes will happen. 

Yup, I’ve heard this before. Oh so many times.

I don’t believe I have any good way of knowing that things like deities exist or not. Therefore, my answer to “Does a god-like awareness exist?” is this: I don’t know and I have no trustworthy way of knowing. If you believe in things like gods, you may be right. If you don’t believe in things like gods, you might be also be right.

In short:
An atheist says that god does not exist.
A theist says that god does exist.
An agnostic says that neither opinion is one they can adopt because the answer is not knowable.

These three definitions are not new. They existed long before the current wave of atheism. What I see now is an attempt to erase the middle ground. It is an attempt to set up battle lines and create an “us against them” dynamic. This suits the needs of the atheist movement because it wants to amass as many people as possible. You can’t do that as efficiently if many of your potential supporters fall across a wide spectrum of belief. So, why not manufacture an ideological binary? Black and white fires adversarial emotions far better than a full spectrum of color.

I absolutely refuse to play along with this.

You may now speak of unicorns, Santa Claus and probabilities, if you wish. I won’t be listening.

While I think that we
could do a better job of promoting the fact that we are good people, that we do
charitable work, and that we can live peacefully with those of faith,  I personally would rather remain in hiding for
the rest of my life than see a single person “converted” to atheism
on the basis of an emotional argument.

I’m not an atheist because it’s cool, I’m an atheist because
I see no evidence for a deity.  If people
cannot be persuaded by reason, then so be it; otherwise, we risk the creation
of a social movement, rather than a rational one, which I believe would
inevitably become nothing more than just one more religion.  This is what concerns me most about the approach
taken by those like de Botton.

There are no shortcuts. 
Yes, we must show that we are not monsters, we must continue to speak to
the wonders of the real world, we must encourage people to learn and study and
think critically.  But, in the end, if
they cannot be convinced through rational means, then that’s the way it goes.

I don’t want people to “convert” to atheism; I wan
people to admit to it.

PS: There is, of course, a wide spectrum of belief between atheist, agnostic, and theist. I fall pretty close to the middle. Obviously, you do not.

I see it this way:

An agnostic says that, philosophically speaking, it’s not possible to say a god does or doesn’t exist.

An atheist says that, scientifically speaking, the tests which should’ve shown the existence of the supernatural have failed.  Until one of those tests shows otherwise, we’re going with the null hypothesis.

A theist says that he doesn’t care about the evidence, scientific or philosophical, unless it confirms what he’s already decided to believe.

As a species, we have many types of individuals, like the different kinds of bees in a hive, workers, drones, queen, etc. Each fulfills their genetic code by emotionally reacting to their circumstances in their unique way. Some weigh the facts, others look to people’s feelings, yet others keep out of the way and look from a distance, seemingly uninvolved, yet important to the outcome. Some are destroyers, seemingly unable to leave  a tender moment alone. They are all important – actually, I think (along with Joseph Campbell) we developed the different roles genetically for survival  as the human family.  To try to shoehorn everyone into one type of person’s role is to ignore this diversity in hopes of a perfect world – it ain’t gonna happen. And it shouldn’t happen. The more diverse we are in being atheists, the more chance we have of changing the entire society for the better.  Just do what feels right to you,  and let other atheists do their part without judgement – we’ll all get where we wanna go sooner.

Hell, maybe being an atheist in itself is a genetic mutation for survival. It sure feels like it sometimes.

 Just makes me think of the news site I glanced at yesterday, announcing the Tennessee bill that’ll let teachers pick apart what parts of science they don’t like (i.e., the bill doesn’t let them teach creationalism, but it lets them teach that evolution is wrong). The very first comment was something along the lines of “Whoo, way to go, believers, making our kids even stupider than they already were! Jesus would be proud if he weren’t dumb shit some dead fuck made up!” and the other 9001 replies were… not indicative of anyone being swayed by his logic.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly the sort of response I’ve come to expect to see. So yes, ridicule, mockery and contempt, that is exactly what the average atheist seems to think is the best argument. Maybe if we call them a dumb fuck a few more times, they’ll start to listen? HEY THAT GETS THROUGH TO SOME PEOPLE.

Not that I’ve ever seen it.

Given the amount of well poisoning I see atheists engage in on a daily basis (ridicule, mocking, and contempt), I am having difficulty feeling any remorse. Funny, how people do not like it when the tables are turned.

Oh yes, I forgot.

In many ways, I too am like Bill Maher. I am an atheist because it requires so little effort. No church, no Thursday night bingo, no preaching…..

