RE: Skeptics I no longer have any respect for.
February 20, 2012 at 11:35 am
(This post was last modified: February 20, 2012 at 11:35 am by NoMoreFaith.)
(February 20, 2012 at 10:44 am)leo-rcc Wrote: There is a very real danger in deconversion with faulty logic behind it. It is very feasible that a deconverted person with its newfound atheist resolve, engages into a discussion with a theists who can debunk the atheists' arguments with ease showing its faulty logic behind it. Which in turn can actually make not only make the deconverted a believer again, but actually a stronger more resolved theist than ever before. This is not just a what if scenario, I have seen this play out on more than one occasion, thanks to the likes of Zeitgeist.
If you are in a position to be convinced by a counterargument such as Dawkins, you were on the edge already. I have not seen any conversion through The God Delusion whom were not already teetering on the edge.
If you are then swayed by a counterargument.. I don't see a problem with this. Does it logically follow that you would become a stronger theist at this point? I suppose its a possibility, but I doubt there's any real statistics on this point to support it.
Is it not equally likely that Mr "TeeterTotter Theist" would equally come back and ask for clarification on the counterargument proposed. If it cannot be answered, I would not blame them for running back to the warm cuddlies of whatever cult they came from.
Truth is, I have NO idea. I have no personal or statistical information on that, but as an opinion it appears to be based on a small sample of personal experiences, which I am loathe to trust as conclusive. I daresay its an indication, but it doesn't sit right with me.
My earlier point on the God Delusion being a basic primer to atheism by covering a very wide range of reasoning is central to this. We are talking the scientific, the philosophical, with a large chunk of sociological and psychological reasoning to boot.
If you are swayed because of a SINGLE faulty piece of philosophy and nothing else.. you've probably missed the entire point in the first place. If you are equally "reconverted" on the basis of a single philosophical piece, and ignoring all other aspects.. its probably safe to say that you simply didn't want to give it up in the first place.
The respect due to that particular book was its attempt to be a panoptic criticism of theism. If one element is proven to be faulty, then hopefully the other elements serve as a background to examine that one fault in more detail, and not to go running back to your imaginary friend. If you are still not thinking for yourself at this point.. there was probably no hope for you.
Maybe I give people too much credit.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
