# Street Epistemology **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 13, 2015, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/street-epistemology/722433 "2015-06-13T13:18:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/street-epistemology/722433/61 "2015-06-16T15:49:22Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So is an “agnostic atheist” like, some guy in a box and you don’t know if he’s an agnostic or an atheist until the cat dies? Someone can be both. Agnosticism is about knowledge, atheism is about belief, or lack of belief. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/street-epistemology/722433/62 "2015-06-16T16:46:23Z")
Kinda depends, doesn’t it? Atheism that looks, shrugs and says “No, I don’t buy that” is one thing. The atheism that is at the core of Marxist materialism is a much more affirmative animal, yes? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/street-epistemology/722433/63 "2015-06-16T17:50:16Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > The atheism that is at the core of Marxist materialism WTF is Marxist materialism and what does it have to do with atheism? ---
**Author:** ![WotNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e19b73/32.png) [@WotNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WotNot)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/street-epistemology/722433/64 "2015-06-16T18:51:39Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Kinda depends, doesn’t it? Atheism that looks, shrugs and says “No, I don’t buy that” is one thing. The atheism that is at the core of Marxist materialism is a much more affirmative animal, yes? So you’d assume an agnostic atheist was the other sort, wouldn’t you? Rather than presuppose a paradox? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/street-epistemology/722433/65 "2015-06-16T19:29:09Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > WTF is Marxist materialism and what does it have to do with atheism? “Classical” Marxism presupposes atheism and insists that only absolute materialism is worthy of consideration, and that such materialism therefore enshrines economics as the central fact of history. Class struggle is, by Marxist dogma, the engine of history, and class struggle is wholly and entirely a question of economics. The more modern example of religiously based progressivism, like “liberation theology”, would cause a classical Marxist to shriek with horror and tear his hair. This is Marxism 101 and the Cliff Notes at that. If you are seeking a scholar of Marxism, I suggest you seek elsewhere. Marxism has gone the way of the passenger pigeon and we of the progressive left are the better for it. ---
**Author:** ![EinsteinsHund](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/einsteinshund/32/8400_2.png) [@EinsteinsHund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EinsteinsHund)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/street-epistemology/722433/66 "2015-06-16T21:28:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > “Classical” Marxism presupposes atheism and insists that only absolute materialism is worthy of consideration, and that such materialism therefore enshrines economics as the central fact of history. Class struggle is, by Marxist dogma, the engine of history, and class struggle is wholly and entirely a question of economics. The more modern example of religiously based progressivism, like “liberation theology”, would cause a classical Marxist to shriek with horror and tear his hair. > > This is Marxism 101 and the Cliff Notes at that. If you are seeking a scholar of Marxism, I suggest you seek elsewhere. Marxism has gone the way of the passenger pigeon and we of the progressive left are the better for it. Marxism may presuppose materialism, but marxism does in no way follow necessarily from atheism, so what’s your argument? Is it unique or surprising that sometimes wrong conclusions are drawn from valid premises? Happens all the time. This atheism=marxism argument is such a lame old gotcha. And Marx’s dialectical materialism (complete with doctrine of salvation) is in fact so very close to religion that every irreligious person should easily tell that he was a crackpot, at least he pulled the main theses out of his ass like any true religionist or plugged them from Hegel, who was just as wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/street-epistemology/722433/67 "2015-07-09T21:18:55Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > Atheists explicitly or implicitly claim they make use of logic not faith in building and supporting their point of view… Are we talking about atheists or Vulcans? Atheists share a lack of belief in god(s). Some explicitly claim that this is based on logic. If you hear an atheist claim this, it does not make it “rational” to then say, “Atheists claim…” However, it would be perfectly reasonable to say, “I know an atheist who claims…” I’m just pointing this out because you support the use of rational thinking. Along the same lines, I would appreciate it if you could provide an example of how someone can “implicitly claim” something. > [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > As people who resort to rational thinking rather than faith, shouldn’t atheists agree that the logical consequence of the way they define themselves is that an atheist also rejects the Bible or any so-called word of God? Atheists define themselves as “people who lack belief in God(s).” In contrast, “people who resort to rational thinking rather than faith” is the way YOU define them. It is poor argumentation to put words in someone’s mouth and then credit them with making a “claim”. > [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > Can we agree then that, if we use rational thinking, the rejection/lack of belief in God/gods/deities leads to logical inferences that can be included in a comprehensive definition, which can be applied to all atheists? Why would anyone agree to that? “People who lack a belief in god(s)” is a definition that comfortably includes ALL atheists–it is axiomatic. Any “logical inferences” that you try to add to the