1. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168149 by BeyondBelief on April 24, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Regarding Comment #47, on the dislike of the term "new atheists".

Every time I hear it, The Who song springs into my brain: Meet the new atheists, same as the old atheists.

It's a dismissive phrase that works quite effectively. Those branded by it should actively rebuff the branders!

I like the comeback: "I'm not a "new atheist" The only new atheists are the thousands of babies born every minute.... now let's get on with discussing my IDEAS, not labeling me."

2. Science Debate 2008

Comment #161125 by BeyondBelief on April 14, 2008 at 9:07 pm

I just watched "The Compassion Forum."

Senator Clinton, what's your favorite Bible Story?

Jesus H. Christ!! We need a science debate, and we also need individual candidates to stand up for the concept that law is based on fact and negotiation among humans, not on 2000 year old books and lightning bolts tossed by deities.

3. America: slouching towards the Enlightenment

Comment #135746 by BeyondBelief on February 29, 2008 at 8:46 am

SPS wrote

I hope someday we can move beyond our categories, and get on with being people. Atheism seems the surest path to unity without sacrificing diversity and openness. Religion only puts us at odds with our perceptions and finer instincts. It doesn't broaden them, but narrows them to the point of suffocation. Our experiences needn't border us from each other by dictate. If we're to accept religion for our moral guide then the degree of our separation is only limited by our imaginations. If lasting understanding is to exist we have to be willing to look beyond the filter of religion.

The longer and harder I ponder, I am realizing that one of our strongest, innate tendencies is to "need" to bond or affiliate with groups. Evolutionary artifact? Human Nature? Or, as Richard Dawkins refers to such traits, is the desire to be in a group one of our "lusts?"

I don't know, but atheists are less afflicted with the need for groups, and tend to not affiliate as much. You say "atheism seems to be the surest path to unity." I'm not so sure. It seems to be the surest method by which to assess our relationship with the world and its inhabitants... i.e. it is much more empirical and evidence laden than any religion, but it certainly doesn't unify us that well. So if it is an ideal, an improved version of the human species, do I need to argue that it is a moral good to try to repress one's lust for group membership?

God (oops) I'd hate to take a stance that reeks of the same kind of moralizing position held by virtually every religion, telling us that the way to heaven is through repressing our lusts.

In sum... I'm really banging my head against the reality of how badly people NEED to be a part of a group, and then how badly they seem to need to hate the other group, and defend their own. At times it seems intractable. At other times I try to view human evolution over the long term and salve my "soul" with the realization that, as a species, over extended periods marked by repeated advances and regressions, we are actually "progressing" in reason; overcoming some of our earliest irrational traits.

It's tough to be too happy about a trend measured in millenia, however, when I've got /- 75 years to be in the mix.

4. America: slouching towards the Enlightenment

Comment #135726 by BeyondBelief on February 29, 2008 at 8:33 am

Speaking as an atheist member of Unitarian community, I can tell you the ONE reason I affiliate with this group.

Principle 4 of their 7 principles: Each person is entitled to a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning."

Yeah, we sing a few ancient Unitarian and/or Universalist hymns, but the link to any past Christian roots is tenuous, if existing at all.

What I find humorous and challenging within the UU world is the constant tension to want to BE a religion, but not too much like one. Heck, that's why all the ex-Catholics have joined our congregation... to get away from a traditional religion. :-)

5. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123872 by BeyondBelief on February 7, 2008 at 7:52 pm

LorienRyan wrote, in comment 65 above

Keep it to yourself! Joking

Well done! Sweden? no... German/Irish background, hence my tendency to see things dialectically black or white, often through a veil of liquor. Talk about determinism!

6. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123450 by BeyondBelief on February 7, 2008 at 7:45 am

Holy Schmokes! Reading this thread it is no wonder believers simply throw in the towel and say, "God did it! Blurble, blurble, blurble... Im so HAPPY!"

I mean, really, if a discussion has to devolve into quantum mechanics and stochastic determinism, when it starts at "Is it a valid stance to say 'Believe what you want, just keep it to yourself' " then we've got ZERO chance.

You may (or may not) be entirely correct about determinism and quantum microtubuli... but it does very little to convince a believer that the de-facto starting point should be "observe" not "believe".

Dragging this thread, kicking and screaming, back to point... private beliefs ultimately lead to action (Sam Harris) and action, when taken among other humans, is what we call society.

It is the absolute requirement that you actively proselytize your beliefs about how society should be constituted... or your views will die, and your society will become what the more vocal proselytizers want. That's true regardless of whether you advocate faith or reason.

