Atheism and the internet

[L'Emmerdeur]

In spite of which, it appears the internet is still a powerful tool for opposing the silliness of religion.

I agree, though it's hard to measure the extent to which online opposition to religion's excesses and the sometimes vile behavior of its adherents translates to change outside the internet. I think the Alternet piece fails in its approach to that question.

[Svartalf]

Ah, what would conspiracy theory be without teh int@rwebz?

[Elderito]

The second reference is to a Church of LDS memo urging its officials to fight their sects detractors. No mention is made of atheists, and I dare say that is because the LDS recognise that the vast majority of their detractors consists of members of competing, mainly christian denomination. The LDS memo does not mention atheists.

With Mormonism I've already posted a thread about how nearly 50% who leave it become atheists. In their case the internet gives easy access to documents which contradict the LDS Church teachings about its founder. Often the first most effective argument comes from Mormon apologists themselves. Mormons go internet sites of Mormon apologists and are exposed to a can of worms they may never have thought about. They go to the apologists site looking for how to explain the Book Of Mormon mentioning domesticated horses in pre-Columbian America, and see topics about: Joseph Smith's 14yr old plural wife, the Kinderhook Plates, the Kirtland Banking fraud, etc. etc.

Before the internet it was easy for Mormons to discount criticism as anti-Mormon propaganda, but the apologists' recognition of some facts surprises and dismays the faithful.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Table_of_Contents

So at least for Mormons the internet is a huge threat and a big atheist creator. Most are not attracted to other religions since they have already deconstructed most Christian sects and their logical inconsistencies as part of the justification for forming Mormonism in the first place.

[rainbow]

According to a Pew Research poll, 68% of those who state that they are not affiliated with any religion still "believe in God." The article referenced in the OP equates "not affiliated" with "lost faith," which is inaccurate. I would describe the OP itself as internet atheist triumphalism. Like most triumphalism, it's short on facts.

Yay!

We win again!!

[L'Emmerdeur]

Yay!

We win again!!

For certain values of "win."

[Blind groper]

My own view (which is mere opinion, so you can readily disagree if you wish), that there are people who have a tendency to think rationally, and there are people who tend to think emotionally. An atheist argument on the internet may influence the first group, but the second group will cling to their irrational beliefs regardless of any data and/or logic presented.

[rainbow]

My own view (which is mere opinion, so you can readily disagree if you wish), that there are people who have a tendency to think rationally, and there are people who tend to think emotionally. An atheist argument on the internet may influence the first group, but the second group will cling to their irrational beliefs regardless of any data and/or logic presented.

I think that it is irrational to divide people into groups based on whether they think rationally or emotionally.

[pErvinalia]

Why?

[rainbow]

...because most people do both.

[pErvinalia]

I think it's pretty clear what he is saying. He's talking about the tendency to be more rational vs emotional and vice versa

[Blind groper]

Correct.

The tendency for different people to think more rationally or more emotionally will fall on a continuum. If you knew what you were doing, and could quantify rationality (I don't know how, but that does not mean it is impossible), you could test a thousand people, and probably find a nice normal distribution curve.

[JimC]

I don't think it is quite as simple as that. For example, it is very possible to be highly rational about a number of topics (such as the nature of the universe and the putative existence of god), and yet quite irrational about other areas (such as the health benefits of gin consumption...)

[mistermack]

I agree. It's not simple at all. It's not all in the conscious mind either. A lot of it is in the hardware. We inherit a tendency to assign causes to observed effects. Basically, we instinctively invent causes, we link things, and then find out later if we were right or wrong. Instead of being like Sherlock Holmes, building up a picture from facts, we imagine all sorts of unlikely things, and try them out till we have to discard them.

My sister is an intelligent woman. Like me, she was brought up by fiercely Catholic parents, and she held onto the religion a lot longer than me. But she doesn't believe it now. Nothing to do with me, I've hardly ever had a conversation with her about it.

But the other day, on the phone, she asked me how my eyes were. ( I'd had a bout of sore eyes ).
I jokingly said that they'd had to take one out, and they took the wrong one by mistake.

She was really shocked, even though she knew it was a joke. She said "you shouldn't joke about such things", and clearly had this instinctive feeling that if you said it, it might come true.
And a hell of a lot of women have that attitude. You shouldn't say something terrible, it might somehow come back to haunt you.
It's not something they think, or work out, it's an instinctive superstitious feeling. Even in an atheist.
I'm sure men have it too, but I've noticed it a lot more in women.