"My concern is that atheism can easily become the position of not being interested in certain possibilities in principle. I don’t know if our universe is, as JBS Haldane said, “not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose.” But I am sure that it is stranger than we, as “atheists,” tend to represent while advocating atheism. As “atheists” we give others, and even ourselves, the sense that we are well on our way toward purging the universe of mystery. As advocates of reason, we know that mystery is going to be with us for a very long time. Indeed, there are good reasons to believe that mystery is ineradicable from our circumstance, because however much we know, it seems like there will always be brute facts that we cannot account for but which we must rely upon to explain everything else. This may be a problem for epistemology but it is not a problem for human life and for human solidarity. It does not rob our lives of meaning. And it is not a barrier to human happiness." Sam Harris, The Problem With Atheism

https://samharris.org/the-problem-with-atheism/

Is Sam Harris the leader of the Atheists ?

False dilemma. Harris, and s-cat should know better.

Dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> False dilemma. Harris, and s-cat should know
> better.

He is pointing out, ironically, The false dichotomy of atheism, which is nothing, but a reaction to theism.
It is as ridiculous as me identifying my self as an Anti-Santaist after doing the math and figuring out Santa didnt exist, except at shopping malls.

He is a lot like other very public scientists who do not want to associate themselves with a group of angry atheists who get easily dismissed from the public discourse on important issues, by 96% of puplic, which is NOT Atheist, by associating with a group of people with whom they do not agree fundamentally, especially in terms of behavior. IOW, they don't like being told what to think, by people who just assume they must think, depending upon their group association.

"As “atheists” we give others, and even ourselves, the sense that we are well on our way toward purging the universe of mystery."

Oh, baloney.

There always will be plenty of mystery to go around. We are trying to purge the universe of bulls*** and ignorance, but it appears there will be plenty of that to go around too.

“We are trying to purge the universe of bulls*** and ignorance,”

So are TBMs. Sam is saying don’t be like them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2019 04:13AM by babyloncansuckit.

Even if it were true, it would still be irrelevant.

Of course. Don’t over complicate it.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t
I don't believe in a personal "God", but that does not make me an atheist, just like NdGT, Einstein and Sagan are not atheists, even though they don't believe in a personal God.
What they do believe in is something that can be called god, logos, logic, math, super symetry and singularity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2019 08:25PM by schrodingerscat.

Atheism is becoming a belief system by adding a commitment to automatic dismissal of new ideas to atheism's core characteristic of non-belief. That means that a number of unspoken, perhaps unconscious, beliefs have been adopted.

It explains why atheists proselytize: they're emotionally attached to a belief system that they feel compelled to spread. It also explains why atheist arguments are often dishonest and incomplete. They'll state in one place, "There IS NO GOD!!" and then somewhere else disavow that view, claiming simple non-belief. The two positions are very different, but like an emotional abuser, the atheist changes definitions to confuse and distress the target of their rage.

At the very least, atheism has a cultural problem. You don't have to believe in a god, but you do need to have a coherent worldview and some integrity about it.

By the time people graduate college in their early 20s they pretty much get the non-theist angle on things and after that, as a non-ideology, it has nothing more to say to them.

Also I ran into too many atheists & atheist writing that was stuck in the late 19th / early 20th century positivist materialist mindset.

xxMoo0 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Also I ran into too many atheists & atheist
> writing that was stuck in the late 19th / early
> 20th century positivist materialist mindset.


Yes, this was the flaw that sorely stuck out for me, too. Their atheism was neither here nor there for me, couldn’t care less. But when it masks for Positivism, I have a problem.

>>Also I ran into too many atheists & atheist writing that was stuck in the late 19th / early 20th century positivist materialist mindset.

This seems an odd thing to say considering most religious writing is a far older mindset.

When there is new verifiable evidence, I'm sure "atheist writing" will incorporate it. Most are not going to make things up in the meantime.

Tell us what Materialism is.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tell us what Materialism is.

You tell us, science guy

last night when I was reading the antagonism towards atheism thread, but I am not an atheist. I'm not quite sure what I am, BUT I have never once seen atheists tell me I have to be an atheist, but I see Christians telling me I have to think like they do all the time.

The atheists have always been nothing but polite to me. I asked what atheists "believe" when I first came here and I was impressed. I think they have a very good attitude toward life and toward being a good person, more so than a lot of Christians, more so than most mormons I've known. So I don't get the issues that are always brought up here.

