asking for advice from fellow atheists

momochan · Post by **momochan** » 2006-06-27 04:55pm

Hello. I'm inviting the atheists in the StarD community to give me some advice on presenting atheism to high school kids.

I'm a member of a local atheist club, and we were contacted by a high school teacher who asked us to provide a speaker to a summer school philosophy class next month. We have one hour to talk on the subject of "What it means to be atheist" or something vague like that. There will be about 20 students in each of the two classes we'll attend, ranging in age from 14 to 17. The school is in a working-class neighborhood in a major California city, meaning a lot of ethnic diversity.

It has been a few years (or more!) since I was in high school, and things have changed...anyway, what do you think would be the best approach? I realize it would be better to keep it personal, and positive, rather than hitting the philosophy hard or tearing down religion.

I would really appreciate any and all input!
momochan

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-06-27 05:08pm

Just talk about how you decide your own purpose for your lives, and don't need an archaic text to tell you how to live your lives. Explain also that when you know there's no god to forgive you, and there are no higher forces at work in your life, it forces you to take personal responsibility for your own actions. Also point out that since this life is all we get, and this world is all we have, we should dedicate our lives to improving both.

Or just go with the statement that atheism is, by definition, a lack of belief in something, and as such doesn't adhere to any specific philosophy, and then explain your individual personal outlooks on life.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-06-27 06:44pm

I don't know if you can explain atheism without "tearing down" religion. We of course have good reason not to believe, but a lot of religious people might take offense to you pointing out the lack of proof and stupidity of religion. Just make sure to get across that atheism is the lack of religion, and not just another religion the way fundies like to portray it.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-06-27 06:45pm

Speaking as a high schooler in the not-so-distant past, be sure you make the presentation entertaining or attention-grabbing; though style-over-substance is a fallacy, if you're going to get your point across, then you need to keep their attention long enough to do it.

I would keep the presentation itself sweet and simple; we're talking high school students here who are probably a mix of remedial students and advanced students, not philosophy majors. If I were doing it, I would quickly get to the central point of atheism -- if you can't see it, why believe it? -- and keep hammering it home through different examples. For example, halfway through the middle of the presentation, I might start acting like somebody had tapped me on the shoulder and was talking to me -- "So, scientific observation is pretty much an extens- hello? Oh! Hi! How are you? Mm-hmm -- how's your mother doing? Oh, that's great to hear!" I'd keep up in that vein for a minute, then turn around and make my point.

Mr. T · Post by **Mr. T** » 2006-06-27 07:09pm

Jim Raynor wrote:I don't know if you can explain atheism without "tearing down" religion. We of course have good reason not to believe, but a lot of religious people might take offense to you pointing out the lack of proof and stupidity of religion. Just make sure to get across that atheism is the lack of religion, and not just another religion the way fundies like to portray it.

I agree, hammering in the point that atheism requires no belief is a key requirement. You'd be surprised by the number of people that believe atheists only exist because they're "mad at god" or something along those lines. I also agree with the poster that said to make the presentation entertaining, don't make it completely like a university lecture or something. Humour always works wonders as well.

Also I'd recommend leaving some time for questions. Keep in mind that many people are very protective about religion and so alot of questions may be based more in passion rather than logic as some kids might (unfortunately) feel that you teaching about atheism is an attack on them personally.

Furthermore I'd really recommend that you point them to further resources, particularely perhaps Mike Wong's creationism site.

Hope that helps

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2006-06-27 07:20pm

--I agree with other posters in that one must make it very clear that atheism is the disbelief in the existence of a god or gods. It does not include any other set of beliefs that a standard religion does. You should give some examples of various belief systems that are atheistic (especially if the examples have contradicting beliefs). The point is that knowing someone is an atheist doesn't necessarily tell you too much about them.
-You can go through the logical justifications for atheism, but be sure to point out that not all atheists necessarily subscribe to the logical justifications. Another one of Mr. Wong's web pages: http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Gr ... sion.shtml is a good starting point.
-Nearly all atheists obey some moral code. One major example is humanism: http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/ ... Code.shtml. I recommend picking your groups favorite moral code and explaining it in detail. In addition, you should pick a few other examples such as Buddhism.
-In terms of rhetoric I would try to stick to the positive aspects of atheism. Provide handouts including summaries and links to studies showing the good moral character of atheists in general. Provide examples of the persecution of atheists and attempts by society disparage them (only in order to disabuse the students of the notion that atheism is responsible for all things evil). Point out that there are no suicide atheists and there was never a war fought in the name of atheism (communism is a political philosophy not atheism and Hitler was a Christian).
-Don't be afraid to counter arguments about the greatness of religion with examples like the conquest of America and the countless wars fought in the name of religion.
-Tell the students how to contact you and your group.
-Don't let religious nuts derail your presentation and insist that the teacher give you the authority to make problem students leave.