Actually, I’ve heard theists say that deep within their hearts, on an intuitive level, they feel the presence of something. So, you might say that a theist trusts their sense of intuition more than other sources of information and sees those sources of information as incomplete without the additional input of intuition.

I understand that this is extremely unsatisfactory to most atheists and that people seem to think that such ways of approaching the world are terrible. I think a lot of theists feel the same way about atheists, too.

And thus, we have one large brawl–unity through animosity.

Maybe there’s room for both kinds of people? Maybe pluralism is a better goal than seeing those who are different from you as defective?

The answer I’ve been seeing coming from both extremes is: no, we must eliminate the other way of being.

The well is poisoned by poisonous goals, as well as poisonous words.

You could have dropped the spiel and merely written your last sentence. The meaning would be unchanged.

I’ve heard this one before in another venue. Bisexuals are often told by lesbians/gay men that they are too afraid to choose the more radical way of being (“pure” homosexuality). They are too enamored of heterosexual privilege. In a sense, they are the cowards of sexual orientation. (I don’t think this, but some lesbians/gay men do.)

I’ve seen radical feminist separatists tell run of the mill feminists that they need to pick the side of separatism and that run of the mill feminists are tools of the patriarchy if they do not. Attachment to men is an unwillingness to take a stronger, truer position.

This social pattern plays out again and again.

I would bet that there are very few emotional stories of de-conversion compared to the number of people who suffered enough cognitive dissonance to start doing the homework it requires to familiarize oneself with the actual evidence and how to follow it to it’s logical conclusion. To get away from presuppositionalism and motivated reasoning.
I empathize with those who’ve de-converted after a health related scare and found no solice in religion, of those who came from abusive situations at the hands of religious parents or pastors, or those who are ostracized for their sexuality, or other non-conformity.  But my own story is that I had doubts and apologetic answers weren’t cutting it.  There’s nothing terribly emotional about it. The pain of cognitive dissonance grew. But I went along with the crowd for a long time.  What started me actually doing my own homework was an introduction of creationism as actual science.  That in-of-itself wasn’t enough, but it led to the recognition of logical fallacies which led to higher biblical criticism. And that is where my faith diluted to homeopathic proportions.
I certainly feel the need to be compassionate at times and militant at times, but I take great care in when to approach each indiviual situation.  Still, my story is not wrought with emotion, just a desire to live in reality.

Agreed.  It’s like the faith healers who tell those who are not healed that they do not have enough faith.  Perhaps they feel the tragedy was caused because they did not have enough whatever to offer the god of their choosing.   It just makes me sad.   But again, it makes for a compelling story that tugs on the heartstrings of anyone listening.  If I say, “Yup, my 4 month old nephew died of SIDS and that continues to provide me proof there isn’t a god.”  It’s nto nearly as romantic/tragic as if I say, “My 4 month old nephew was called home to a Jesus I did not know.  It was him who showed me the light of the Lord as he was granted his angel wings.”

(I feel really dirty even saying the latter).

 Community. It’s a place to “talk shop” with people who understand your vocabulary and your problems, except that it’s more personal than professional.

Cincinatheist,

Regarding your first sentence, you’re wrong on both counts.

For the same reason any other humans seek out like-minded individuals. Not necessarily “church” per se, but some grouping that provides social interaction, the ability to expand a group of friends, opportunities for learning, a platform for organization, mutual activities … why is that so hard to understand? It should be obvious: being human “causes” us to need each other.

I think your examples are poor ones. Bisexuals do exist on a continuum between complete heterosexuality and complete homosexuality. Opinions on feminism do span a spectrum.

Agnosticism, however, does not lie on some continuum between theism and atheism. Indeed, no such continuum exists at all. You are a theist or an atheist; there’s no middle ground.

A rational, intellectually honest agnostic is an atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive. A rational person does not believe in gods, because there is no evidence of their existence, and because there is nothing we observe that can only be explained (or even be best explained) by gods or supernatural elements.

Different atheists will have different degrees of comfort with the evidence (and lack of evidence), and will therefore be more or less certain in the confidence they place on their views. Some atheists will be so certain that they are willing to say “there are no gods”. Others are not certain at all, and lean towards “I don’t know”. And some will say “the question cannot be answered”. That is the view of an agnostic. But still an atheist.

Of course, a theist can be an agnostic as well. Agnosticism has nothing to do with either theism or atheism, and it is not exclusive of either.

 Reason does not lend itself to warm and fuzzy like a story about being saved.  If what you are looking for is an entry point into the bubble that an emotional story can provide, I don’t know if reason can do that.  

Humor is an emotion that can also provide a way in.   I’m not talking about making fun of them or their beliefs, but those human moments that we all share and can laugh at together.    I forget who said this:  
If you’re going to tell people the truth, learn to make it funny. 