Why can't we all just believe as we want to believe and not try to prove to someone else WE ARE RIGHT.

I've been here for 14 years this month and I have never experienced what others were saying on the other thread about how atheists rule the board and attack everyone. I see more attacks by Christians than anyone else and then they cry foul when atheists stand up for themselves. Why do you care if someone is atheist? Yes, like they are going to bring down the whole world with their wickedness. Hell.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2019 12:24PM by cl2.

The best argument for atheism is Christians claiming Individual #1 is the 2nd Coming of God.

>>The best argument for atheism is Christians claiming Individual #1 is the 2nd Coming of God

...using a Cyrus the Great story for justification no less. Gee, God works in mysterious ways and all that.

It's easy to see how Mormons rationalize God selecting a scam artist to restore the gospel. Same mindset.

“Why can't we all just believe as we want to believe and not try to prove to someone else WE ARE RIGHT.”

If my beliefs are messed up, I would want to know.

Atheism didn’t work for me because it didn’t fit the data. But then crazy runs in my family.

>>I've been here for 14 years this month and I have never experienced what others were saying on the other thread about how atheists rule the board and attack everyone.

I think there was a time some years ago when the atheists on the board made it a hostile place for believers. They regularly used to invade the threads oriented towards believers, while the believers generally left their threads alone.

But IMO it has not been that way for a while.

informative. In fact, it was in one of those arguments that I lost my belief in the bible because of something a Christian said.

As I've stated before, for babylon, even as a mormon, I knew I thought/believed differently than many mormons did. I was more about Christ and God than I was about JS. I saw a lot of things that made me question, but I had to hold on. Come to find out as life went on that those questions I had were fact and they were wrong. I should have left long before I did. What I think and believe are mine alone. Some things the Christians and Atheists have to say on the board influence what I believe, but my beliefs change almost daily. I know nothing, so I just don't really worry about it.

What if there were a televised production whose theme it was was to find "The Truth"?

I'd call it "The Plain Truth" and each week there would be a topic, like 'why is cancer?' and 'what makes pretty?', or 'why you lie?'

There would be five prelim shows where 20 of the 100 selected contestants would weigh in on each topic and the celebrity judges would comment to each contest on why he or she voted for or against the contestant. The top five would advance to the next round, meaning that these 'truth-tellers' are whittled down to 25 contestants for the Battle Rounds (sure, why not mix formats!).

There are four celebrity judges and one Death Row Inmate judge from a panel of really vile human beings currently on death row. He's not there in person...

The contestants are whittled down to five and then the issues get really tough!!

'What choice should Sophie's have really made?'

'Does ghawd videotape everything you do or does he watch everybody all the time and simply have a perfect memory?'

'Does I.Q. and happiness have any recognizable correlation?'

'Does your chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight?'

'What do atheists really worship that only ghawd knows about?'

...What makes pretty.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

I don't remember where the quote came from, but it nails the mark every time. We all don't view how people appear in the same way.

> I don't remember where the
> quote came from, but it
> nails the mark every time.
> We all don't view how people
> appear in the same way.


Sponsors have a vested interest, and are willing to pay big bucks, to get us to all agree on one standard of beauty.

So while I agree with you on one level, I'm trying to rile things up on another level.

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.

“If you believe hard enough it will become true”. — Tinkerbell

“No amount of belief makes something a fact.” — James Randi

“No amount of belief makes something a fact.”

Isn’t that a belief?

No. It's a fact.

Circular logic.

Isn't that a belief ?

This, in contrast, seems a bit esoteric

To put this quote in context you need to read the entire essay. Consider the following lead-up statement:

"So, apart from just commending these phenomena [mystic and spiritual experiences] to your attention, I’d like to point out that, as atheists, our neglect of this area of human experience puts us at a rhetorical disadvantage. Because millions of people have had these experiences, and many millions more have had glimmers of them, and we, as atheists, ignore such phenomena, almost in principle, because of their religious associations—and yet these experiences often constitute the most important and transformative moments in a person’s life. Not recognizing that such experiences are possible or important can make us appear less wise even than our craziest religious opponents."

COMMENT: There is no question that if one reads the literature on the atheism-theism debate, Harris is right-on with his observation that atheism tends to reject out of hand the mystical and the transcendent spiritual. One can also see this quite clearly by posts on the Recovery Board.

