Shoutbox - 64 comments
You must be logged in to post comments.
Pages: <12345 6 (64 comments total comments)
thn says:
So, I just want to throw my take on the matter out there because I'm curious where other atheists stand on this...
I basically agree with Sam Harris when he says that we shouldn't give faith based (non)reasoning a free pass just to avoid hurting anyones sensibilities. To that extent I'm trying to be more open about my lack of faith - without beating anyone over the head with it of course.
But, what I don't like about Dawkins, Harris and Penn+Teller is that although they always profess that science is about accepting that there's a lot we don't know, they can come across as dogmatic and patronizing. Besides the fact that it just doesn't help the cause, I think it's important to acknowledge why people are drawn to spirituality. I think its a natural human trait. I don't think it's (fundamentally) about escaping reality, or wishing you could affect stuff that's out of your control. The best word I can think of for it is transcendence. Like the experience of good art, or music, it's that feeling of losing yourself in something bigger. It's likely just a brain chemistry thing, but it's an important part of being human and participating in human culture, imo. I never hear those guys address that sort of thing. Or maybe I've just missed it?
posted Feb 21
Comment replies (4)
John Stone says:
I agree that the Richard Dawkins atheists do more harm than good. Being confrontational about religion is pointless, very few people become atheists because of people telling them that they're wrong to believe in a god. Atheists, at least the ones I've known, have benefited more from seeing that you can be atheist and happy, instead of being told that an idea of a god is illogical, if anything it makes them defensive and therefore more secure in their religion.
I don't fully agree with the idea that there is a human characteristic that needs spirituality, more that there is a need for explanation and gods are the easiest way to get total explanation for life. Why does the sun rise? God lifts it so. Why does it shine? God gives it light. I also believe that there is an amount of arrogance that goes along with religious belief that people are so important that they couldn't possible just die and rot, they have to live on in some form or other. I guess this is pretty much the Penn Jillette idea of atheism, but I think it makes the most sense.
posted Feb 21
thn says:
yeah - I can see what you're saying about spirituality as an explanation. Definitely, in the spiritual ppl I've known, they get the "ohhh now I get it" moment from religious explanations. Maybe its the difference between a 'structural' function for spirituality (as in, the structure of the universe) and a 'mystical' function.
So maybe I should rephrase and say: There are natural and legitimate human needs that spirituality addresses. I still think most people need "mystical" experience in some form - and I'm using the term very broadly.
Anyway, I'm glad we're agreed that being confrontational about it isn't very productive.
posted Feb 22
deadgraviti says:
I disagree. I don't think there is any room to be "nice" about it, we need to speak our minds and tell the truth as we see it. If that bothers somebody, they don't have to listen. It's a market place of ideas and frankly, I don't care if people accept my views or not. But I can't stand there idly while people spout their religious rhetoric and not feel compelled to stand up and say something myself. It's not about converting people, it's about putting that idea out there. If someone chooses to grab it, that's good. But that same seed of knowledge is fundamentally changed if you're trying to persuade. There is no easy way to say to a religious person, "There is no god," so why don't we just cut through the bullshit and put the cards on the table.
"Besides the fact that it just doesn't help the cause, I think it's important to acknowledge why people are drawn to spirituality. I think its a natural human trait."
Daniel Dennett talks about religion as a kind of virus of the brain that virally infects mind is more beneficial to the virus (in this case the religion) rather than the host (the individual person). Check out "Breaking the Spell" or look for one of his lectures on YouTube, it's interesting stuff.
posted Feb 22
thn says:
I see what you're saying. I guess there's a whole other discussion here about strategies for talking about it. I actually don't encounter many opportunities to get into these conversations. The times I've tried to bring it up with people I just get polite nods - then the conversation dies, maybe I do need to be less nice about it..
I just think it's important not to condescend to people. The virus analogy makes sense to me - but even there, a virus gains access by glomming on to a receptor. So I tend to think that understanding that receptor (and not assuming it's a defect) is most helpful. But I haven't checked out any Dennett stuff yet - I'll take a look
posted Feb 23
thn says:
wow - do you all watch new groups being created? We're way outnumbered. At a scale that actually surprises me a little, but it probably shouldn't....
posted Mar 8
Comment replies (8)
Kimberley Grey says:
You mean all the religious groups popping up, I presume? And yes, it is slightly worrying - I thought VIRB's demographic would be primarily atheist or agnostic, but perhaps not?
Then again, it could just be the case that they're just an outspoken minority?
Anyway, I just think it's hilarious that my David Bowie group turns up if you type 'God' into the search groups feature. ;D
posted Mar 8
Marco says:
I think Kimberly is right on the money. Most atheists typically 'don't give a fuck'. Very few of them are outspoken about their atheism. Religious zealots however feel like it's their holy duty to convert all of us lost souls and become 'better children of god' by 'sharing the love' among other believers.
I don't like communist China but Mao was right about one thing: Religion is poison for the mind.
posted Mar 8
vertigo25 says:
True. It's just a question of time before some come in here and start rebel rousing. It will start with one or two who say something along the lines of "I just want to understand..." but then goes on to try to convince us all how wrong we are.
If there's one thing the internet has taught me, it's that by labeling myself "atheist" or "humanist" or "skeptic" it apparently means that I'm always in the mood to argue my viewpoint.
posted Mar 9
thn says:
hrm I hope that's not how it goes. What I've enjoyed here so far is being able to talk about atheism without having to explain why I'm an atheist.
posted Mar 9
Eric says:
vertigo25--
Maybe not necessarily "always in the mood to argue your viewpoint", but more like "Target acquired--unleashing weak and broken logic arguments to save soul," for which you pretty much HAVE to argue your viewpoint. ;)
posted Mar 9
vertigo25 says:
He he.
Well, hopefully things will be different here. Sorry to be so cynical. Usually when it happens anymore, i just ignore the conversations (unless I really *am* in the mood to have a good debate).
posted Mar 9
vertigo25 says:
Hey, thn...
BTW, how do you watch the new groups being created? Is there an easy way to do this, or is it just a matter of searching for specific tags?
posted Mar 9
thn says:
from the browse page you can 'filter results' with no filters... it's pretty much in chronological order so if you skip back a couple of pages, you'll see groups from the previous day. I don't think it's updated in real time though - seems to be updated nightly...
posted Mar 9