Our (we science-minded, Enlightenment-fueled, non-believers) greatest downfall may be the degree to which we do NOT aggressively, constantly tell our story, and defend it against those who wish to revise it (see House Bill 888, seeking a public, governmental statement on the Christian roots of this nation).

I am grateful for the explosion in interest resulting from Hitchens/Harris/Dawkins/Dennett, et al, but until I see the discussion more regularly carried out in local papers, schools, and TV stations, instead of seeing well intentioned, passionate people isolate themselves here (in a frenzy of mutual masturbation), I'm not sure the explosion is not just a firecracker that I'm sitting too close to.

Hitchens comments late in video #2 that "we don't have to gather to re-affirm our beliefs... that is our great strength." That may be true as it relates to those who already are 'in the fold.' But it is patently false if we intend to increase the percentage of the people in the world who act to form societies based on reason, not faith.

Hey... I enjoy a good intellectual joust with peers, too, but can we all just turn 75% of the effort expended here to more public, visible, courageous support of reason in our local communities?

7. Secrets of bird flight revealed

Comment #116174 by BeyondBelief on January 25, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Ty_Webb...I thought it was just me...

Professor Dial said that dinosaurs may have evolved wings to help propel them over rocks and other obstacles that littered their terrain.

I see an asinine sentence like this in almost EVERY story on evolution, and it is the "intentionality" that makes it so F-ing wrong. The idea that dinosaurs intentionally evolved a solution to their problem (which, by the way would correctly be phrased "invented") is no more correct than the phrase that "Evolution saw clear to make the human dominant over its competitors."

Evolution happens. We see traces of it. Evolution has no intention, and while creatures undergoing evolution DO have intention (like us human-folk) we can no sooner WILL ourselves to evolve wings than God could WILL the Universe into existence.

The sad part is, Professor Dial probably said something completely different and scientifically accurate, but the idiot reporter converted it into his own pathetic understanding of evolutionary language.

It is NOT foolish to actively correct folks who would speak like this. It does make a difference to get it expressed correctly.

8. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #111479 by BeyondBelief on January 14, 2008 at 6:28 pm

Minor Quibble, but I was surprised to read that Bertrand Russell had uttered the quote about "... Atheists just go one god further..." long, long ago. It was in the last chapter or so of Jennifer Michael Hecht's book, "Doubt: A History." I'll have to review, for an exact page #...

Is Dawkins plagiarizing this very appropriate and valuable rhetorical phrase? Should he not??

9. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #101094 by BeyondBelief on December 19, 2007 at 8:06 pm

The "lust" metaphor is one of the best catalysts in this debate I have heard in a long, long time. Everybody gets lust. Everyone can rather easily work their way through the logic that "those who perceived pleasure from sex, and hence sought it out more often, procreated more frequently, and thus the tendency to ENJOY that which propagates the species was selected for."

It's not a big leap to think of ALL of the pleasing sensations we have as "lusts" of one kind or another that have been selected for: the "lust" for food, the lust for sunshine, the "lust" for altruism.

And just as with sexual lust, you have some people who overdo altruistic lust: Think Mother Theresa as equivalent to a nymphomaniac. Hitchens would like that. :-)

Boffo job overall, countering each argument brought forth, with very clear, non-angry responses. I didn't like the interviewer either, but it was clearly a win for "us".

10. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #100541 by BeyondBelief on December 18, 2007 at 9:25 pm

I don't think it is over-stating the issue to suggest that censoring the comments in this video is capitulation to the very thing the debaters are arguing needs to be ended. If, as one poster asserts, both TGA and AHA agreed to this, then shame on them.

Secondly, the "nut" of the debate is this: TGA wants to engage and involve what Keith rightly calls diluters. But he wants to involve and engage Muslims in terms of Islam, or while accepting it.

Ayan CLEARLY states (and I think correctly) that we are in a discussion about how to have a civil society. Based on everything we "liberal, secular" societies have learned (over the past 1300 years since Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse), we will get nowhere if we try to start the discussion of how to form and govern a civil society from within the holy texts of ANY religion.

These texts' asserted rightful place at the table must be openly discussed and challenged precisely on the terms of what the books actually say. Go ahead, believe whatever you want on your private time, but when you move into the public sphere of shared society, we must and will demand better justification for policy than "my Bible tells me so."

11. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93639 by BeyondBelief on December 3, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Let the downloads begin...!!!

Wait.... We can't Download? Someone tell me what I'm missing, if this can be dowloaded and saved. I have a lot of long flights that I intend to put to good use with this material.

12. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #93638 by BeyondBelief on December 3, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Blasphemer: I think this is one of the most fair treatments Hitchens has received.
Scarborough is generally a yutz, but if you notice his tone changed over the interview, and he DEFINITELY set Christopher up with softballs AND gave him time to hit them out of the park.