Since the rejection of God is based upon the lack of scientific evidence, scientific evidence becomes by default the gold standard for evaluating ALL claims that have a mystical or spiritual character. Harris is pointing out that there are too many such mystical and spiritual experiences to be dismissive of their value and ontological status, whatever that might be.

What Harris doesn't acknowledge is that this problem is fundamentally a problem of the rejection of subjective experience as evidence for what may exist that is beyond human understanding. Once an atheist lets such non-scientific evidence into the discourse--like Harris suggests--a floodgate of "spiritual" and "theistic" facts, interpretations and, well . . . theism itself, is inadvertently invited into the realm of the real, without effective criteria for sorting out the "reasonable" from the "unreasonable."

This whole discussion suggests to me a fundamental inconsistency with this strong atheistic mindset that Harris is challenging. All atheists (presumably) believe that human beings, including human intelligence, can be explained solely by evolution. As such, given the fundamental principles of evolution, human knowledge is ultimately the product of selection pressures that are guided by reproduction and survival. Once this is accepted, however, you cannot then claim (as Richard Dawkins repeatedly claims) that human science is the arbiter to all questions of what is "real." Evolution by definition is inherently limited to its central governing standard (reproduction and survival) within the confines of an naturally imposed "scale." This limits the ability of human scientists to access what is ultimately real. To embrace evolution, on the one hand, and scientism, on the other hand, is inconsistent; the stature of Dawkins notwithstanding. Science may be the best vehicle to assess reality, but to claim that it is per se the only such vehicle--the temptation of atheism--is unsupportable in logic and reason. Harris is a perfect example of what happens when a materialist minded atheist is confronted with the reality of the spiritual and the transcendent. He has no idea how to reconcile it. So, he does what any good prophet does, he just preaches.

Also, note that Harris objects to the term "atheism" as being unnecessary and unhelpful, preferring just "reason and evidence" as applied to theism; just as reason and evidence is presumably applied to racism without the need for a designating term like "aracist." After all, according to Harris neither atheism or anti-racism are "things" that need a referencing word. Thus, Harris states:

"Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn’t really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as “non-racism” is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves."

COMMENT: This is all hogwash. You have to remember first and foremost that "beliefs" whether substantive (as is theism) or negative (as in atheism) are mental states with propositional content. In other words both theism and atheism reflect attitudes or mental states as related to the proposition "God exists." That is why beliefs are called "propositional attitudes." So, as a propositional attitude; i.e. a mental state about theism, atheism *does* constitute a worldview, or at least part of a worldview. And it makes no difference whether there is a "word" that has been designated as standing for this attitude or mental state. An "anti-racist" has beliefs about racism whether or not there is a word "aracist" to designate such a person. And such beliefs are part of that person's worldview notwithstanding whatever words are applicable.

So, all of Harris' complaints about the word "atheist" are ridiculous. There would be no difference whatsoever if all we had to identify people who did not believe in God was the term anti-theist, or the more cumbersome, "A person who does not believe in God." Language is for communication, including convenience in expressing one's beliefs; that's all. The absence of particular specifying word (e.g. atheist) does not free one from having a belief about the content of a concept (theism), or a related worldview that encompasses that concept.

Harris is just looking for a way to keep you from getting into a mental state where you can't have a reasonable conversation.

Maybe it won't work.

Logic is a demanding and unforgiving taskmaster:

Logic forces you to think, when all you really want is validation;

Logic forces you to reconsider, when all you really want is to maintain the status quo;

Logic forces you to see "the truth," when all you really want is the comfort of your own favored beliefs;

Logic forces you to challenge your mental capacities, when all you really want is idle conversation; and

Logic forces you to silence, when you really just do not want to think, reconsider, see "the truth," or challenge your mind to meet its demands.

- Henraclitus Bemiculous -- (Google him)

_________________________________________________

Now, we see all of the above in our Mormon friends and family members. How frustrating it is . . .

If only we could see it in ourselves!

I googled. Impressive! Turns out to be a true one of a kind!


The bottom line on Harris is that he successfully pivoted away from a dying brand. “Atheist” once had big brand cache, especially when Harris and his ilk could ride along on Hitch’s rhetoric. That’s no longer true, which is why he turgidly offers up these multi-paragraph bits of nothing.

Harris is and always has been pablum for weak minds. That’s harmless. What’s not so harmless is that he’s pretty good at setting himself up as some sort of meditate-with-me guru for these weak minds.

