FAQ on atheism and agnosticism?

robindch

There are a few questions/pov's which pop up on the forum from time to time -- the "atheism caused the Holocaust" trope, for example -- and I was wondering this morning whether it's worth putting together a forum sticky which listed the most frequently-occurring misconceptions and questions, and attempted to answer them.

Google does produce a few existing FAQ's:

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3148 (useful)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
http://www.atheist-community.org/faq/
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1219
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki_Atheism_FAQ_for_the_Newly_Deconverted
http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheism-FAQ-Questions/Atheism-FAQ-Questions.htm (chloroform on screen)

...but none of them seem to cover everything.

So, what questions would people like to see on a hypothetical Atheism FAQ, and how would they answer them?

pauldla

How do you want to do this, robindch? We put up a question and then provide an answer...?

Gbear

Someone get onto OldRnWisr (**** that guy and his hard to spell name!:pac:).

Definitions of evidence, faith and belief as we use them would be a good start. They are terms we use a lot and it'd be easier to refer to a FAQ rather than stating the meaning every time.


A definition for atheism also wouldn't go astray.
That'd hopefully stop the "your position is based on faith as well!" brigade.

Something about why "militant" atheists are nearly always nothing of the sort.

Perhaps a reason why secularism is good for everyone.

pauldla

Nice one Gbear. A bit about 'atheism is not a religion' wouldn't go amiss either.

This could become a long list...we might even have a book on our hands.....!!!

Doctor DooM

Somewhere to point when the atheist/agnostic thing comes up would be nice... had it again over the last couple of days.

robindch

pauldla wrote: »

How do you want to do this, robindch? We put up a question and then provide an answer...?

Probably as good a way as any!

Turtwig

*Cough* *Cough*
Brag.

'Faith' Based Atheism.

Secularism & Religion.

eviltwin

Maybe have links to sites that explain rights of the non religious re schools if one exists.. Its the one thing that crops up again and again.

If you're willing to put a bit of effort into this, and are in no rush to see the project to completion (if it would ever be completed), then a collaborative effort, similar to how a wiki page develops, would be the best method, I think. In this thread (or another, new one) we could attempt to exhaust the list of common questions without providing answers. When we have a sufficiently exhaustive list, a thread could be started about each question and forum members could write their own answers. A collaborative effort, with Dades and robindch as "editors" perhaps, could then attempt to combine the best bits of each member's contribution into one, final answer.

Perhaps that would be too much work and would take too long, but it would seem to be the most efficient way of providing complete answers, answers which would not be the view of one, particular person, but a consensus view, vetted by this community for impartiality and objectivity.

Gbear

gvn wrote: »

If you're willing to put a bit of effort into this, and are in no rush to see the project to completion (if it would ever be completed), then a collaborative effort, similar to how a wiki page develops, would be the best method, I think. In this thread (or another, new one) we could attempt to exhaust the list of common questions without providing answers. When we have a sufficiently exhaustive list, a thread could be started about each question and forum members could write their own answers. A collaborative effort, with Dades and robindch as "editors" perhaps, could then attempt to combine the best bits of each member's contribution into one, final answer.

Perhaps that would be too much work and would take too long, but it would seem to be the most efficient way of providing complete answers, answers which would not be the view of one, particular person, but a consensus view, vetted by this community for impartiality and objectivity.

A lot of us post in here every day. We can do a little at a time. It'd be like the cooking club in food and drink except that we'd be working simultaneously (more or less).

UDP

The more information put into this the less likely people will read it. There is huge amounts of information on the Web already. People post those questions for so many reasons from spite, trolling, laziness, ignorance to being on the brink of breaking out of their religion - their indoctrinations last fight. Either way I dont think they are going to read a wiki of info. It's a good idea in theory.

Galvasean

I like the idea of us having our own Wiki though... It'd be like Conservapedia, except good!

General Relativity

FAQ; The difference between hypotheses, theories, and facts.


Firstly, facts are not included in this hierarchy. Something does not go from hypothesis to theory to fact, it goes from hypothesis to theory with facts used to make that jump. Facts are observed properties of the world.

Secondly, in the traditional science world, a hypothesis comes in this form:

If ... then ... because.

If I hit you, then it will hurt, because your nerve endings translate damage to your body as pain.

With all that out of the way, here's an example of the scientific hierarchy at work:

Hypothesis: If I make a sound underwater, then it will travel slower than it would in air, because water is thick and it takes time for things to move through it.

To prove this hypothesis, we must perform reliable, testable, and repeatable experiments, in which our observed facts may or may not hold up to our hypothesis.

Fact: It takes .05 seconds for a sound generated at point A to be heard at point B, above water. Points A and B will stay the same distance apart throughout this experiment.

Fact: It takes .03 seconds for a sound generated at point A to be heard at point B, below water.

Our original hypothesis has just been disproved.

Because an observed fact just contradicted our hypothesis, that means we must change our hypothesis to fit the data. So:

If I make a sound underwater, then it will travel faster than it would in air, because water and air are made up of particles that carry sound, and in water they're closer together.

This new hypothesis supports the data, so that should be it, right? Wrong. The new hypothesis puts forth an interesting statement: Water and Air are made up of sound-carrying particles. That, in itself, is a hypothesis. So how do we prove it? We devise a cunning and imaginative experiment to prove it!

First, we need another hypothesis we can use to help guide this experiment:

If I make a sound underwater, then it will travel through the water, because sound is a wave translated through the water particles.

Obviously, now we have to show that sound is a wave. Then, we'll have to show that particles transmit waves.