The lady repeatedly responded (off camera) with "Hmmm... interesting point."

And the other fellow, again, just lobbed a softball. This was a pretty darn good showing. Or, as Larry David might say, "Pretty, Pretty, Prettty, Prettty, Pretty Good!!"

13. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93633 by BeyondBelief on December 3, 2007 at 7:14 pm

To Comment #92788... Regarding the need for comparative religions courses.

I agree, except they should be retitled, "Comparative Belief Systems," or "Comparative Worldviews" courses, and one of the beliefs presented should be the secular/rational/scientific.

If you start from only comparing "religions", you have poisoned the well just about as badly as if you only discuss theists and atheists. Using their term only sets them up to win the debate. We can't continue to stand on the sidelines and accept the presentation as "Here's all of the varied religious experences of the world... and oh yeah, there are these carpers over here who believe NONE of them!"

Stand as equals.

14. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92715 by BeyondBelief on December 1, 2007 at 9:51 am

I have yet to listen to the AHA v EH debate, but this thread is a hoot. Janus, you win, in my view. Your position comes across as most consistent and least ad-hominem.

Bonzai, let it go!

R.

15. Ayaan on Anderson Cooper Tonight

Comment #92059 by BeyondBelief on November 29, 2007 at 7:50 pm

I just watched the interview, and the story preceding it regarding the Saudi woman sentenced to 200 lashes for being the victim of a gang rape. Ayaan gave a VERY good, obviously edited by a sympathetic host, interview. Well done!!

Suddenly I feel like contributing to her security trust!!

16. Megachurches Add Local Economy to Their Mission

Comment #91563 by BeyondBelief on November 28, 2007 at 2:49 pm

This is a dangerous, and intentional, tack being taken by the churches to eliminate separation of Church and State.

It all starts with "I'm just augmenting my mission, so you can't touch it."

The next extension is effectively, "Well, what's NOT really a part of our mission. It's all a big happy cohesive bundle of God's work. Continue passing the tax exemptions."

Finally it ends at "Allah is everything. There is nothing else."

Ok, so that's a bit of a leap on the slippery slope, but I have seen a progression in which Churches continue to insist that more and more activities (normally considered "businesses") are protected from "Government Intrusion" by the First Amendment.

So let's slap them with a dose of their own medicine: Christians often tell atheists, "It doesn't say "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution, so it doesn't exist." or " Advocating {insert religious activity here} in public facilities on public time is just me expressing my beliefs. That's not "establishment."

Well, it doesn't say "Religious Organizations should be tax exempt" in the constitution either. And don't try to equivocate on the term "establishment." Either they have to be literalist all the time, or interpretive all the time. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

"Establishment" can mean setting up a national religion, or it can mean, "a religious establishment"... i.e. a church. The latter is absurd, because then, to skirt the laws, someone would just have to claim that their activities are a part of a religious establishment, and then get special... hey wait a minute!

DOH!!!

The ONLY hope I see is if the number of businesses willing to fight because they are being hurt by tax-exemption-subsidized church-businesses, will FAR outnumber the Christian Business-folk who see this as a boondoggle to avoid taxes.

PS: This clause of the first amendment may be the most unfortunately worded utterances of Thomas Jefferson (and his co-authors) in all of their writing. Too equivocal and soft. The Danbury Baptist letter interpretation is much better. Build up this wall!!

17. 'Secular Believers'

Comment #89309 by BeyondBelief on November 20, 2007 at 9:22 am

Perhaps I'm a bit slow on the uptake, but it seems like an absolutely BRILLIANT (and actionable) idea to advocate for this type of programming being included in any "comparative religions" course... which of course, should be renamed, "Comparative Worldviews" or "Comparative Belief Systems."

I don't expect to see this played over public airwaves... hell, I was glad to see we could get the "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" broadcast on PBS...but I think this could be a great item for individual, local activists to pick up and push: Does your publicly funded high school have a "comparative Religions" course? Does it include any reference to the 100% legitimate position that perhaps there is no need for ANY God?
What is the "slant" of the comparison? Does it only show similarities, and hence imply "See, God must be true, since so many different faiths have enacted "worship" to him."

Loved the show, not only for content, but for its potential! Spread it around folks. If you're looking for a way to be a more active, vocal proponent of secular values, this is a good one.

18. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #83957 by BeyondBelief on October 31, 2007 at 9:23 pm

I'm a late arrival to watching this, but I just have to add: Anyone who can make Christopher Hitchens say (as he does very near the end) "Gag me with a spoon" has surely gone beyond the rhetorical pale.