 This.  Personally, I resent it when people impose on my politeness to force me to listen to their various emotional journeys or health issues.  Those discussion should be saved for one’s closest friends.

A couple of thoughts:
You assume that Christians/religious only come to their beliefs through emotion. There are many theists who come to their conclusions based on a “long process of introspection” as well. In fact there are many atheists who, after this “long process”, come to the conclusion that God does exist and become religious. This is not unusual.

You make a good suggestion that, if you want to convert people, then you should spend more time on personal stories. But telling a story is not the end of it. The story must have a conclusion, it has to have hope to be compelling. Speaking as an outsider, if I were emotional and you were trying to convert me, my first reaction (perhaps subconsciously) would be to wonder what is at the end of the tunnel and is it compelling? Honestly, even if you made the best arguments for why atheism is the most likely truth (which I disagree), I think I would take the risk and still choose the lesser of the probabilities, religion, because I would want there to be a purpose. People want to have hope in something. Telling me that there is no hope in anything outside of our limited existence and that our suffering serves no purpose is not compelling to me.

I’m actually working on something along those lines for this summer… Not quite what you lay out here, but in the same vein.

It’s hard to tell a good story about discovering nothing. You aren’t going to excite people with tales about emptiness. Your atheism, in an of itself, means nothing, it requires no defense or explanation, it is merely a perfectly good response to an overwhelming lack of evidence.

The integrity of science, the maintenance of the separation of church and state, the fight against religiously inspired discrimination and hatred can be a source of inspirational stories and arguments, but these topics are not exclusively the concern of atheists, so you may have to share them with theists, deists and other believers.

I don’t care how you categorize yourself. Just don’t make the claim that “agnostic” defines you in the same way “atheist” or “theist” does. The last two actually tell me something about your beliefs in deities. The first tells me nothing. If you call yourself an agnostic, I still don’t know if you believe in gods or not.

Whether or not you are an agnostic, you still MUST be either a theist or an atheist. Those are non-overlapping sets that include every human with enough of a mind to conceive of the concept.

(deleted – formatting too skinny)

Just because something is not knowable, that doesn’t mean one can’t have a rational opinion based on evidence.

All rational people are atheists, because rationalism doesn’t support the alternative. They may or may not be agnostic, just as theists may or may not be agnostic.

Claiming to be agnostic as an alternative to either theism or atheism is nothing more than intellectual laziness. You are treating “agnostic” as “I’m not certain”, which isn’t what it means.

(The Disqus format is really not conducive to structured discussions of any depth!)

I think atheists could tell compelling stories that would reach a larger audience by sharing a crisis event and then the tools one used to make it through that crisis.  Really, it’s all in the story leading up to how you dealt with it that (I think) appeals to a larger audience.  For example, if you wanted to share the juicy details of a failing marriage, you could then end the story with how you utilized trained professionals in psychology to help you find the tools the relationship was lacking.  Or how you spent hours researching the treatment protocol of a loved one to ensure they received the best possible care… after you had the room sobbing about the loved one’s condition or ailment. 

Somehow, I doubt your sincerity.

I’m unsure of where you are getting the idea of hypocracy and scolding. I’m being earnest in my reply to the above commenter (aside from the obvious throwaway joke indicated by the smiley). I really do want there to be lots of different voices speaking about atheism in all sorts of ways. Perhaps it’s the difficulty of text, but it sure says a lot about your idea of what an appropriate discourse is if you a) immediately assume the worst about someone, then b) scold them and c) tell them not to reply because you don’t want to have open dialogue.

Kent, honestly, I agree with a lot of what you say regarding the perception of atheists (and others who tout science) as unfeeling robots, and I agree that emotional impact helps make stories memorable.  You’ve said some things, though, that I think summarize a number of disagreements I have with a few strains of discussion here.

I think a lot of the problem is that so many atheists – especially those who label themselves “anti-theists” – think it’s a great idea to call religion a mental disorder or a disease.

They don’t think it’s a great idea; they think it’s a true statement.  What would you have them do, lie?  Can you think of a polite, gentle way to tell someone you think their belief system constitutes a mental disorder?

I assume you disagree that religion is a mental disorder.  Fine; that’s a factual claim, something to be put on the table and debated openly, with evidence and argumentation, not discarded because some people are offended by the question.

And face it, simply being atheists is inherently insulting to many religious people.  Atheists are claiming that God, something around which the religious person has based his entire world view and many of the actions and decisions of his life, doesn’t exist, that religion is false.  There is not an easy way to soft-pedal that one.  There are ways of being less obnoxious about it, sure, but if we are to be honest, the truth is harsh.

