I guess all you need for something to be debatable as “clever satire” is at least one person who considers whether it’s serious…but, really?

These are just immature pranks. (There are a couple of funnier scenarios at the link, but none are particularly clever.)

A better one would be an inept psychic attempting to channel the dead with a plant in front of an audience, where eventually and repeatedly it becomes clear what the dead relative is trying to say to everyone; that is, everyone but the psychic, with the psychic becoming increasingly frustrated and angry and blaming the participant. Could be made better with a sensitive topic that the dead relative is dancing around, like the participant’s obvious sexual orientation that was likely a secret until the relative passed–at which point the participant dressed a little freer, got a few piercings, cut their hair, whatever. Comedy gold? Meh, gave it a shot.

I’m more interested in the non-prankish version of this ambush skepticism, though. Practically, it could include holding an open forum on religion without the express intent that it’ll be critical. Intervarsity Christian at IPFW did this, in reverse, by hosting supposed forums on critical questions like “Does God exist?” I never went because I presumed the answer.

I’ve seen quite a few mention a religious or supernatural topic, only to find a willing skeptic in the crowd (sometimes that was me, I admit) take the conversation to a level of consideration they weren’t prepared for, and were ultimately demolished. It rarely looked pleasant for the poor surprised believer, who probably thought they were being whimsical or “deep”.

I’m for being militant, but the examples given are juvenile and guaranteed to backfire. These things would simply piss people off, and, in some cases, are probably illegal (falsely ordering pizza for someone who won’t pay for it). Very bad ideas.

@Dave: On those times you’ve tried to inject reason, when it wasn’t expected, into a discussion on religion or the supernatural, what was the response?

@littlejohn: What are some of your ideas?

My ideas? Higher profile. Start with the Faith page of the Journal Gazette. I have sent details.

I try to be a skeptic without being as big an arsehole about it as the Bible-thumpers and moralists.

To me, it’s important to be able to voice my skepticism cogently without holding believers in disdain. Righteous idiots assume I have no spiritual life because mine isn’t the same as theirs, and I find that short-sighted and dopey. I have no inclination to compel others to believe in the world as I see it. I don’t want others to compel me to believe as they do.

I’ve had both a tarot reading and a psychic reading, and both were very pleasant experiences. I’ve even had a few pleasant experiences at church, though mostly I’m bored at church and get pinched by my mother for fidgeting.

I’m not sure I understand why there’s a need to be a militant skeptic. I would be interested, however, in hearing some ideas about changing up the papers’ Religion pages. I just find those stories vomitous and saccharine.

@littlejohn @ellecdr I’ve been giving a lot of thought to trying to get some things published on the religion pages of the JG for months now. What I haven’t quite figured out is how to frame the article in such a way that people who aren’t already atheists will read it and not be instantly turned off. I don’t have any illusions of changing anyone’s opinion about their faith, but I would like to whittle away at some of the common myths about nonbelievers.

@ellecdr While I’m not sure about “militant” skepticism, I do see a need to encourage a naturalistic worldview informed by critical thinking. To that end I think there is a need to confront extraordinary claims and point out the flaws in their proponents’ reasoning or faulty evidence. It’s not so much a belief in any of these things, including religion, that bothers me too much but rather the wholly credulous (credulent?) acceptance of anything and everything. Why? Because I think it has a harmful effect on society and government.

Well, this would be a pretty good time to point to the two recent fatal shootings motivated by religious beliefs. People will write letters to the editor denying the religious link, but that’s the sort of back-and-forth we’d like. Also, you could just discribe FFW and what we do. I’m sure lots of non-believers are unaware of us. I’ve spent my life writing for newspapers. If you want to send me a rough draft, I’ll massage it in a way making it much more likely to get published. The general rules are to keep it short, use short declarative sentences, and try to keep the paragraphs to no more than about two sentences. It may look choppy, but that makes it much easier to read.

@littlejohn: Thanks. I’ll be sure to take you up on your offer soon.

ellecdr:

Just curious: What about the tarot and psychic readings was fun? How does that reason square with the fact that the reader was taking it seriously? Or was that not the case?

I’ve argued before that cultural-immersion or role-playing type scenarios can be fun when you want to just give your innate capacity to misperceive a romp in the sandbox for a bit (this is why finding shapes in the clouds is fun), but it gets weird when your partner in such an activity thinks it’s real.

Really, I’ve been dreaming of things like this. I think we should al pick a sunday or maybe every sunday, and go to the church of the week and sit enjoy the sermons and ask lots f difficault questions. And take with us some very detailed pamphlets on Freethinking. Invite them to join us and ove the people of the world and stop hating and killing people like Muslems and liberals gays etc.

The pamphlet could contain science being done to help mankind by free thinkers. And things we are doing and not asking for money to get to rest in peace. Also add facts like no evidence of the great flood. Insane facts like bible facts Numbers [31:00] in the Bible. Also give references to to facts that disprove Religion or at least show it’s faults and proof of it’s hanous acts and crimes against humanity.

Lastly, You of Freethought fort Wayne need to realize your Importance and place in the world. Take a look at all the countries that read this site. I’m sure they read others but this site I think is a very good one. If you don’t know where to view this site visitors info, Ask Andrew Diekroger fer a review at the next meting.

At the very least we need pamphlets!!!! Hand them out!! Go Door to DOOR!

We could also,,, Start Protests out side churches!! LOL Unpeaceful though. Maybe we could al get in a huge fight in a church. LOL JUST KIDDING!!! I want to carry the sign that says, STOP Abortion! STOP RELIGION! OH That’s a mean mental Hook!

L8ter ye allz!

@Anthony

…enjoy the sermons…
…endure the sermons…

Fixed that for you.

…and ask lots f difficault questions

The inability to ask questions after a sermon is something I chafe at whenever I attend a service.

Here is this dude, subtly or explicitly, telling the congregation how to live their lives and no one gets a chance to publicly question or challenge his message. And because no one speaks up, it implies (falsely) that the entire congretation is in agreement which, I will note, has the added benefit of helping to stifle dissent. This is just one of a number of social-control techniques that can be found in many church services. Some are necessary and arise spontaneously in almost any group, but others seem less benign.

Butter, sorry to be remiss in answering your question. I was distracted by something sparkly, I guess.

BUTTER AXES: Just curious: What about the tarot and psychic readings was fun? How does that reason square with the fact that the reader was taking it seriously? Or was that not the case?

I ANS: “pleasant” was the term I used. I found the reading pleasant because it wasn’t expensive, we sat in comfy chairs talking about concerns of political and personal topics, and I liked the tiger tattoos on his forearms. I neither know nor care whether he took the reading seriously.

So-called “ambush skepticism” sounds a little like sour grapes–the same self-indulgent immaturity that provokes a temper tantrum (à la Rush Limbaugh) or results in the murder of an abortion doctor. Shouldn’t real Free Thinkers be above all that?

@Mark

I commented on the other post you commented on, but I’ll repeat it here. Before I respond to you, would you please clarify what you mean by “Free Thinker”.

-Andy W.

Well yes endure. lol. Depends on the questions I guess.