Everyone’s gotta make a buck somehow, I guess.

Finally, a reasoned response to one of my posts. However short, I'll take it. Thank you!

(I am so glad that there are still people on the Board who do not run for cover with their head between their legs when faced with a logical argument. A hard task master indeed!)

"The bottom line on Harris is that he successfully pivoted away from a dying brand. “Atheist” once had big brand cache, especially when Harris and his ilk could ride along on Hitch’s rhetoric. That’s no longer true, which is why he turgidly offers up these multi-paragraph bits of nothing."

COMMENT: Let's not forget that the "atheist" brand was promoted as the preferred intellectual label as a result of neo-Darwinism and the philosophical positivism of the early 20th century, mired as it was in Newtonian science. As Darwinism has become undermined by more sophisticated evolutionary principles; and as "consciousness" has proven a more and more intractable problem for science; and as quantum physics has shown to be weirder than much of religion, "atheism" has become almost embarrassingly shortsighted in its dogmatic forms. And, yes, this is why people like Harris are distancing themselves from it--while speaking to large groups of assembled atheists who deny it is a "worldview." :)
_______________________________________

"Harris is and always has been pablum for weak minds. That’s harmless. What’s not so harmless is that he’s pretty good at setting himself up as some sort of meditate-with-me guru for these weak minds."

COMMENT: Exactly. He is often stunningly shallow in his thinking, as Dennett himself has pointed out rather pejoratively. Yet, he gets seems to always get his church, and his disciples keep coming for instruction.

______________________________________________

Just for fun here is another quote from Harris from the OP link:

"To judge the empirical claims of contemplatives, you have to build your own telescope. Judging their metaphysical claims is another matter: many of these can be dismissed as bad science or bad philosophy by merely thinking about them. But to judge whether certain experiences are possible—and if possible, desirable—we have to be able to use our attention in the requisite ways. We have to be able to break our identification with discursive thought, if only for a few moments. This can take a tremendous amount of work. And it is not work that our culture knows much about."

COMMENT: Notice here that Harris wants to accept the positive psychological benefits of a "contemplative" (in other words "a mystic") while retaining the right to judge and reject their corresponding metaphysical claims as "bad science" or "bad philosophy." What he doesn't get is that these psychological experiences are transcendent by their nature; not merely mundane psychological feelings. And as such, they are inherently linked to metaphysics, i.e. some commitment about how the world *really* is in a way that is beyond science.

In short, there really is no "contemplative" experience, in the traditional sense Harris is describing, that does *not* encompass "bad science" or "bad philosophy." But that does not tell you anything about the validity or worth of the experience. However, it does tell you a great deal about the limits of science and philosophy.

Now, I am sure the Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens disciples on the Board will have a lot to say about this. Once again, we have attacked one of their prophets. But then there is that unscrupulous taskmaster, logic. So hard.

Attempting to define Atheism out of existence again. This never works.

I don't think he is attempting this. He is merely pointing out the "meta" in human experiences.

Do believe the concepts and body of knowledge encompassed by Science encompasses all human experiences?

Your search - Henraclitus Bemiculous - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try fewer keywords.

It was a horrible neologism of Henry "latinizing" his own name. Of course it didn't come up in Google. It was... "humor".


HH =)

<Phew> I worried that I'd broken Google...

"Wait! What?"

~ Gregsimilicus

Logic is a cruel task master.
Bigamus Berricus

I don't understand your comment, Berricus Minimus.

Truth is a hard thing to swallow. But is can be pleasurable.
Berricus Minimus

:O

I like watching, and listening to Sam Harris. He is quick witted, humorous, knowledgeable, and entertaining.

Anyone unfamiliar with him may find a bounty of YouTube videos of him. He has a few books, and a great website if you are so inclined.

I think, like many Atheists, I have agreements with Sam as well as disagreements. After all atheism is just the lack of belief as it relates to god(s). It provides no further instructive information at the level of the individual. There is no need for an atheist to reject spiritualism, shamanism, or any other type of mysticism.

Sam's take on the "spiritual" is mushy at best. Yet, he is consistent in asserting that he is convinced that spiritual experiences have physical causes. His criticism seems to be that many of the godless dismiss those experiences because of the subjective and religious nature attached to them. He seems to assert that the non-religious should embrace, study, and benefit from them. His personal experiences with meditation are fascinating.