We need more of that, more emotional oomph, because science alone just doesn’t cut it for most people who grew up with a religion.

A bunch of people have said something like this in the comments here, that people respond better to atheists being nice than to atheists ridiculing ridiculous ideas.  I don’t believe it.  I’d like to see some evidence.  Thus far, the only evidence I have seen are overwhelmingly in support of the other side: all the anecdotes like those at the Dawkins site in which a religious person was convinced by strongly-worded critiques and ridicule to take a long hard look at (and eventually leave) faith.  It would be nice to see if “you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar” actually panned out, but I am not convinced.

To be sure, the purpose of strongly-worded critique and ridicule is not necessarily to convince believers of the folly of religion, but if that is one of the effects, great.

Yes, every thing turned out fine. She was delivered two months early and hospitalized for one month. She’s 7 now and doesn’t have any issues. You’ve basically stated what I think the problem would be with my story. It would seem like I went on a path with no meaning or comfort, which isn’t as compelling as the stories of people who found God in times of crisis rather than those of us who lost God in a crisis. It doesn’t seem like the end is happy. Even if I am happy, which I am.

 So happy to hear all has gone well with your little girl, now a big girl of 7.   Having a husband (of 47 years) who is now experiencing memory loss, I wish I could pray to a Deity to stop the progression.  I can’t because there isn’t one.  Just have to take advantage of what medicines etc. that can slow the progression, but eventually there will be nothing medically that can be done.   There is no way this kind of thing is the “will of any god!”

Jim, I do not think that you have any real world evidence that does or does not support anything regarding a deity. You should not speak as if science has some how proven that God does not exist. There is always a  possibility that God exists and based upon current evidence there is a good chance that God exists. The possibility is undeniable and far from remote. In my post, I was simply stating that even if the possibility was remote (not “fake”) then I, and I think many others, would still choose the remote possibility over atheism because atheism offers nothing beyond one’s self and a pointless existence. This is not an attractive option.
I was also trying to point out that I agree with Hemant and that if you are attempting to convert people to atheism (sounds rather fundamentalist) then you will have to provide a compelling story but that it would be difficult from my perspective. I offer you the opportunity to provide that compelling story.

I was only one paragraph into this when I thought: The difference is that religion appeals so strongly to emotions while non-belief relies on the mind to sort things out. That be the situation. As a pretty powerful example of story-telling, in college I was head-over-heels for a Catholic girl. Having known her for nearly 6 years, about 2 months after I told her I was no longer a Christian – and getting no ugly reaction from her – one day her dad hits me with the fact that she’s engaged and visiting the guy in another city; I had never, ever known. Not hearing from her for the next 2 weeks – despite me telling her parents I was happy for her and her parents’ assurance that she would contact me – prompted me to completely lose my cool and write a very angry letter. She turned this over to her dad and he quickly phoned me to say “get lost.” This call took place literally moments after I stepped into my house from going out to dinner. For a long time I thought “well, damn, there is no way this can be a coincidence in terms of timing… god must be real and is teaching me a very clear lesson for being an atheist; one door has been slammed shut in my face, but if I pay attention surely another one will open. But the fact remains that her bullshit and her dad doing the dirty work are not respectable in any way and really just don’t make a shred of sense. And what sense does it make for God to reward her with a VERY wealthy husband, a big house and a family for behaving like that toward someone who thought we, at the very least, had a solid friendship? And were their actions the pure reflection of God’s will? Is that what God truly desires – total separation and no communication between Christians and nonbelievers on Earth? Seems to be the case, and I absolutely will not and cannot follow such a deity.” Well, long story short, I’m still an atheist 11 years later and a good friend of mine helped me to understand that I would have been contacted eventually, whether I was at home (parents) or at my apartment. And, equally important, I realized that even if god exists, we are not puppets. God does NOT attach invisible strings to our bodies and move us all around to precise locations at precise times for this or that event or “revelation” to occur. Such a set-up would annihilate the very concept of free will. As hard as it may be to believe, what happened to me wasn’t some planned event to make me “see the light,” and I would have heard from her dad sooner or later for him to deliver the final statement. In the end, she got what she wanted not because she’s a great person or because she deserves it as some kind of holy reward, but because she was insanely gorgeous. But I’d bet all the money I have that she still thinks her whole life is one big, divinely-controlled fairy tale/miracle…

Truth is beauty! 

 Yes.  My mom (though she now denies it ever happened) asked me when I started reading atheist blogs why I would want to associate with “the very people who commit rapes and murders and that sort of thing”.  She really said that–I remember it so much because it was not something I would have expected from her, but now she insists she never said or thought any such thing.