What a load of assertion parading as discovery or revelation. Dinesh (and his ilk) look at the wonders of nature and say, "Ah ha... proof of God." It explains nothing, adds no insight... and equating that stance with Keppler's discovery of the laws of planetary motion, which had to built on deduction and mathematics and observation... oi vay!

19. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #81483 by BeyondBelief on October 24, 2007 at 8:13 pm

Those who retreat to this are usually down to their last feeble defense.

While this is not exactly an argument to be used, my perception is that this canard is deployed to attempt to implicate the atheist in what the theist (by this point) is coming to realize is pretty superstitious behavior. "OK, Mr. Atheist, you're right... my religion has inconsistencies, my holy book is flawed, but you're just as bad as me, making a 'leap of faith'. You can't prove anything any more than I can!! So we're equally on shaky ground. Back off."

It's as if the religious person is saying to us, "Let he who has never sinned throw the first stone." In fact, this is a bad assertion to let them get away with. We HAVEN'T committed the same sin.

If my perception is correct, the believer feels backed into a corner. So the question is, how can you your arguments let them out of the corner gracefully, allowing them to either save face OR see a comfortable alternative to their current position, but without accepting the premise?

20. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79288 by BeyondBelief on October 16, 2007 at 6:00 pm

I'm in the middle of McGrath's opening... where he cautions us against the danger of "worldviews" animating us to "do things."

Heaven forfend!! If he can give us one piece of advice, is it going to be that we should hold and cultivate worldviews that don't animate us? Ee's a bloomin' genius, ee is!!

21. Ayaan Hirsi Ali at AAI 07

Comment #79093 by BeyondBelief on October 16, 2007 at 5:09 am

Paraphrasing Ayaan: "Activism is inevitable."

I love how blunt and direct she was in saying, essentially, you can whine about the way the game is played, but unless you get off your butt and get in the game, you will be steamrolled by the groups willing to "proselytize."

Now, "proselytize" might not be the best word choice, but I believe her intended meaning is that we must broadcast our ideas and position. In the "marketplace" of ideas, atheism is fighting for shelf-space alongside the Twinkies and Doritos of religion, self-help, and other potentially tasty thoughts that ultimately leave you empty and out of shape.

But who is to blame if there is no atheism on the shelf for the average consumer to choose? It's great to have Richard, Sam, Daniel, Ayaan, Christopher and others be the global face of the product, but the shelves don't get stocked without local distribution networks.

If you don't want to "proselytize" then just get out and put your atheism on the shelves for others to see and perhaps choose.

I'm afraid that, much like recent Republican Senators have loudly and publicly decried the sins they are most guilty of, I talk a good game, but don't (yet) walk the walk. I do not get out and publicly stock the shelves in the marketplace of ideas... in neighborhoods that most need it. The marketplace here on this forum has PLENTY of atheism to choose from.

22. A Revelation

Comment #78260 by BeyondBelief on October 12, 2007 at 10:05 am

Vendetta wrote:

For the most part people here don't point their skepticism towards religion, they are skeptical of science (how do we know they're right when they keep changing their theories?) and the government.

I wonder where the fundamentalists get that notion about science? Hmmm... where could it be propagated? Have you seen the excerpt of Ted Haggard talking to RD in "Root of All Evil"? Paraphrasing Haggard: "I have here a book written thousands of years ago, by 40 different authors, and it doesn't contradict itself. On the other hand, we can't even get two scientists to agree for a week about some theories."

That kind of thinking doesn't grow of its own accord... it is force fed down the gullets of the gullible, listening to idiots like Haggard DEFINE "science" and "evolution," who then go out and think they understand either science or evolution.

They are actively teaching that disagreement over truth-claims (i.e. the heart of the scientific enterprise) is EQUAL to those truth-claims being wrong. The short hand: "Thinking about truth is wrong. Accepting it as handed to you is right."

Yikes!!

Also... they're skeptical of the "gubmint", not government. :-)

23. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78255 by BeyondBelief on October 12, 2007 at 9:48 am

2 Comments:

IanG: You ROCK!! Don't let all the praise go to your head, but keep on writing the clear, stylish and solid missives.

Regarding the list of requests to Muslims in comment #12 above..#78096

OK how about for starters, muslims adopt the following "common essentials" shared by almost all the rest of humanity (not just christos):
- complete freedom to leave your religion (incl islam)
- freedom to proselytise towards, away from, upwards or sideways WRT any belief system.
- complete equality of human rights incl infidels in majority moslem countries.
- unequivocal renunciation of terrorism, jihad, dhimmitude, and division of the world into dar al islam and dar al harb
- equality b/w male and female

I'd like to add
- freedom to draw cartoons on any subject
- elimination of the concept of blasphemy (corollary to apostasy above), and its attendant punishments.

24. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77540 by BeyondBelief on October 9, 2007 at 3:12 pm

I wonder who wrote this line, Sam or Salman?

"There is no one in a better position to remind us that tolerance of intolerance is cowardice."

Crystal clear. I fear this issue is not being raised to general public consciousness, or if it is, it is being marginalized as a "well, she brought it upon herself... you've got to be willing to pay for your "free" speech" issue.

Atheist, PLEASE!!! ;-) We must understand that this case is the archetypal demonstration of the need for separation of church and state, of the need to vehemently protest any body (governmental or otherwise) that holds murder to be appropriate punishment for "blasphemy." I don't know that this is the archetypal case for arguing that The State owes specific individuals protection.

I also fear that this is the archetypal proof of Sam Harris' point that moderates are the water bearers of the extremists. I can just hear them, "Well, she DID insult their religion, and I certainly don't like it when people insult MY religion, so I can't really stand up for her."

Dear Religiots, can't you separate for a moment the desire to protect your own house of cards from examination, from the desperate need to call out Muslim extremism and blasphemy punishments as behavior abhorrent to civil society!!!

Must Ayaan be a martyr for "Reason" before the general public pays attention? I fear this is an all too real possible outcome, because let's face it... how many people can we SPECIFICALLY protect against an evil? We don't pay for individualized police officers for every person, just because there are murderers out there in the world and we want to stop murder.

So Ayaan is a "target of special merit"... agreed. Who should pay for her security?

Would it be gauche of Ayaan to put up a website for donations to her own security, to allow her to keep speaking eloquently, and allow those who TRULY believe in the value of free speech to put their money where their mouth is?

This isn't ultimately about Ayaan: It is about how the world stands in solidarity with her!!!
It's about a fundamental Constitutional right... and it is imperative that our representatives (and anyone else we can write to) hears how SEVERELY important this issue is. Start writing!! Sign the petitions. Make some noise. Horton needs to hear the Who's that value free speech and just, civil society over theocricide!

I remember a story wherein a plan was hatched to go after all Jewish houses during Hannukah. The perpetrators would attack any home with a Menorah in the window. The people of the neighborhood, upon hearing of the plan, ALL put Menorah's in their window in solidarity. (A variation revolves around the requirement of wearing a star of David to single out the Jewish, and the neighbors all donned the starts in solidarity).

So... what can we do to stand in solidarity with Ayaan! We obviously can't all dress up as tall, articulate, beautiful Somali women... :-)

Make some noise!!

25. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77161 by BeyondBelief on October 8, 2007 at 3:54 pm

A followup to Comment #76770... and an idea about thankfulness:

Could THAT be the signature "atheist" move? What would happen if every atheist made a concerted effort to genuinely and sincerely thank those that positively impact them on a daily basis?

How POWERFUL that would be. It's not only a good exercise forcing the atheist to pay attention to how much benefit and good will he/she is receiving, but it raises the spirits of those receving the praise.

And then, when one commments, "I'm shocked. I so rarely receive a thank you," the door is opened for the planting of a very subtle meme..."Why, Doctor, I have to thank you, and your dedication to learning, and your powers of concentration, and your love of healing, for they are what brought me through this problem. Who else should I thank? It's you and all the people who have dedicated their lives to improving the science of health care who saved my life."

What subversive joy I would get in regularly reminding PEOPLE that they are the reason for thanks, and not God... and I wouldn't once have to label myself an "atheist" to do it!!

Spread the word... Give THANKS!... to the rightful recipients. :-)

26. 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' Religious Group Turning Heads at MSU

Comment #76298 by BeyondBelief on October 5, 2007 at 11:45 am

AH, ah ,ah!!! Not so fast. This FOX presentation exposes a complete inability to understand irony and sarcasm. The reporter is presenting the group as a set of believers in specific dogma (note the Global Warming/Pirate reduction correlation) and not as a group making fun of groups that hold such absurd beliefs.

I think this report is actually designed to get the believing public all foamy in the mouth about a potential new interloper in their market. :-)

27. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75741 by BeyondBelief on October 3, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Two themes grab my attention...

"Red Coats for Atheism"...and those who can't/don't want to be "redcoats", they just want the political respect and rights they so richly deserve.

These are two related topics. On one hand, we talk about wanting to be a "movement" and on the other hand some say, "...but don't bother me to DO anything, just get me the benefits."
We talk about wanting to be an effective political coalition that gets results, but then the carpers start talking about not needing to organize like "the Redcoats of Atheism."

In both cases, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Effective movements organize. They speak with common voices about common principles, and the proponents expose themselves to public ridicule, confrontation, injury, and in most social movements even death.

