Tag Archives: gods

Flamebaiting as a marketing strategy?

So today I made the mistake of using the #atheism hashtag on Twitter. It wasn’t really a mistake, I did it purposefully, and was aware that it brands me exactly as I’m comfortable being branded. What I didn’t expect was the troll I got in response.

He doesn’t fit the classic description of a troll or flamebaiter per se, or at least not MY definition. He’s a calm enough guy who’s simply making the same old tired, illogical, badly-presented arguments. In particular he’s claiming that atheism is, in fact, a religion, and that he has proof of this, a list of 5 gods that atheists believe in, and that we need to stop saying we don’t have belief or that we lack belief.

Where it gets interesting, though, is that he mainly avoids making the arguments themselves, only referencing the fact that he has them. Why? Because he has a convenient eBook available for sale on his website that has all those answers! And it retails for only $4.99, which is actually quite reasonable. $4.99 is almost inexpensive enough to be worth me buying just to read his arguments which I’ll likely immediately recognize from decades of others making the exact same tired arguments, along with nonsensical ramblings full of logical fallacies. Then I’d have the ammunition with which to refute his claims directly and show him how flawed they are, assuming he’s capable of following an intelligent argument.

And right there is where I realized this guy’s hidden brilliance. Regardless of whether he believes his claims (I have no reason to doubt that he does), and regardless of whether I and many more knowledgeable folks can rip said claims to shreds, is irrelevant. Why? Because the moment he’s successfully baited us into wanting to read his evidence to dispute his inanity he’s made $4.99 off us (minus fees, of course). At that point we could prove he’s one of the worst authors on the planet and has no skills whatsoever in philosophy or theology, and he’ll still have proven that what he lacks in those fields he makes up for in marketing strategy. Much like Brian Dunning once pointed out, sure you can make a better hamburger than McDonald’s, but you can’t make a better business. It’s not about the product, it’s about the selling of said product. And this guy deserves some credit for that. I can make a better argument than he can, but at the end of the day, which of us has made $4.99 off the other?

I’ve purposefully avoided linking to the person in question, but if you’re interested in checking out what he has to say, look to my Twitter feed. While I personally don’t wish to financially support his flawed arguments or deceptive practices, I won’t prevent you from doing so. He is pretty clever, and perhaps some may feel he deserves a few bucks for that. So be it. Now, should he wish to send me a FREE copy of the eBook and prove this wasn’t his strategy and he really does want open and honest discussion of the subject, I’d be happy to review it here. But I’m not paying for the privilege of arguing with him. I’m not that big of a masochist.

EDIT 5/18/10: I realize I’m doing nobody justice by not providing some link to this guy’s chatter, especially since he’s apparently still at it, even if he left me alone when it was clear I wasn’t buying (his book or his BS). So check out his Twitter feed to see what he’s up to.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

The evils of Azeusism

Over at Conversational Atheist they’ve posted a pretty cool answer for one of the most complicated arguments to respond to from the religious: atheism has lead to more deaths than religion.

This is usually in response to us pointing out just how many horrible things have been done in the names of various religions throughout history, with genocide, ethnic cleansing, witch hunts, crusades, etc. wiping out countless people, all to appease their deity of choice. Now most people you make this argument to really DON’T have an answer for it. But the educated(ish) ones will start pointing out Hitler (not accurate, his propaganda was filled with Christianity and talk of God), Pol Pot, Mao, and several serial killers. Their point being that atheists have killed as many people, if not more.

I’ll let their article go into the details, but calling out the horrors performed by those who don’t believe in Zeus does a pretty good job in calling out the flaw in their counter-argument. See, when we point out the evils done in the name of religion, we’re not describing things done merely by people who were religious. I don’t go around pointing to people on death row and saying, “Christian, Muslim, Christian, Christian, Catholic, Baptist, yep, look at all these people who killed their wives, neighbors, coworkers, strangers for reasons unrelated to their religion. See how evil religion is?” But I will point out when entire populations of people are slaughtered for belonging to the wrong religion. I will point out when planes are flown into skyscrapers for the glory of their god who they believe they’re doing the work of. I will call out when someone believes their god ordered them to kill an innocent person.

But their counter-argument doesn’t take this into account. Instead it equates unrelated concepts. “Lucy hates pizza and kicked a dog. Pizza-haters are mean to dogs.” They’re missing our entire point, and proving it by spouting back something completely nonsensical. Now this may stem partially from their constant inaccurate belief that atheism is a religion. That one’s infuriating enough. I guess since they can’t imagine a life without religion, they can’t imagine anyone else living without one. So our lack of beliefs must BE our belief. But even this misses the point. The atheists they call out for committing crimes don’t do so in the NAME of no god. Their crimes are not connected to their lack of belief.

In the end, this is just more evidence of an argument Phil Plait made in a recent blog post about paying attention to what you argue. It’s easy to get drug down into trying to argue the facts, which are frequently useless against the reasonless, but sometimes if you just pay close enough attention to the question and find the flaw there, you can nip the whole thing in the bud. The creationists (or Intelligent Design advocates, or whatever they are now) have proven extremely good at adapting (but, but, isn’t adaptation an attribute of evolution?) and adjusting not only their arguments, but their entire strategies. From what I’ve heard out of Texas recently, the scientific community has finally stepped up, got their ducks in a row, and headed them off relatively successfully. We all need to learn this strategy and start thinking differently, and learn to bob and weave at least as well as they do.

Tagged , , , , , ,