So, let's see how we can show that sound is a wave. According to the equations of wave-dynamics, different frequency waves will set up troughs of cancelation and fortification. In that: sometimes, waves will cancel each other out, and other times they'll fortify themselves; add to themselves. So let's prove that sound does the same thing.

Firstly, let's get a clear plastic tube. In this tube, we will put a bunch of tiny, light, white, ball-like particles. On one end of the tube, we will have two variable sound-transmitters. We set one of these transmitters to emit a sustained note, and we observe a fact: the particles begin to vibrate and move, and arrange themselves into a wave! But we haven't proved anything yet; they may look like a wave, but we haven't shown that they behave according to the set laws of wave dynamics. So we start the other note (carefully tuned to produce the cancelation and fortification effects when it reacts with the first note), and lo and behold, the particles show cancelation and fortification troughs, in the exact frequency the equations of wave-dynamics predict!

So, with one experiment, we've shown that particles can transmit waves, and that sound is a wave.

Back to water and air:

Our third hypothesis, "If I make a sound underwater, then it will travel through the water, because sound is a wave translated through the water particles" has been proven. This should help to support our second hypothesis: "If I make a sound underwater, then it will travel faster than it would in air, because water and air are made up of particles that carry sound, and in water they're closer together". But how do we show that sound travels faster when particles are closer together? We perform experiments and observe facts! (I'm running low on creativity here, so like hell I'm describing another experiment. I'll just give you the results

Fact: In denser materials, particles are closer together, and so have less distance to cover when they bump into each other.

Since waves are transmitted when particles bump into each other, we can show that, since water is denser than air (and so its particles are closer together), a sound wave is transmitted faster through water than air. And so, our hypothesis is proven, and now we have a theory.

Theory: Sound travels faster as the medium gets denser.

This theory will never become fact. Ever. It will always remain theory. Unless, of course, someone can come up with contradictory evidence, in which case we'd have to go through the whole process again to fit the new data.

So, let me say it again:

1. Observed fact.

2. Hypothesis.

3. Contradictory data.

4. New hypothesis.

5. Supportive data.

6. (test, test, test, test ,test!!!)

7. Theory!

8. Contradictory data

9. Hypothesis

Ad infinitum.

Tl;DR: http://readingeggs.co.uk/

Sarky

I dunno, don't the AtheismDoublePlusGood folks have something like that to beat people around the head with instead of refraining from douchebaggery and actually being helpful? I don't really like the idea that something similar could potentially happen here.

Daftendirekt

I think something like this could be useful if it wasn't so extensive that it could be used to shut down potentially good discussions.

There would definitely be some value in having a sticky outlining some of the commonly misunderstood terms, though. Would it be any great loss to the forum if there was never a thread on the difference between atheism and agnosticism again? Or am I the only one who finds that particular topic incredibly tedious?

On the other hand, if you were to start including stuff like "Why Creationism is bunk" you'd almost certainly miss out on some entertaining and informative debates.

I like the idea of it being somewhat collaborative, too. Not quite sure how that'd work though.

Doctor DooM

Galvasean wrote: »

I like the idea of us having our own Wiki though... It'd be like Conservapedia, except good!

Iron chariots is one, it's a counter apologetics wiki... Must look it up.

Sulla Felix

I think it would be good as a reference piece but not as an answer.
Ie: Newbie: Question question question.
Regular: Link to FAQ
Mod: Ok, q answered, lock.

Anyway, I've never seen FAQs as a first port of call. From my experience I usually jump into a website/forum whatever feet first and I'll only get around to reading the FAQ after an amount of time.

My nominee for inclusion would be that post on dialectics that was floating around a while back. Threads on here run a different course to even the other "serious" forums on boards like politics etc.

legspin

The only thread of this ilk that I would like is one on getting de-baptised/unchristened/removal of name from church records.

i.e.
Q.
Can one be /How does one go about being...?
A.
One can't. Well, not at the moment anyway.


Sticky the thread but otherwise let it be.

It's only because it seems to me that if we get one thread on it as normal, there is a few along not long after.
Of course, 'tis just a personal niggle. Other than that, let things as they are imo.

Dades

A couple of ones that could use stickying definitely:

- "Atheist regimes".
- Definitions: Atheism and agnosticism not mutually exclusive.

I'd hesitate in putting too much stuff in a FAQ, tbh, as some lot of stuff still draws disagreement amongst non-believers, and we need to leave room for discussion too.

No to A&A+ !!

pH

Instead of turning it into a lecture on people's pet topics or "what folks really should know" - how about actually looking at the forum history and actually compiling a list of

Frequently
Asked
Questions

So if people are actually "asking" about something "frequently" it goes in!

sorry - but it's a pet peeve of mine - people inventing lists of FAQs - rather than actually taking the time to check what is actually being asked ... frequently!

My vote ... and it's getting closer by the day ...

HOW COME YOU HYPOCRITICAL ATHEISTS CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS WHEN U HATE TEH BABY JESUS SO MUCH?

Gbear

It wouldn't be a FAQ so much as a Refutation of Frequently Uttered Bull**** Statements.

There's just no need to have to keep repeating ourselves correcting some things.

wonderfulname

Gbear wrote: »

It wouldn't be a FAQ so much as a Refutation of Frequently Uttered Bull**** Statements.

I spy a new game...

Common Utterances of Noob Theists?

Sometimes Asked by Theists And Noobs?

Massively iMportant Megathread... Baloney Asked By Individuals Every So often.

I'm not very good at this, someone else have a go!

On topic: Perhaps a reference thread may be more appropriate? Links relating to, for example, secular organisations in Ireland, refutations of creationism, and explanations of atheism and agnosticism, as well as links to useful threads here.