We will not achieve goals without significant organization to achieve them: My counter example is that of Liberty University. Someone strategized a while back that the way to convert the United States into a Christian Theocracy is to establish a school devoted to churning out Lawyers who would argue from a Biblical perspective. The current justice department is rife with them.
(Yes, just as it seems "wrong" to have the label "atheism" to name what should be the norm, it seems equally abhorrent to have to advocate for a "University of Science and Reason," but how many universities today explicitly state that their charter is to advance knowledge without recourse to faith or supernatural arguments?)

Someone strategized a long time ago that the way to gain control of school curricula and local government decisions is to stack local elective bodies with Christian conservatives. They have been acting on this ORGANIZED strategy for a generation and it is succeeding.

So, if we are to become an effective constituency, we had better start articulating the strategy and tactics (i.e. organizing) and then becoming the redcoats of Atheism (i.e. participating) or we will all slowly watch the overwhelming tide of religious ideas snuff out the Enlightenment values of reason... simply because "the other guys" are more devoted and truly BELIEVE in their cause, and are willing to fight for it.

Are we ready? Do you, as Sam Harris might ask, truly BELIEVE in what you say about reason, science, freedom, love, etc. so much that you will actually ACT on your beliefs?

Organize. Participate. Make gains.

28. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56446 by BeyondBelief on July 15, 2007 at 8:10 pm

re #5900 by GR8HANDS...

Why perpetuate a tradition?

As I review the "successful" religions that have kept themselves alive through the ages, one thing that strikes me is the degree to which they demand that the believer "re-tell the story" and remind themselves of their beliefs.

It is a kind of religious exercise. Use it or lose it. I was raised Catholic, and mandatory weekly Mass attendance falls into this category, as does Saintly feast days on virtually every day. Ways to constantly force one to spend precious moments of consciousness reiterating their beliefs and sectarian affiliation.

Very important to the continuation of the group.

I lived for 2 years with an observant Kosher Jewish family while in grad school. I once asked them if they truly believed they would be punished for mixing milk and meat, or violating any of the dietary rules. The wife's reply was revelatory to me: "No, we don't really believe in the theology of the laws, but we do believe in finding a way to... EVERY DAY... to remind ourselves who we ARE."

John Mellencamp put it colloquially that religious practice is essential to avoid becoming a feather in the wind..."You've got to stand for something, or you're gonna fall for anything."

Feh... Aristotle he ain't... but I think you get my point regarding Hitchen's reason for participating in tradition. As he so rightly (and off-handedly) says, "It IS a tradition."

And all that said, while I agree that it does not make sense to perpetuate rituals upholding wierd belief systems, I think we are also at peril too rapidly discarding the entire ritual without understanding what went into their creation.

BTW, where are the Atheist stories? Where the atheist traditions? Is there an atheist curriculum? If you want to dump sectarian education and traditions, what course would you replace it with? I see this as a SERIOUS lack of our position.

The religionist may have a non-sensical set of beliefs, but man do they teach it, and repeat it, and integrate it into their schools, and proselytize for converts, and denigrate the alternatives, and...
... simply, where are the similar outreach programs from humanists, rationalists, atheists, etc., aiming to give the wayfaring believer structured education? What structured, repetitive stories are we telling our children to inculcate reason and prevent deviation from it even when it might SEEM to be a good idea? What regular rituals do we participate in to remind us (and the community that sees us in these practices) who we are, and what we believe? Where is the atheist/rationalist equivalent of Pat Robertson's "Liberty University."

Traditions are a VERY powerful component of the staying power of an idea or system of knowing the world. We in favor of reason can sit back on the belief that "Truth will out" but that leaves us in a rather tenuous position in the face of religious propagation that outstrips us in sheer fecundity, willingness to kill apostates and heretics, and childhood brainwashing. Is there just more devotion to pushing religion than there is to pushing reason?

R.

29. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #43364 by BeyondBelief on May 21, 2007 at 7:24 am

Let me get this straight... Hitchens is derided for making multiple intellectual faux pas(ses? What is the plural?) and yet this ninny proceeds to argue by assuming the existence of the thing in question, and jacking up his defense by its own bootstraps?

Good gravy!

30. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27477 by BeyondBelief on March 24, 2007 at 8:09 pm

I was going to post a scathing criticism, but NuclearMan's post (Comment #14, #27360) above covers it perfectly.

31. Biology teacher fired for referring to Bible

Comment #26658 by BeyondBelief on March 21, 2007 at 2:29 am

Cut to the chase:

Comment #26569 by Fishpeddler: Shouldn't the headline be, "Teacher Fired for Failure to Teach Science."