definition are likely to only describe a subset of “people who lack a belief in god(s)”. Thus, the collective term “atheists” will no longer axiomatically apply. It seems to me that you’re gearing up to make some stereotypical “inferences” about atheists. As someone who supports the use of rational thinking, I think it’s important for you to recognize that the _fundamental_ problem with stereotyping is not moral; it is that it represents shoddy reasoning. In addition, to insist that some people in this forum accept your generalizations about all atheists is, at best, disrespectful to all atheists. If you want to have a discussion about people who “claim they make use of logic not faith”, then you should find someone who claims that and make your presentation, and stop conflating your biases with “definitions”. Besides, I think you’ll have no problem finding someone around here who will be willing to claim that they are both atheist and that they use logic-not-faith to arrive at their lack of belief in god(s). -VM ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/street-epistemology/722433/68 "2015-07-09T23:52:08Z")
Does anyone have any text examples / transcripts of the kind of Socratic dialogues that are being used to try to make theists think? I’m interested, but I really hate watching youtube videos. -VM ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/street-epistemology/722433/69 "2015-07-10T01:42:41Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > Does anyone have any text examples / transcripts of the kind of Socratic dialogues that are being used to try to make theists think? > > I’m interested, but I really hate watching youtube videos. > > -VM Most are something like this: What do you believe? God Which one? […] How much do you believe that? 100% Why do believe so strongly? Faith How do you define faith? Belief without evidence Do you use faith as a basis for any other beliefs? Um, I guess not Why does that lead you to 100% belief in God? […] Ok, have a nice day. ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/street-epistemology/722433/70 "2015-07-10T23:43:24Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > Most are something like this: Thanks for the info. I’m actually a little disappointed, though. I was hoping for questions that would “bring out” the contradictions in those beliefs, but in a way that would make them think, not piss them off (already mastered that). That being said, anything that works is pretty much automatically good in my book. -VM ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/street-epistemology/722433/71 "2015-07-12T13:29:05Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > Thanks for the info. > > I’m actually a little disappointed, though. I was hoping for questions that would “bring out” the contradictions in those beliefs, but in a way that would make them think, not piss them off (already mastered that). > > That being said, anything that works is pretty much automatically good in my book. > > -VM You’re describing what happens in the ellipses. ---
**Author:** ![Ca3799](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Ca3799](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ca3799)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/street-epistemology/722433/72 "2015-07-12T15:41:16Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > Thanks for the info. > > I’m actually a little disappointed, though. I was hoping for questions that would “bring out” the contradictions in those beliefs, but in a way that would make them think, not piss them off (already mastered that). > > That being said, anything that works is pretty much automatically good in my book. > > -VM That is what the SE’s are trying to do. While **SmartAlecCat** ’s description is of the basic framework, SE really is quite effective. Here is a YouTube video of Carlos. It’s ten minutes, but it really is a effctive technique. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4ixyjdc0os](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4ixyjdc0os) ---
**Author:** ![JimSC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3d9bf3/32.png) [@JimSC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimSC)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2015, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/street-epistemology/722433/73 "2015-07-13T01:45:08Z")
> [@Ca3799](#): > > That is what the SE’s are trying to do. > > While **SmartAlecCat** ’s description is of the basic framework, SE really is quite effective. Here is a YouTube video of Carlos. It’s ten minutes, but it really is a effctive technique. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4ixyjdc0os](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4ixyjdc0os) I watched three of the SE videos. Nerville started out reciting what his father had taught him to say when asked about his religion and went on to admit that any other religion was just as good. Elizabeth admitted the strength of her convictions varied significantly from one topic to another, and she bounced around some on percentages. It didn’t seem that either of these changed their beliefs any. At most, they were led into admitting what they already believed. Carlos was raised to believe in God, but no longer does.\* He really wants to believe, and he thinks that he can control what he believes by simply deciding what to believe. But he’s coming to the realization that he really has no control over what he believes, and that means admitting that God doesn’t make sense. The sidewalk interview may have helped him by providing an analytical basis for some of his doubts, but I don’t think it actually changed his mind on anything. I don’t have the time to view all of the videos. This technique would seem to be useful in helping people along to where they’ve already decided to go, but I can’t see it having much of an effect on someone who is comfortable with their religion. \*I’m venturing into speculation a bit, but I see things in Carlos’s story that I recognize, i.e., been there, done that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/street-epistemology/722433.md?page=3)