51. Atheistic Denomination Struggles To Fill Void Left by Founder's Death

Comment #79853 by Conrad on October 18, 2007 at 6:16 pm

No Nusmus, I don't have a problem with "fluff" as much as I have a problem with intellectual laziness and apathy, which Epstein seems to have in spades. I have no qualms and am quite supportive of his wish to build more constructive communites. I just wish it didn't have to be based on such waffling, murky, spirituality. We can build more compatable and peaceful societies without delving into the muck of opaque spirituality.

That said, I do have to comment on the title of this post, and sigh...

52. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79314 by Conrad on October 16, 2007 at 9:54 pm

No, no, it's prefectly acceptable to say that Hitch is a better live debater. In the same vein, RD put out a better book. But Hitchen's rhetorical skills are of a rare breed. He handles himself masterfully on sunday politics shows, which is where he cut his teeth. If you can handle yourself amongst those loudmouthed talking heads you can handle yourself anywhere. Many other of the current atheist writers simply don't have that experience. But each has his own strong suit. If I had my way, I'd put Hitch up as the goto debater and leave the book writing to everyone else.

53. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77268 by Conrad on October 8, 2007 at 11:18 pm

True, after, reading philos' other posts (this philos) I doubt that he could be the same guy. But boy, if he WERE, I'd be a damn sight impressed!

54. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77260 by Conrad on October 8, 2007 at 10:23 pm

Actually, PZ, on your Killfile Dungeon a chracter named "philos" is at the very bottom listed as "Being a demented fuckwit and world-class asshole." It has a link to the post about the bridge wreck in Minn.

So I just had to check.

55. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77231 by Conrad on October 8, 2007 at 8:06 pm

Yeah, Norman, your point is the tipping point. Either we'll make the term better, or it'll continue to get worse on it's own with the upsurge of fundamentalism. At least that's how I view it. And I guess it would be hard to make the term any worse huh?

56. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77216 by Conrad on October 8, 2007 at 7:33 pm

philos, you wouldn't happen to be the horribly vile, banned, poster on PZ's site are you?

If not, then I'll add that you're dangerously close to concern trolling.

57. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77200 by Conrad on October 8, 2007 at 6:22 pm

Janus you hit the nail on the head. In attempting to start a movement that holds highly rationality and evidence, it would seem odd to simply assume that any such a attempt would lead to irrationality and dogmatism.

Moreover, this is not a movement that every atheist must join. We have no scriptures dictating that all must attend an atheist group or convention. As atheists all we agree on is that we don't believe in gods. Otherwise we can be, objectivists, communists, left leaning libertarians, nihilists, you name it. So, If you find people that share your views, maybe you'd want to group up.

If not, don't. But the idea of a group is not a priori bad.

58. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77196 by Conrad on October 8, 2007 at 6:07 pm

Norman, I would be much more inclined to agree with Sam if it did indeed seem to be that he was only advocating the integration of a new focus, such as reason and evidence, when we speak. (Even though that would seem to change next to nothing in how most of us talk) But when he literally says that we shouldn't call ourselves anything, he doesn't seem to simply be against using the label as a crutch, he seems to against the label altogether. And that is where the contention is and where I'm sure he knew it would be. In opposition to his ideal, well meaning as it may be, I contend that not only is the label not a crutch, but a boon, and is just now at the very begining of gathering steam. This of course, is in regards to the social climate in the US. In England, Sam's views may be more than correct. (I have no idea where you're from by the way)

Other than that little contention, I agree with everything else Sam advocates.

59. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77184 by Conrad on October 8, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Sadly, after having read Ellen Johnson's piece I can see why he's upset. That was a bit crap, and I'm unlikely to join an organization run by her. I also wasn't impresed when I saw her on Paula Zaun NOW. But again, I don't see anything more than a bit of snark in PZ's when he pokes fun at Sam's role as an aggitator.

60. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77182 by Conrad on October 8, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Here is the main crux of PZ's argument "It seems to me, though, that there is no conflict at all between being decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them and also finding common cause with like-minded people and working together to promote that same decency, responsibility, and critical thinking publicly. In fact, I think such coordinated (and proudly labeled) action by a group would be more effective than similar action by modest individuals."

I can't see where Sam feels attacked here. I also can't see where Sam gets the idea that he's interpreted as wanting atheists to "stop publicly criticizing religion." That's an unsupported assertion that isn't backed up anywhere in PZ's reply to Sam.