Excellent. Write CNN (all of us!!!) and ask this question. This is a critical bit of pro-religion "framing," at a time when (as someone else noted earlier) the Christians are actively portraying themselves as an oppressed minority.

We must adjust the frames of the debate.

Please, voice your opinion any chance you get: call your local or national media on biased "frames" like this one! Don't just stick to letters to the editor (though those are great). Contact your newspaper's publisher, the reporter... in short, anyone you can.

Cheers,

Rob

32. Interview with Steven Pinker

Comment #26091 by BeyondBelief on March 16, 2007 at 6:43 pm

re: Yorker's remark, @26076... PuhLEEZ!!!!

His "brand" of funniness on this show is to attempt to stay in a parody of Bill O'Reilly at all times. It's tough, and an amazing bit of acting.

He will go down as one of the comic geniuses in American history.

33. Understanding Genetics - Daniel Dennett Interview

Comment #25498 by BeyondBelief on March 13, 2007 at 7:45 pm

I've coined the terms "Stuffers and Stackers" to "sift" our belief systems and mental models.

I'm proud to be a Stacker, and you can visit this link to get a full background/explanation:

http://www.getbeyondbelief.com/6201.html

34. US Congressman Holds No God-Belief

Comment #25436 by BeyondBelief on March 13, 2007 at 5:50 am

>> Ah, I wasn't fully aware of the beliefs that Unitarians hold

That's OK. Neither are we. :-) But you know what? If the worst thing that can be said about Unitarians is that they don't hold to any DOGMA, I stand convicted!

R.

35. Atheist Apostle

Comment #24361 by BeyondBelief on March 6, 2007 at 7:21 am

Here we go again, equating Atheism with Religion. Sam is an "apostle" for atheism. These are not accidental or random word choices, for a person writing to a religiously (dare I use the term) "literate" audience of believers.

It is important for them to cast atheism as "like" religion, as this is the last line of retreat: "Oh yeah? You proved my bible isn't inerrant, and you showed how I'm inconsistent, and you've demonstrated a thousand times over how my beliefs are superstitious. But c'mon, man, you're no better than me. Your an evangelical, apostolic, fundamentalist atheist. We're all equal in our delusions. Your faith is no different than my faith. So get off your high horse and get down here in the mud with us!!"

When I read such tripe, equating atheism with religion or faith, I simultaneously feel sick at having to read the same tripe again, but hopeful at the increasing frequency of this particular argument. It IS the final brick that gets thrown, in my experience. We may be seeing progress from Dawkins, Harris, Dennett (and us here) in that believers are resorting to this tired trick more than ever.

36. Darwin's God

Comment #24077 by BeyondBelief on March 4, 2007 at 4:41 pm

I read. I was hopeful. I thought, "This is quite nice for such an extensive piece on the evolution of religion to make it to the big time."

Then I read this, in the last paragraph:
"No matter how much science can explain, it seems, the real gap that God fills is an emptiness that our big-brained mental architecture interprets as a yearning for the supernatural."

What a twisted leap. Everything she set up before this point, AT BEST, argues that the gap God fills is in our yearning for explanations.

Positing a supernatural is one of those attempts at explanation. There is NO adaptationist or neurological proponent out there arguing that belief in a supernatural being is intrinsic.

There are a number of other "question-begging" statements where she assumes her conclusions in the statement, but I'll leave them out of here.

R.

37. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #23907 by BeyondBelief on March 3, 2007 at 1:44 pm

I don't know which is more depressing in the following list of recurring themes:

1. The critic asserts that there IS another way of knowing...reason is not enough.

Is there? Demonstrate it. Make it replicable. Make it visible and functional in a consistent manner across practitioners.

2. "The "God" Dawkins hates is not MY God. He's got him all wrong."

The purveyor of this view is assiduously wriggling to escape the viselike grip of Sam Harris' basic thesis: Each and every one of our "beliefs" is a truth proposition that translates into action. I don't care WHAT you think you mean by "God" if holding that belief then translates into irrational, abhorrent, unjust behavior or politics.

3. Science and/or rationalism is a "world flattening reductionism." Let's review point 1 again: I can assert that using my mind and following scientific method is a good METHOD of making sense of the world. I can point to the flaws in the FAITH approach to making sense of the world, demonstrating along the way the tangible and productive benefits of using reason to analyze evidence.

So is Science world flattening? Yes... to those who insist on propping up a world of assertions with more unprovable assertions. Can you denigrate science for that? I think not.

38. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21622 by BeyondBelief on February 10, 2007 at 7:32 am

Regarding,and extending, Russell Blackford's comment above, he wrote:

"Well, sure, there's a far-fetched possibility that I am not currently typing at my computer, that Richard Dawkins does not exist, that evolutionary theory is totally wrong. An evil demon may be deceiving me about all those things."