Count Dooku · Post by **Count Dooku** » 2006-06-27 07:48pm

Make sure they know that a rational and objective view of society, religion, and science are important things to atheists (most of the time anyway).

Omega-185 · Post by **Omega-185** » 2006-06-27 07:48pm

Another thing to keep in mind is if any students bring up conter-arguments to athiesm that use fallacies don't go naming the fallacies they used. Instead use "by your logic...". I can tell you from experience that high school students do not know anything about logical fallacies so naming them just causes confusion. Oh, and your atheist club can probably expect some angry letters from "concerned parents".

Anyway it is good to see atheism getting some class room timel.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2006-06-27 08:13pm

--Actually, it is probably a good idea to both introduce logic and provide a handout on logical fallacies (you can find a good list of fallacies here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... logic.html). While your at it you might want to explain the logical justification for science. However, you can't undo years of horrible education in one hour. A lot of this is probably best left as an exercise for the reader (of the handout you give them).

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2006-06-27 08:23pm

PM Sans Deity. He host a 90 minute public access TV show about atheism everyweek and as such would probably be the most qualified to lend you advice.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-06-27 08:40pm

You don't necessarily have to attack religion directly, but you do have to explain how a lot of religious claims about atheism are totally false. Something like an FAQ or Q&A session might be in order:

Q: Is it true that atheists don't want to believe in final judgment because they don't want to be held responsible for their actions?
A: Think about what you just said. Do you really think atheists want to believe that they have no afterlife, and that they just disappear into nothingness upon death? Would you want to believe such a thing? Atheists reach that conclusion in spite of what they want, not because of it.

Q: Without God, how can atheists know right from wrong?
A: The same way Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Confucius, or Buddha did. It's a myth that morality has always been tied to religion. In reality, the ancient Greeks, from whom our civilization is descended, had no morality teachings in their mythology, except perhaps by the gods showing you what not to do. The Greeks relied upon the writings of wise men for their concepts of morality, as have most human tribes since prehistory. In the end, morality is based upon the simple human emotion of sympathy for others, and the rest is window-dressing. That's why the parts of the Bible which ring most true for moralists are the parts where Jesus or God shows his mercy rather than his anger.

Q: Aren't atheists all angry at God?
A: Only in the sense that a lot of us are angry at Barney the Dinosaur. He's a fictional character who annoys us because we find his books, songs, and videos to be irritatingly sappy and repetitive.

Q: What is the atheist position on abortion?
A: Who said we have a position? Atheists are just people who don't believe in gods. That doesn't mean we all agree about what's right and wrong.

Q: Don't you think that you would be happier if you accepted Jesus Christ?
A: No. I would have to spend the rest of my life running in fear from that part of my mind which keeps whispering to me that I'm believing in a big lie just because it's what I want to hear. I would have to shut that voice out, silence all doubts, censor my thoughts and my surroundings. No wonder religious people are pro-censorship.

Q: Aren't you worried about what will happen when you die?
A: Yes. I'm worried that I'll be right. That doesn't mean I'll change my mind. Facts are facts.

Q: What do you think of sexual immorality?
A: It's awesome. You should try it sometime.

Q: Why do you believe in the myth of evolution?
A: Because it makes sense, because creationist arguments generally fall apart once you investigate them, and because 100% of the people who disagree with evolution just happen to be religious, thus demonstrating that there is no real scientific problem with it; just a religious one. Can you find me a single scientist who disagrees with evolution and is not a fervent religious believer?

Q: Do you agree that evolution theory and intelligent design theory should get equal time in the classroom?
A: Do you agree that germ theory and spiritual corruption theory should get equal time in med school?

Q: Why are you afraid of things like "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?
A: I'm not afraid of it, I'm offended by it. Big difference. The same reason you would be offended if it was officially changed to "One Nation Under Buddha" by an act of Congress. The government has no business telling me or anyone else to worship any particular belief system. Mind your own business, and don't get the government involved if you want to worship your God.

Q: According to atheism, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Is that correct?
A: Atheism is not a moral code. But atheists are nevertheless more likely to accept homosexuality than religious people, because we have no particular reason not to. It's none of my business if two consenting same-sex adults want to have sexual relations.

Q: Don't you feel like there's some void in your life without God?
A: No. Why should I?

Q: Don't you think the safe thing would be to accept Jesus just in case? What if you die and it turns out that the Bible was right?
A: What if you die and it turns out that the Koran was right? I don't see you accepting Mohammed just in case.