Lastly the idea that those who dissent with him can only be interpreted as "a product of offended atheist piety" is more than irritating, and the suggestion of cult-like tendancies is silly. I hold Sam in just as high esteem as any other worthwhile public intellectual, but I disagree with his current assertions.

So for that Sam... I'm taking down my altar of your photo's and putting up another of PZ's...

61. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75545 by Conrad on October 3, 2007 at 1:16 am

I do agree with Sam about the issues with using such a term, but I do believe it all boils down what one's goals are. If you're looking for the political clout and freedom of non believers, then you're not only going to retain the title, but you're going to try and strengthen it's stock price, so to speak, in the public forum. If you're out to do away with all and any irrationality, then you're going to see the title as a hinderance, as Sam does. For Sam to do what he does, he has no need of the title.

Personally, I'm fine with the title. I use it when conversations turn to such issues and otherwise I've always taken the path that Sam suggested, trumpeting reason and evidence all the way. But when the conversation does turn to religion and my beliefs are asked about, I gladly state that I'm an atheist and I do my best to be a good ambassador for the public image. All in all, I think that may be the best way to deal with the atheist problem. You're not quite so likely to get everyone to drop it any time soon.

But one day, I hope to have no need of it.

62. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73841 by Conrad on September 26, 2007 at 10:16 am

The AIR changed? You must be kidding me. If the level of oxygen changed to such a remarkable degree that large land animals couldn't BREATHE, then that would have surely put us un a bind as well being evolved large apes. Not to mention, if the change in air was due to the lack of plants, what do all our "saved" herbivores eat when they get off the boat?

Not that anyone needs a logical deconstruction of Jack Chick, mind you. But the stupidity was so great that I had to say something.

63. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65285 by Conrad on August 23, 2007 at 1:12 pm

I find it rather useful to read everyones submissions and see what other people are thinking. So with that here's what I sent in:

I am an atheist but I regret the title. It seems to me to be a label that should be unnecessary. There are no a-tarotists, or a-alchemists, or a-toothfairyists, even though the majority of people will fall into at least one of those groups. But it is the sad state of re-emergent faith in our country that has continued to keep atheism from going the way of a-toothfairyism, as an unneeded title for what all rational people know to be true.

It is obvious after just a little reflection that faith proves nothing and is evidence of nothing as any stroll through an insane asylum will show you. Top this off with the glaring inconsistency that must be held in the minds of believers. A believer must reject all other religions except for theirs (or most likely, their parents) using reasoning that would rule out their religion in the same way. I disbelieve in all religions for the same reason that believers disbelieve in religions not their own. I just have the ability follow the logic and go one god further.

For a little background on who's talking here: I was raised in a fundamentalist christian home until I was 18 and I was a leader in the youth church. I participated in events, rallies, and revivals. Yet as soon as I moved out of my fathers house my whole world changed. I was for the first time in my life, privy to information that I had been told to avoid and spurn as false before I had even seen it. I knew then why I had been kept from it: because it's true and my beliefs were false. I am a 26 y.o. mixed race male. My masters happens to be in the arts. I am a scientifically and politically informed citizen (independent) who votes, I help run the recycling efforts in my town, and I am engaged to one of the most wonderful women I've ever even heard of.

64. Brian Lehrer interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34540 by Conrad on April 24, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Another topic that needs to be addressed is this idea that not being able to prove something true or false to an absolute degree of certainty should then leave us at a "4" as it were, in the scale of belief. This idea of being totally noncommittal would seem to leave open the possibility of the truth of a claim. And when people talk about Fairies or Wotan (who I'm sure most people have no knowledge of whatsoever) they have no fear of the consequences that are said to happen whenever these god's are disobeyed. So in these cases it seems easy to claim that we should remain at "4" in our level of disbelief.

But what if we were to add a consequence to these unprovable ideas, much like those we have with the Judeo-Christian god?
What if we say that the unprovable fairies dictate that you may not leave your house before nightfall or they will electrocute you? Are we to suppose that the host of the radio program would treat this as a possibility, not being able to prove or disprove the claim, and therefore play it safe by staying inside? Or would we expect that he, like everyone else, would put no belief in this claim and not act as though the possibility of it existence were even probable? In short, because of a lack of evidence for the claim, they'd be atheistic towards it?

