Agreed.

But, I’m not convinced that improved communication would actually solve the problem, partly for the reason you outline in your last paragraph – argument itself (you know, marshaling evidence & logic) is the thing that’s troubling for a lot of people – it leaves out the privileged role they afford their own emotions (not to mention they find it insulting and condescending). It’s not that atheists fail to argue well (though some do), or even communicate well (though some do), but that arguing atheists fail to affect those people who aren’t willing to allow argument to undermine their identity and emotional beliefs.

That willingness to question oneself and accept that one’s own beliefs and perceptions might be wrong isn’t universal, and might even be detrimental to some people’s happiness. And, that willingness can’t be changed by argument (because of itself) , so it seems to me that, before atheistic arguments can work, that person must make the first few steps on their own.

So, I don’t usually bother arguing atheism with true believers, but only with doubters, atheists, and philosophers who are interested – otherwise I’m just irritating people. That said, I do take a guilty pleasure in asking difficult questions when opportunity knocks..

As regards your previous post – you framed your point as an argument of proof, which it wasn’t. The logic geek in me seethes every time I leave such things alone. It seemed a bit weird to me that you were claiming it as such, but, well, you said it anyway

It seems to me that there’s no practical difference between philosophical agnostics (who assign a probability of almost zero to God), and soft atheists (who accept the overwhelming evidence as tantamount to proof). It’s like calculus – my belief in god(s) tends towards zero, yours is zero – a difference only worth talking about with mathematicians or philosophers. Given that, then, it amuses me that some atheists spend a lot of time bashing agnostics, and, possibly vice versa..

Agreed.

But, I’m not convinced that improved communication would actually solve the problem, partly for the reason you outline in your last paragraph – argument itself (you know, marshaling evidence & logic) is the thing that’s troubling for a lot of people – it leaves out the privileged role they afford their own emotions (not to mention they find it insulting and condescending). It’s not that atheists fail to argue well (though some do), or even communicate well (though some do), but that arguing atheists fail to affect those people who aren’t willing to allow argument to undermine their identity and emotional beliefs.

That willingness to question oneself and accept that one’s own beliefs and perceptions might be wrong isn’t universal, and might even be detrimental to some people’s happiness. And, that willingness can’t be changed by argument (because of itself) , so it seems to me that, before atheistic arguments can work, that person must make the first few steps on their own.

So, I don’t usually bother arguing atheism with true believers, but only with doubters, atheists, and philosophers who are interested – otherwise I’m just irritating people. That said, I do take a guilty pleasure in asking difficult questions when opportunity knocks..

As regards your previous post – you framed your point as an argument of proof, which it wasn’t. The logic geek in me seethes every time I leave such things alone. It seemed a bit weird to me that you were claiming it as such, but, well, you said it anyway

It seems to me that there’s no practical difference between philosophical agnostics (who assign a probability of almost zero to God), and soft atheists (who accept the overwhelming evidence as tantamount to proof). It’s like calculus – my belief in god(s) tends towards zero, yours is zero – a difference only worth talking about with mathematicians or philosophers. Given that, then, it amuses me that some atheists spend a lot of time bashing agnostics, and, possibly vice versa..