Q: Have you ever heard the saying "there are no atheists in foxholes"?
A: I've known atheist soldiers. That saying is false.

Q: Even if you don't believe in God, you have to accept that the Bible has some great spiritual teachings in it.
A: So does Star Wars.

You get the general idea. But if you were to allow a Q&A session you'd have to stipulate that people can only ask you what it's like to be an atheist, rather than using it as an excuse to attack you or try to draw you into political arguments.

momochan · Post by **momochan** » 2006-06-27 09:26pm

I'm really delighted to get so many helpful responses so quickly! I'm going to contact the teacher and confirm a few details, which I"ll pass along to y'all.
Thank you!

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2006-06-27 09:35pm

Check out the creationtheory.org (Lord Wongs other sight)

There's lots of nice essays there for you to use, including Atheist vs biblical morality

Omega-185 · Post by **Omega-185** » 2006-06-27 09:35pm

Nova Andromeda wrote:--Actually, it is probably a good idea to both introduce logic and provide a handout on logical fallacies (you can find a good list of fallacies here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... logic.html). While your at it you might want to explain the logical justification for science. However, you can't undo years of horrible education in one hour. A lot of this is probably best left as an exercise for the reader (of the handout you give them).

Oh, I compleatly agree that these students should be introduced to logic and fallacy. But when I started reading up on the Creation-Evolution debate (I was 25 at the time) I found the amount of fallacies being thrown around to be some what confusing and as momochan probably only has a hour to give his presentation introducing them to a whole bunch of fallicies isn't the best idea. I agree he should give a hand out with common fallacies on it and pointed out a fallacy was used then explain why it is wrong to use that fallacy but saying stuff like " Your critism is a strawman and therefore is not a good argument" will just cause confusion.

Another idea is to say something like "Imagine you grew up in a world were there was no religion and all widely held beliefs had evidence to back them up. Now imagine you go to a different world were people believe in unicorns. You then ask them 'what evidence is there for these unicorns of yours?" and they reply 'our faith and belief tell us unicorns exists, all you need to do is suspend your disbelief and have faith in unicorns. After all every one beliefs in unicorns and they can't all be wrong?'. Doesn't that strike you as a little odd? Here we have an entire world believing in unicorns without evidence. You see from some one who wasn't raised in a unicorn believing sociaty it strikes us as foolish to believe in something with out evidence. And if you also doubt that the unicorns of that world exist then you are a unicorn-atheist. Now atheists in the real world view god much the same way as you view those unicorns, as logicly unlikely to exist." This might help you underscore the rational behind atheism.

Also explain burdon of proof so they understand that one must prove a positive not a negitive.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2006-06-27 10:08pm

Regarding your presentation, I'd trying to avoid looking either excessively serious or excessively flippant. Both of those play to a commonly accepted steriotype about atheists (their lives are hollow and sad/they are atheists to try to escape judgement.) Just be a normal person --that's the one thing they don't seem to believe we are capable of being.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2006-06-27 10:17pm

Darth Wong wrote:Q: Have you ever heard the saying "there are no atheists in foxholes"?
A: I've known atheist soldiers. That saying is false.

There is another reply which I think works better, and it can work even if you don't know any soldiers.

A: It's not a saying, it's a joke. One of Murphy's Laws of Combat, like "Five-second fuses always burn in three seconds," and "Incoming fire has right of way." They are not meant to be taken seriously.

Note: Some of the lists in the link say that "Murphy was a grunt." That is incorrect, Major Edward A. Murphy Jr. was an engineer for the US Airforce, and certainly no grunt. Well, according to wikipedia. I guess if anyone wants to make sure, they shoud cross-reference with something more trustworthy.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-06-28 01:37am

As to the "no atheists in foxholes," there is this:

http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2006-06-28 01:48am

Omega-185 wrote:
Nova Andromeda wrote:--Actually, it is probably a good idea to both introduce logic and provide a handout on logical fallacies (you can find a good list of fallacies here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... logic.html). While your at it you might want to explain the logical justification for science. However, you can't undo years of horrible education in one hour. A lot of this is probably best left as an exercise for the reader (of the handout you give them).
Oh, I compleatly agree that these students should be introduced to logic and fallacy. But when I started reading up on the Creation-Evolution debate (I was 25 at the time) I found the amount of fallacies being thrown around to be some what confusing and as momochan probably only has a hour to give his presentation introducing them to a whole bunch of fallicies isn't the best idea. I agree he should give a hand out with common fallacies on it and pointed out a fallacy was used then explain why it is wrong to use that fallacy but saying stuff like " Your critism is a strawman and therefore is not a good argument" will just cause confusion.