Doesn't acting against the electocuting faries wishes generally mean you don't think they exist? (Baring the silly idea that you follow the "anti-fairy" and your disobediance is based on belief and also antagonism) And is that anywhere near a "4" on the scale? I don't think so.

65. Brian Lehrer interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34531 by Conrad on April 24, 2007 at 11:47 am

I find it infuriating to repeatedly hear the accusation of "arrogance" coming from the lips of christians. But to then have the host support the accusation without leaving time for an answer is mindboggeling. That the very idea of evidence should be so unthinkable and strange to such people is continually disheartening.

How can one say that an atheist is arrogant for sticking to what the evidence does or does not say? Moreover how can one say that, while at the same time holding a belief in the virgin birth of Jesus, which has no evidence whatsoever in support of it and the whole of biology arguing against it!?

Who then is arrogant?

66. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32816 by Conrad on April 18, 2007 at 10:15 am

Pun King you are making a silly age old error. To simply defer the task of deciding what is good or bad to an imaginary being does not solve the problem. The golden rule, which happens to be the bedrock of morality, was also around long before jesus. You also forget that the one thing we humans have in common is our common humanity. Empathy and our common knowledge of the human experience, is how we judge what is good and what is evil. It isn't a fullproof process, but who said that it must be? I need not even define the term to state that humans have a moral sense. This sense is backed naturally by evidence showing that it evolved with our cognitive abilities. Hitler was able to commit evil acts because he believed that other races were less than his. A conclusion supported by no evidence. I'll also ask the question of where this objective morality is supposed to come from? We have no evidence for any supreme being who handed it down (and even if we did, countless philosophers have shown how that still would be a dubious way of getting ones morals) so where are we supposed to find the answers to our moral questions anywhere but within ourselves? You may not like the situation, but who said you were supposed to like it?

67. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23460 by Conrad on February 28, 2007 at 11:01 pm

Michael,

You are correct to assume that many believers will claim to have "experienced" god and therefore be on the same page as science. But the sole difference between the two claims is evidence. When a man says he speaks to god he has no evidence of this to show to anyone else. When another man says in a vacuum objects fall at constant rates, he can show anyone who would like to confirm it again and again. "Feeling" god is much the same way.

This too though is a very short answer, that could be given much more time, but I'm afraid it would get too long to be readable. The take away idea is, does the evidence sited point beyond a reasonable doubt to it's proposed cause? If it does, then you can say you experience god. But if I can find a million other equally or more probable causes then the claim falls flat. Also important, are those who claim to experience god, even examining their own claims or challenging their beliefs? I doubt it.

68. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23322 by Conrad on February 27, 2007 at 7:51 pm

The idea that science lies on the same philosphical assumption quicksand as claims to religion, while true in the most technical philosophpical sense, rings hollow when we remember that that very claim itself is also based on logic. And logic itself victim to it's own logic. If we can't make assumptions at some level and recogonize that there are simply some brute facts, then nothing makes any sense at all.

What Dawkins was getting at in his answer that everyday life too, is open to the same counter arguments, is that we don't accept such silly philosophy in real life. The reason why happens to be because we EXPERIENCE the fruits of "common sense" and science. It's where logic connects to what actually is going on. I may be assuming such and such is true in order to make sense out of the real world, but the test of that assumption is going to be how my beliefs hold against expereincing the real world. It's experience that matters. And it's where claiming that science and religion are on par fails. The simple answer is that while they may both begin with an assumption, this one pans out, the other does not.

Arguments like that are what happens when philosophers don't get out enough. Simply because something makes sense logically outside of experience does not mean it is true. Otherwise Aristotle would have been right about objects twice as heavy, falling twice as fast.

69. Is God a Delusion? Atheism and the Meaning of Life

Comment #21941 by Conrad on February 12, 2007 at 12:40 am

I'm tired of Alister mgrath. He's a hack.

70. Response to Orr

Comment #21940 by Conrad on February 12, 2007 at 12:39 am

I said you adopted a double standard-like many atheists, I might add-

I wonder about the full meaning of this aside.

71. Response to Orr

Comment #21939 by Conrad on February 12, 2007 at 12:35 am

Wow, that was a ripping if I've seen one in a while. And more deserved than any I've seen coming in just as long.

72. My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic

Comment #21937 by Conrad on February 12, 2007 at 12:29 am

Here here! HERE HERE!

73. What a Friend We Have in Dawkins

Comment #20439 by Conrad on February 2, 2007 at 12:51 pm

A good reveiw. But his few nit picks should be answered.

