Softening the Message of a Hard Truth

[dalebert]

How do you soften the message of a hard truth? I try to give a proper response to a comment on the recent comic strip about Lauren. I encourage you to express your own views in the comments.

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/08/18/softening-the-message-of-a-hard-truth/

[Coconut]

I don't see why you have to bring religion into it. Yes, the parallels between religion and government worship exist, but your message is immediately lost on people who believe in God. That seems to be the opposite of what the point of the post was: to give hope that everyone can learn the truth about the violence of government.

[DigitalWarrior]

Dale,

I am a believer in God.  It illuminates my world, and is a core part of me.  DON'T TRY TO CONVINCE ME I AM WRONG!  First, it is rude.  I heard once that a man's profession of faith should be treated exactly the same as a man's assertion of his wife's beauty.  Second, it is necessary to my understanding of human rights.  I do not believe that sacks of protein and water have inherent rights and am not sure why you do.  Finally, it is boring.  I guarantee that I have heard every hollow argument about my "irrationality", I don't need it yet again.

The argument about government is inherently different.  As for advice, Try the Socratic method.  Rational discussion of the powers of the State can be had.  If you begin with discussions of specifics, if you do it well, after a time you can have the person you are speaking to advocating your point to you.

DW

[dalebert]

I don't see why you have to bring religion into it.

The parallels are significant. I would feel intellectually dishonest to ignore them. Besides, this is not the first time I have. I didn't get much of a negative reaction the first time I did it. Or maybe I did and it just didn't make much of an impression on me.

[David]

Dale,

I am a believer in God.  It illuminates my world, and is a core part of me.  DON'T TRY TO CONVINCE ME I AM WRONG!  First, it is rude.  I heard once that a man's profession of faith should be treated exactly the same as a man's assertion of his wife's beauty.  Second, it is necessary to my understanding of human rights.  I do not believe that sacks of protein and water have inherent rights and am not sure why you do.  Finally, it is boring.  I guarantee that I have heard every hollow argument about my "irrationality", I don't need it yet again.

The argument about government is inherently different.  As for advice, Try the Socratic method.  Rational discussion of the powers of the State can be had.  If you begin with discussions of specifics, if you do it well, after a time you can have the person you are speaking to advocating your point to you.

DW

Agreed.  I realized atheists see a lot of authoritarianism in religion, but I don't understand some of the hostility.  All it does is create additional conflict.

[dalebert]

Agreed.  I realized atheists see a lot of authoritarianism in religion, but I don't understand some of the hostility.  All it does is create additional conflict.

How is speaking my mind honestly considered hostility? How do we expect to have any kind of useful dialogue about the world smothered under that sort of political correctness? I think this really gets at the whole point of my post, which at the most basic level was about how we communicate unpopular ideas. Both atheism and anarchy go against beliefs that we've been heavily indoctrinated into, which one must realize even if the beliefs we were indoctrinated into turned out to be true. There are some memes that are so pervasive simply by virtue of having been around for so long and hammered into us from all sides from such an early age that it's difficult to even consider any thoughts outside of that context. In situations such as these, there is no way to convey the unpopular concept comfortably, in a manner that is not going to be unsettling. I believe that is why to even speak of it is irrationally interpreted as hostility.

[FTL_Ian]

It seems that the theists are the ones that are taking the most offense.  As a pantheist, I believe we are all "god", and since I exist, I can't be convinced otherwise.  It would be fun to have someone try!

How do you gently convince someone their God doesn't exist and that they won't be going to Heaven when they die?

You can't, and why bother?  They should believe whatever makes them feel good.

[error]

Dale, you should do a podcast.

[TackleTheWorld]

Dale,
DON'T TRY TO CONVINCE ME I AM WRONG!  First, it is rude. 

DW

Um, so isn't it rude to convince Dale he's wrong? 

[dalebert]

How do you gently convince someone their God doesn't exist and that they won't be going to Heaven when they die?

You can't, and why bother?  They should believe whatever makes them feel good.

This reminds me of when I was six years old arguing with my best friend. She insisted there were 100 seconds in a minute and I was trying to explain that there are 60 seconds in a minute. Finally, she asked her mom and her mom said "It's whatever you want it to be." My friend was satisfied with that answer. Meanwhile, my brain oozed out of my ears.

[Puke]

Organized religion is not the same as a belief in magic invisible men in the clouds.

[DigitalWarrior]

Dale,
DON'T TRY TO CONVINCE ME I AM WRONG!  First, it is rude.

DW

Um, so isn't it rude to convince Dale he's wrong?

In the letter, he asked the question of how to convince me there is no God.  I said he shouldn't.

I did not set out theological arguments related to divine universal law, cosmological constants, and the difference between provable and true.  I do not attempt to convert atheists, since in I think it is a faith and I should simply say, "yes I suppose she is the most beautiful woman for you". 

[dalebert]

In the letter, he asked the question of how to convince me there is no God.  I said he shouldn't.

It's interesting that a rhetorical question presented strictly for purposes of analogy was taken so personally and answered so passionately. It was meant as an example of (in very recent times though no longer) fringe idea that challenges a deeply held lifelong belief that we've been immersed in by our cultures all our lives and how such a challenge will almost inevitably evoke a strong reaction and should not be expected to change views overnight.

And like I said, whether God actually exists or not is actually irrelevant to whether the above statements are true and whether it's a good analogy for the reasons given. I think it's even clearer now that it is a good analogy.

[Caleb]

Well, ignoring the palatability of the analogy between government and religion for a moment, don't you think that the analogy is sort of an ineffective one?

Most analogies attempt to get people to reason on something that they don't yet see by comparing it with something that they consider to be fairly well established. So what are you trying to do? Get people to see how anarchy must be true by appealing to their atheism? Or perhaps you are trying to get them to see that atheism is true by appealing to their anarchism?  Either way, you're preaching to a relatively fringe group.

I would think that a more effective analogy would be one that appealed to something that enjoyed a more universal consensus. When you use a marginalized or fringe position to draw an analogy to another marginalized or fringe position, you don't really strengthen it much.

[Caleb]

Yes, the parallels between religion and government worship exist

I think we should consider that the parallels exist because the authoritarianism, the need to control others, is sadly a part of human nature, and thus man infects all of his relationships with it:  family, religion, government, trade.

Social evolution is not an optional part of a successful revolution.