I think you're already implying this, but I wanted to explicitly state it. Let's assume for a moment that someone wants to adopt the stance above, that person would then have to say to themselves, "Now, believing all of that, what does that belief set tell me about how I should go out and act in the world?"

A belief set populated by whimsical, petulent demons who control us while leaving us with a perception of self, does NOTHING to suggest a moral or rational approach to life.

A belief set, or worldview, built upon facts that are repeatable and apparently perceived by other humans IS a good foundation for establishing my life's actions in the world and toward it.

Those who argue for faith are ultimately saying, "Give up on any illusion that you have input, control, self, and give yourself over to 'God', for whom I just happen to be an excellent proxy that can tell you his will for you." (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)

My knowledge from science may be limited and imperfect, but I choose to base my actions on that limited set of information, rather than on the unlimited blather of a nihilistic appeal to "faith".

Cheers,
Rob

39. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #21515 by BeyondBelief on February 9, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Sam's comment on the straight jacket is the kind of "to the bone" incision, with clarity, brevity and style, that will rank it in the realm of Russell's "teapot."

Sweet!!

40. Sam Harris talks about 'The End of Faith'

Comment #20845 by BeyondBelief on February 6, 2007 at 6:52 pm

Prophetic. Sam speaks truths that society at large is not prepared for, but which shall prove so solidly founded as to be inescapable conclusions in the future. Copernican. Galilean. Wonderful!!

41. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16609 by BeyondBelief on January 7, 2007 at 2:57 pm

From my exodus (oops, religious terminology seeps in again) from Catholicism... in which I was so devout that I was studying for the priesthood... I can not speak of a "loss" or "grief" in discovering and accepting the fact that there is no evidence supporting a god hypothesis. But I can speak of a feeling of betrayal/hurt... that people I loved had so long told me these stories. I can also speak of a sense of trepidation, as I faced a "new world" that I had to interpret ENTIRELY by my own lights (and the lights of others like you folks); it's the same kind of fear one might feel when deciding it's time to change careers; leave one's wife; move to a new city. It's a step into the unknown. While I had this mild fear, I knew it was the right direction. I certainly did not Grieve the loss of God.

42. God's Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends

Comment #15189 by BeyondBelief on December 29, 2006 at 11:59 am

Regarding Comment 2, about the belief in Santa (Father Christmas to some heathens. :-)

I received the following letter from a public school teacher, after my son (who figured out Santa was ME before he turned 6)spread his knowledge among classmates.
[excerpted]
I need to ask you a favor and talk to XXXXX about not telling children that there is no Santa, tooth fairy etc. I have talked to him several times about this already and he was telling children again today.

The first time a child came up to me and told me that XXXXX said there was no Santa. I looked at XXXX and said "We are not talking about this again!" About 3 minutes later when lining up for lunch he was telling another child that his brother snuck down at midnight and watched the two of you put presents under the tree and that it is always the parents that do this. I had some very upset children and I will probably get upset parents. I explained to him that what he believes is between him and his family and that he cannot share that with other people. I feel terrible that he is ruining this for other children. Please talk to him about how
important it is for him to keep this to himself.

[end excerpt]

Yes... useful myths must be sustained, right? Even at the expense of truth, and/or people who don't share belief in the value of the myth.

43. Let's Be Rational

Comment #12906 by BeyondBelief on December 14, 2006 at 10:00 am

Religion was useful from the point of view of improving human behavior and keeping it lawful?

What a wishful distortion of that text's meaning. Leaders see religion as a useful tool for firing up masses to pursue courses of action that any reasonable person or group would not normally pursue. It's a useful tool for turning people against the "non religious." Religion is useful to a leader as a mechanism of control.

If this were a user, and not a review, I'd flag this man a troll!

44. Let's Be Rational

Comment #12904 by BeyondBelief on December 14, 2006 at 9:53 am

Equivocation: Treating the multiple meanings of a word as if they are the same. In logic, a fallacy caused by the double meaning of a word.

Equating the "faith" that the discovery of blood circulation will bring about benefits to mankind to the "faith" that, for example "Jesus is God, and therefore I must convert people to Christianity" is a massive fallacy.

The first example of "faith" is the hoped for future (benefits for man), based on a real current state (blood circulation).

The other (religious, blind faith) is a wished for future state (reward in heaven, punishment for heathens), based on an unprovable current state (God exists, Jesus is Divine, etc.)

It is pathetic to try to equate these two "types" of faith, or to even call the idealistic hope that the future can/will be better "faith."