HH =)

I would like to imagine that any number of us who don't avoid the epithet of Atheist woke up one morning and realized that we were 'okay' with the tentative conclusion that the ghawd of our youth did not really exist.

I would also like to think that a great number of us reaching that tentative conclusion did not give the matter any real further thought. We were okay, and maybe even delighted, to have reached a state of equilibrium in that regard.

The phrase, "I am content" is a lot more than just stoical... And I mean the New Age Stoical, where there is no pain and you ignore the inconveniences and expect things to improve, including when death is the improvement.

No one taught me atheism and I don't need any lessons. If there is a finishing school of atheism, I shan't be attending.

You have eloquently described where I am with atheism. I care not what the likes of Harris or Hitchens or any other prominent Atheist professes, so long as I am allowed the contentment of my personal atheism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2019 03:40PM by GregS.

Well, ghawd bless you, GregS!!! /s (hahahahahahaha!)

Amen!

Well said!

Yes. the term "atheist" is a convenient word to just describe the "tentative" and casual feeling one gets when they come to the conclusion that God does not exist; without the need for a lot of thought or philosophizing about it; or more importantly, the need to identify with any group or ideology, either physically or even mentally. It is just what one has come "in their own skin" to believe; that's all.

I do not have any problem with this, and think you are correct as to how atheism can take root in one's belief system, and thus in one's worldview, without psychological concern or disruption.

So, how then does such simple beginnings end up as part of an atheistic crusade, or a circling of the atheist wagons? Some of this might simply be a defense mechanism, which is perhaps understandable. But when does atheism become a intellectually and scientifically required dogma for people like Richard Dawkins. When does it suddenly matter what science and philosophy has to say about it, and why does an "Atheist Association" become important to some, as if were the equivalent of becoming a member of Mensa International. And when does science take over the justification process, rather than the simple statement, "That is just what I believe."

I suppose fundamentalist religion, and its effects, cries out to be refuted, which naturally brings science and philosophy into the picture. Moreover, some people *do* care about the intellectual parameters of the issue, perhaps desperately, and long for the "facts" only to be tricked by populist literature on both sides of the debate.

What bugs me (obviously) is when "science" and "philosophy," engage in bad logic coupled with an anti-religion scorched earth, holier-than-thou, mentality. When that happens, the simple statement, "Hey, I don't believe in God, that's it" suddenly gets transformed into philosophical nonsense.

It's easiest for me to simply assume that it's a matter of personality.

Have you ever gotten into an argument about how the 'infield fly rule' ruined the game of baseball? Or the American League's tampering with the Natural Order by having designated hitters? Well, me either, but I've heard them and I've seen the passion involved.

There are just some individuals who are not content with living their own lives; they simply must invade the lives of others. I would call it a Type. It infests both sexes.

I seem to have a touch of it myself at times, in that I cannot abide assertions that something is 'True' when there are no data to confirm the proposition in question. Sure, go ahead and regale me with stories of how the Woo touched your life, but allow me the privilege of pointing out any flaws that exist in the tale.

I have no problem with a person who tells me, "The Woo touched my life and that's all I'm going to say..." It's those at the other end of the spectrum who rile me up.

Could it be as simple as personality types who demand to lead a parade and fight to get the rest of us to form up rows and columns?

I love the thought, and the occasional YouTube video, of the nine-year-old right fielder, crouched down, looking for 4-leaf clovers, as a ball slowly rolls by him, with a small crowd of parents and teammates screaming at him. That's pretty much me.

This Bemis/EOD exchange was a very nice. What’s gotten into you two?

(And if these magic ‘home run derby’ game balls aren’t killing baseball, then I just don’t know...Verlander, yes Verlander has given up the most long balls this season. Someone thinks this is gonna get the kids watchin’, that and ‘lettin’ the kids play’...well, garsh darn it all...it’s still baseball, Suzyn...more chin music, I say...)

People have loaded too much straw on the back of the "atheist" camel. It's just a camel.

Thomas Moore, (Care of the Soul) said of the spiritual experience, "We each create our own mythology."

A few days after my father died, I clearly heard him say "It's ok".

I don't believe I heard my father.

auntsukey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A few days after my father died, I clearly heard
> him say "It's ok".
>
> I don't believe I heard my father.

Awesome. I'm a fan (I admit it) of Julian Jaynes's "Bicameral Mind" Theory. I love the poetic in hearing your dead father's voice without belief. Nice.