Another idea is to say something like "Imagine you grew up in a world were there was no religion and all widely held beliefs had evidence to back them up. Now imagine you go to a different world were people believe in unicorns. You then ask them 'what evidence is there for these unicorns of yours?" and they reply 'our faith and belief tell us unicorns exists, all you need to do is suspend your disbelief and have faith in unicorns. After all every one beliefs in unicorns and they can't all be wrong?'. Doesn't that strike you as a little odd? Here we have an entire world believing in unicorns without evidence. You see from some one who wasn't raised in a unicorn believing sociaty it strikes us as foolish to believe in something with out evidence. And if you also doubt that the unicorns of that world exist then you are a unicorn-atheist. Now atheists in the real world view god much the same way as you view those unicorns, as logicly unlikely to exist." This might help you underscore the rational behind atheism.

Also explain burdon of proof so they understand that one must prove a positive not a negitive.

-Logic is and excellent basis for atheism and modern moral codes such as humanism. Nevertheless, it probably hasn't even been introduced to these students. Considering this I would try to outline the basics of logical thought, why it is essential to things like modern science and tech., and explain a couple common logical fallacies. I WOULD NOT attempt to dumb it down to common sense since that is precisely the wrong direction to point a high school kid. Your suggestion involving the unicorns is an example of this. It must be made clear logical thought follows certain rules and common sense is no substitute. For example, one cannot solve math problems using common sense.
-This is assuming Momochan et al are rational thinkers. If they are not they can skip the whole logic intro.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2006-06-28 02:05am

That's why my Q&A examples were not exactly logical deconstructions. Youngsters don't have the time or patience for such things. You have to think of a way to say it quickly, or they just tune it out.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2006-06-28 02:11am

--I do like you Q&A ideas. There probably isn't time to do much more than counter common myths and introduce atheism in general. A Q&A and/or a FAQ is a great way to do that. However, an intro. to logic, rational thought, and science would be an nice bonus.

Ryushikaze · Post by **Ryushikaze** » 2006-06-28 03:12am

I'd start with a show of hands of how many people believed in Thor, Shiva, Bahamut, Quetzlcoatl, Ishtar, etc. and explain to them that they are atheistic towards these gods. This will lead nicely into explaining that Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. From there, I'd start debunking atheist myths.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2006-06-28 08:03am

You might consider the Internet Infidels board. A large collection of atheists and freethinkers from which you can pry a variety of resources and opinions.

In general, however, you want to think about your audience. It may be that these kids are not capable of grasping some of the philosophical concepts you bring, or may be entrenched in their bias. So you want to be able to speak about things that they can immediately understand, such as the need for internal strength to not be afraid of mortality, and the importance of humanism and improving trust and cooperation between people for lack of a diety.

Atheism is simple and doesn't require much elaboration - You don't believe in a god. The consequences of atheism, such as the need to think about your lifestyle and personal morality - are more dramatic.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-06-28 12:22pm

A certain light-hearted approach is also very important. You need to disarm them, and humour has always been a very good instrument for accomplishing that task.

Pezzoni · Post by **Pezzoni** » 2006-06-28 01:11pm

I'd personally discuss logic to begin with, as a foundation. Things like the burden of proof, appeal to ignorance etc.

Then maybe defining atheism, talking about what atheism is, and making it clear that the only garunteed common thought between atheists is a disbelief in god, and that aside from that, atheists do not have a predefined set of beliefs like Christians and those of other religions.

Good luck, and let us know how it goes

momochan · Post by **momochan** » 2006-06-28 04:10pm

I discussed the invitation last night with a few other club members. It seems that we are part of a program that will bring in representatives from Buddhism, Hinduism, Xianity, Judaism, and Islam. These will all be on different days than our talk. One thing I noticed is that Xianity gets only the same basic time slot as the other religions, which is to the teacher's credit IMHO.

There are three of us club members who have committed to showing up -- which means that at least one of us will actually be there! One of the other guys is a tall black man with a booming voice, about at the opposite end of the human spectrum compared to me. The third guy will probably have his kids that week, but it looks like we've got the bases covered. We were thinking of each talking about 10-15 minutes and then leaving as much time for Q&A as possible.

My 'colleagues' and I are all very analytical people, who love nothing more than to get pretzeled up into arcane intellectual arguments. But I think I'll need to shift gears (at least myself -- there's no changing these two guys) and emphasize my own emotional experience. I always like to say it isn't that atheists don't believe in god(s); it's that we lack a belief in a god. However, a better wording in this situation would be "we just don't see any evidence for a god". We've looked, we've tried, we've thought about it -- we just don't see anything convincing.