Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alice on July 12, 2011 at 6:04pm

yes he's a funny guy.... :)

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on July 12, 2011 at 7:49pm

Yes, I saw that holiday message from Ricky Gervais a while back -- I really like him.  He's great.

Permalink Reply by S.F. Zeigler on July 11, 2011 at 3:54pm

The speak-able Tao is not the true Tao. Isn't an Atheist what you're called and not what you refer yourself to be? "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together." Say the Beatles. 

 

But the chalk line idea (funny) assumes a dead person. Perhaps a refinement of the term ATHEIST is in order. Instead of one that doesn't believe in God to doesn't believe in non-sense. And let science and reason determine what is common sense. 

 

Perhaps the road map is: Pantheism, Theism, Deism, Agnosticism, Atheism then... No-isms. If this is the case we have a long way to go before we can ditch the term Atheism. Harris is so well spoken I almost just bought into his argument. But it assumes you are trying to "convert" or "enlighten" someone. I prefer to seduce or influence through action and behavior. 

 

ie... I have big beautiful tits... guy likes my tits... I tell him they are real ATHEIST tits... guy is now influenced not just by tits but by ATHEIST TITS... -Z

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on July 11, 2011 at 3:59pm

Unfortunately, there are atheists who believe in nonsense.

Permalink Reply by S.F. Zeigler on July 11, 2011 at 4:11pm

EXACTLY. That's why I call for a refinement of the term. I think of it as a "badge of honor" to be "branded" by the religious as an Atheist. But if someone wanted an "out" they can say "I believe in Santa Claus" (or whatever) and therefore am not an Atheist. How about "I believe in love and therefore I'm not an Atheist" under the newly refined definition. New words are hard to implement in one lifetime but refined "meanings" are highly plausible.

To simply claim that "I don't believe in Christianity or religion - therefore I'm an Atheist" belittles the term. The words "just" an atheist should never be uttered from a mortals mouth...lol

Permalink Reply by Mika Dukat on August 2, 2011 at 1:07am

I have to wonder who is going to accept that being an atheist is an okay thing to be if even atheists run away from the prospect of being identified as one?

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on August 2, 2011 at 8:04am

I agree.

Permalink Reply by Dogly on August 2, 2011 at 7:43pm

I, too, have been reading with dismay, but also with a begrudging respect for, the creative ways in which many of us avoid admitting (I use this word deliberately) that we are atheists. It brings to mind an old boyfriend, who, while looking in the mirror, said "I don't look Jewish, do I?" It made me sad in this same way.

Permalink Reply by Mika Dukat on July 21, 2011 at 4:16am

Mrmph.  I can't say that I've fully digested Harris' message, but I find myself having a knee-jerk reaction against it.  His chosen metaphor, racism, I think is somewhat problematic.   I'm reminded of the fact that atheists in America are probably the most hated minority according to polls.   Like Pastor Niemoller's famous aphorism about the silence of German intellectuals in the face of the rise of Nazism, one might make a similar aphorism here, that "First they came for outspoken atheists, and I didn't speak out".  I have to wonder what Harris' advice to blacks in the south during the Jim Crow laws would have been -- try not to let them notice that you are black?  In the final analysis, Harris' remarks are about how to avoid the effects of religious stereotyping, bigotry and prejudice.  I've got a better idea, how about confronting religious stereotyping, bigotry and prejudice?  Harris' advice appears to be to screw trying to be treated equitably and fairly if it gets in the way of winning.  Well, I'd say that once we do that, we've already lost, and it's only a matter of time before they come around with the gas trucks to collect the rest of us (regardless of what persecuted religious minority we belong to -- Taoist, Jain, Samaritan, whatever).    I suppose Harris would also suggest we ignore the problems of religious persecution of other religious minorities if it furthers our agenda.

 

As to his spin on meditation and mysticism, as a Taoist mystic myself, I found his remarks both uninformed and prejudicially totalizing.  In the seventies, many feminists called for ignoring cultural differences in the interest of sisterhood, to the point that some feminists were criticized for clinging to their cultural heritage.  I guess in hindsight, the comments on meditation and mysticism do fit together, in that maybe if we can all be "trimmed to fit" whatever mold Harris thinks is most marketable, what we lose in the process is unimportant.  Well I for one don't view my Taoism, and any meditational praxis associated with it, as "just a different form" of what the Buddhists are doing (ignoring the vast plurality that is Buddhism for the moment).  It's not.  And I resent being stripped of my uniqueness -- atheistic or Taoistic -- as a means to an end. I'd have to go back and review his comments to state the former without reservation, as they seemed bizarrely out of place, so I perhaps didn't understand his intent, but as a Taoist of 30 years and an amateur student of religion, I found his comments both simplistic and insulting.  I'd like to see him convince any serious student of Christian or Muslim mysticism that these were just "experiments" in naturalistic moral philosophy.  (I'm reminded of George Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God" in which, after some fairly strong arguments, he goes off on a bender about the nature of morality, or what it should be, largely based on objectivist pablum; it had no place there, and it has no place here.  I recognize the strong urge to find an answer to the question of "Goodness without God", but I would hope anyone attempting to answer this question would do so in a manner more respective of the facts, instead of trying to force fit some bizarre theory on to the world's religions -- a cookie cutter approach to moral philosophy.  Oddly enough, it is likely the type of desperation and fear that the atheist who has stared down the barrel of this theist argument one too many times is possessed by that inspired his rather ill-fitting philosophizing.  His rather bizarre tangent seemed, if anything, to be an attempt to say, "I don't like living in my tent -- let's see if I can find room in someone else's tent."  He can try all he wants, but he's not going to squeeze all the non-theistic religious into one tent, and they're certainly not going to support his attempt to do so.  And what does he say to the theistic mystic?  "Abandon your God -- there's happiness for all in meditation!"  ?)

