I like to treat religious people nice.

[AFTT47]

Whenever a religious debate begins to happen (something I fervently try to avoid) I tend to act with empathy and compassion. I ask them to explain how god (or gods) have helped them. What void they fill or what obstacle they help them overcome. I never ask for them to defend themselves or debate logic. It’s always been my view that religion has never been about a debate of logic, but a debate of survival. People have religion often because it helps them get by either it be work or relationships. Using logic to debate with a religious person often doesn’t work because their arguments are not based on it, but rather a primal need to get by. When cornered about why I generally don’t subcribe to a religion (it happens from time to time) I simply say that “it’s ok to not know, and it’s ok to be afraid.” I then proceed to tell them this is what I tell myself when faced with the infinite black that stares back at all of us from time to time and it helps me get by. I try to be honest, friendly, and forgiving. I don’t succeed all time but it’s made my voyage through life a whole lot better.

You are a part of what I would call atheists2.0.

When the internet was new and we had this debate on the old usenet, it was a debate of facts and logic. We atheists took smug satisfaction that we could slaughter the theists on that stage. It helped solidify the convictions of many atheists but did little to help sway the theists.

Later, we figured out that the theists had brains that were wired differently than our's were. Logical arguments didn't work to sway them. They were more swayed by emotion than logic.

Later, it came to light that we are ALL hard-wired to favor emotion over logic. We atheists are not necessarily smarter and more logical than theists. We favor the scientific method but that is in itself an emotional bias. We don't embrace it because we are smart but because it appeals to us emotionally.

There can be little debate that the scientific method has proven itself to be the best indicator of what is objectively real. I think we have a definite edge over theists there. But it's more complicated than comparing facts and logic. The human equation makes it more complicated. We are all limited by our human physiology. None of us are capable of performing as the fictional Vulcans of Star Trek. Our physiology precludes that. Every input we receive from the outside universe goes through an emotional filter before it ever reaches the analytical portion of our brain. We are incapable as individuals of being truly objective.

But the scientific method corrects for this. Peer review is a powerful thing because my emotional bias is not necessarily the same as your emotional bias. Where I may err because of emotional bias, another may expose my error because he/she is not susceptible to that same bias. As I said, I think we have an edge over theists because of this system. But yeah, we shouldn't be judgemental because our own science demonstrates we are all flawed.