Over  the years though, especially after I came out to my family as an atheist, my mom and my brother both started to hear stories that I would share with them from sites like Pharyngula or Friendly Atheist, or back in the day with IIDB, of anti-atheism discrimination and oppression and persecution and other nasty business regarding some of the uglier religious nuts.  I didn’t accuse them of anything or ask “why the hell would you want to be associated with people like this?” but just hearing those stories–and later, knowing that I was also an atheist–brought them to a point where they were aware of 1) what atheists are really like, 2) what many atheists have to deal with or go through and 3) how truly nuts some religious people can be, including some of the sorts of people they would have once believed to be wonderful because of their faith.

Now my mother asks “why would anyone, including God, damn someone who honestly doesn’t believe in any of this?  They can’t choose to believe any more than I can choose not to believe.”

All the logic and reason and philosophy wouldn’t do anything for her, but the emotional elements of personal anecdote combined with knowing an atheist changed a lot of her views about atheists as well as some of her views about religion (though she still personally believes).

 Pretty much, yeah.

 “In a lot of cases, atheists/humanists/skeptics aren’t going for the
emotional appeal because they’re already quite well aware of how
manipulative it is.”

So much this.  I know that when someone tries to get me to think with emotion instead of reason, I find myself doubting them even more and being even more inclined to rationally and logically dissect everything  they say.  Because if you are going to insist I use emotion to make this decision, that is an indication that you don’t have a leg to stand on with evidence and if I made the effort to look at it logically all the massive gaping holes and problems and contradictions would come into clear view and you’d lose.  So you need me to think with my “heart” instead of a more reliable thinking organ, because emotion is infinitely malleable and it’s the only possible way you can make it look like you have any point at all.

That doesn’t mean I don’t have emotions, just that I recognize emotion as a piss-poor decision-making tool, as well as it’s amazing usefulness as a slave-making tool.

That’s the whole point though — religion is so successful because it speaks to emotion, and people drink it up because it’s so comforting for them. Trying to do same with atheism simply doesn’t work — first, it’s not very comforting (especially to the immature minds that need simplistic nurturing that religion provides), and secondly because the whole point of atheism is to step back from your emotions and examine the world in a rational, reasonable way. But I do think we can talk about some emotional component of atheism. For me the two primary themes in this regard are freedom (which, however, comes with a lot of responsibility as well as a sort of a cosmic loneliness) and the aesthetic beauty of scientific, logical examination of the world (and, conversely, the sickening religious nonsense — apart from all the other flaws with it, religion is just UGLY, it’s in SUCH excruciatingly poor taste!) 

The truth is, though, I am an atheist in spite of the emotional side of things, not because of it. We’ll all die, and that just… sucks. If I could believe in God, I actually would — and I think that’s why so many people do… wishful thinking.

Absolutely this. I don’t want to manipulate someone into something. This is one of my main complaints with almost all religions: it uses emotion and sensationalism to manipulate, to misdirect, to dissuade people from using reason and logic.  Using the same techniques, regardless of how effective they are, is just appalling to me.

I’d much rather teach someone how to look at things with reason, how to think critically, how to evaluate things for themselves. It may be the slower road, but IMHO it’s the higher, more honest road.

I don’t want to “convert” people to anything. I want them to learn to see clearly, beyond emotion and hyperbole. They shouldn’t “convert” to atheism, they should learn to eschew irrational, harmful belief systems through skepticism, reason, and critical thinking. To me, this is a very different thing than “conversion.”

I think you’re absolutely right! I’ve been banging this drum for a while! The very first thing I wrote as a published Humanist was on storytelling.

Timberwraith,

Although I self-identify as both an atheist and an agnostic, I see your point mentioned in the various comments you have left here. Personally, I view agnosticism as the main deviation from theistic thought. I define theistic thought as the premise that we know all sorts of details about supernatural agents (like Yahweh and Jesus) and what they want us to do and believe. Once a person makes it to agnosticism they will typically jettison all the harmful scripture and personality worship so prevalent in all the theologies. If at this point an agnostic still wants to believe in an unknowable supernatural agent, I’m fine with that. I think that getting to this agnostic position is a significant and worthy endeavor. I personally think it is then pretty much irrelevant whether or not the agnostic jettisons the actual belief in a supernatural agent in the world. 

I’m a “big tent atheist” where agnostics are welcome.  Or alternatively, a “big tent agnostic” where atheists are welcome.  If we must draw battle lines, we need to draw it between agnostics and theists.