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on July 21, 2011 at 8:05am

I'm on your side, about being outspoken and saying to hell with the consequences, except for actually during work, when it's unprofessional to bring up religion.  Your one statement is a little off, though.

 

I have to wonder what Harris' advice to blacks in the south during the Jim Crow laws would have been -- try not to let them notice that you are black?

 

Obviously, that's a different situation.  You can hide some things and can't hide others.  Harris's use of racism as a metaphor works, but it breaks when you stretch it a little too far.

 

I think comparing us to homosexuals works much better, as a metaphor (never mind the fact that many of us are gay).  Dunno why he went with racism.

Permalink Reply by Mika Dukat on July 21, 2011 at 11:05am

Your comment about workplace ethics reminds me of certain breeders' comments that they have nothing against gays, just against the disgusting public displays of affection -- something they'd hardly say if confronted with heterosexual affections.  It's likely unprofessional to "proselytize" in the workplace -- despite the theistic religious often not respecting that boundary -- but I'm not going to hide my lamp under a bushel basket either because some people are uncomfortable with who I am.   I'd hope most places are past having to hide pictures of gay lovers and though the laws concerning similar rights of the non-religious are something of a checkerboard, I'm not going to cater to someone else's irrational prejudices.  As both a Taoist and an atheist, becoming an invisible minority out of convenience isn't really an option -- I'm already an invisible minority.  It hasn't yielded any noticeable dividends.  The only dividend has been people who feel that they have a right to assign  me to whatever category is most efficient for them to deal with; whether that's being too religious for some (a "shroomed out Taoist" as one atheist referred to me on an atheist forum), and not religious enough for others (being excluded from a comparative religion discussion because my Taoism is "a philosophy and not a religion").  No, I had it right in extending the metaphor in the way I did, and anybody that thinks they can fly under a theist's radar for any length of time without being "outed" is fooling themselves.  And in the process we sacrifice both our dignity and principles, for what?  A momentary tactical advantage?  Forget that.  In addition to bending over backwards to accommodate prejudice (no references to Neville Chamberlain atheists, mind you), it limits what issues you can address -- should one avoid addressing religious questions for the sake of continued subterfuge?  That just seems wrong.   If Sam wants to sit on the sidelines and watch his fellow atheists take the full brunt of the storm, that's certainly his prerogative -- not that anybody for a moment is gonna be fooled by Sam in camouflage -- but those who for whatever reason cannot maintain our invisibility, are left weaker and easier prey for the merchants of hate.   And some of the most important issues of our day, religious violence, free speech and separation of church and state can't help but flush the closet atheist out of the closet.  Exactly who does Sam think is best served by his advice?  I'm sure theists are just tickled pink at what he is suggesting.   Fighting racism as an extra-curricular activity was an option for white abolitionists and civil rights advocates, not for those in the line of fire, blacks.  Being a feminist has always been optional equipment for a man, not so much for the female suffragettes fighting for equal rights.   Just ask the casualties of Stonewall and before how well "blending in" worked for them.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on July 21, 2011 at 6:13pm

You're conflating a few things that don't go together, in your rant.

 

By all means, put a picture of your lover (of whichever sex) on your desktop.  Totally work appropriate.  If your lover, of whichever sex, happens to drop by work, don't make out with him/her.  That's not work appropriate.

 

Same thing with religion.  If someone asks me what religion I am, I'll tell them I'm an atheist.  Hell, over half of my I.T. department is atheistic.  But if people start preaching or endlessly bashing religion, it's not cool in the workplace.  I'll ask them to stop and will report them if they don't.

 

To use my department as an example, we discuss religion and politics all the time, because we're a bunch of easy-going, reasonable people, even the theists ... except for one guy.  He's a Fox-News-watching-fundamentalist-Christian-Obama's-a-Communist-and-the-country-is-fucked-if-he's-reelected nutjob.

The moment he comes in the room, everyone stops talking about politics and religion, because he's not rational enough to have a work-appropriate discussion on either subject.  Once I first heard him say that Obama's a Communist and a Socialist, and there's no difference between the two ... okay, yeah dude, you're too ignorant to have a discussion with.  Discussion over.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page