Hobbesian Religion: Dawkins could care less if this or that is "profitable". Even if we could create a religion that made everyone perfect, Dawkins, Harris, Dennit, ME, we'd all fight it. Because we care about whats TRUE. You can have euphoric experiences without belief in a deity. Awe of the universe and life are a good starting place.

Missionary Work: If our reviewer can't seem to think of any reasons why Atheists might have something positive to offer society, I must only wonder how he can be so happy that Dawkins has written this book at all.

Liberal Theists: Dawkins is not a hard liner. He's intellectually honest. He's not political. He cares about whats TRUE. It's something I've heard refered to as intellectual and moral fortitude. Standing up for whats right, no matter what others may say. As for the idea that he wouldn't go after religion if it wasn't violent, I must disagree. He goes after all widespread irrationality. His next T.V. program is about all other types of non-thinking as a matter of fact. Something that in this reviewers opinion, shouldn't bother him as astrology isn't violent. Right?

In every nit pick I've ever read of Dawkins work, the vast majority seem to demonstrate a near complete lack of care for the TRUTH. They only demonstrate clearer why what he's doing is so overdue.

74. Blashpemy Challenge Interview

Comment #20160 by Conrad on January 31, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Caution everyone: there is a troll in the room. Please don't feed it and maybe it'll go away.

As for those of you who don't like the challenge, your view points have been logged and thank you for your time. Obviously we must have gotten mixed up and included you in the group of people targeted by this project and we apologize for any confusion.

For those who worry that every word an atheists speaks in public now must pass your scrutiny before being OK'd, I'd like to wonder who put you as head of the atheists?
This also doesn't have to be aimed at changing minds. It only needs to inform people that young atheists are out there and have no qualms with rejecting the prevalent dogma.

For those atheists who have need of the knowledge that a large community of non-believers like them exists and is proud to say so, then you've come to the right place. And screw any uppity theists (or sadly atheists) who's feathers may get ruffled by your verbal break from dogma.

75. The New Atheists

Comment #16943 by Conrad on January 9, 2007 at 5:30 pm

If god is outside the "canons of proof" and is thus can't be disproven (so Dawkis can't imply what he implies) doesn't that mean Mr. Cox no longer gets to say that god does exist for the same reason? And this man teaches at HARVARD!?!

76. Atheist Chic

Comment #13457 by Conrad on December 17, 2006 at 9:30 pm

I find the writers description of what Dawkins et al are asking people to do tiresome and false. No one is asking anyone to run around with a sandwich board, talking through a mega-phone castigating religion. Nor does anyone suggest that you should go out of your way to pick fights. That's just the thing. The fundamentalist worldview is everywhere. No one has to go searching for a reason to defend reason. Myraid crimes against reason happen everyday. All you're asked to do is defend it instead of remaining silent. But that doesn't mean when grandma is on her deathbed talking about Jesus or Uncle Jim is saying grace at thanksgiving that you must right then and there speak out. If Uncle Jim tries to tell everyone afterwards at dinner that the world is 6000 years old, then feel free to give some examples of why that isn't true. Otherwise, you're just being a nutter. And no one, Harris, Dawkins, Dennet etc, is asking you to be obnoxious.

They're asking you to be reasonable.

77. Let's Be Rational

Comment #12610 by Conrad on December 12, 2006 at 9:33 pm

Aside from this reviewers need to rail on IVF as if it refured RD's main point, I am again appauled at his (and most other reviewers) generalizations. Not only does RD not claim that rationality is the only thing with which to live our lives by thereby negating our emotional selves, he also doesn't claim that the simple increase of technology will make our lives better in and of itself. His main point can be summed up thus "No nation ever was faulted for being more rational." This whole review is one long straw man and I'm sick of seeing the same damn thing said again and again after it's been refuted a million times. It's my belief that every futire reviewer of this book must be sent not only a copy of the book but a list of things that other reviewers have said that have made them look foolish. I'm tired of never getting past square one because of mass ignorance.

78. 42% think faith is as evil as smallpox

Comment #8071 by Conrad on November 20, 2006 at 10:49 am

Nielson, I wish you were right but I don't think there's anywhere near a majority of atheists in the U.S. It's probably closer to 10-20%, but we do need to be more vocal to make it more acceptable and easier for others to come out as atheists. I've found a few fence-sitters who seem more willing to come to grips with their atheism after encouragement by and seeing other public atheists.