Organized Atheism (And so it begins...)

[ciberpy]

Hi there ,

My sex life has nothing to do with religion. So I do not really get what you are trying to say. You may view my 'lies' to maintain more than one lover as morally reprehensible but I do not and it has nothing to do with what I posted. Not that I can see. So I do not really see what you are getting at. And I am a little surprised at you obliquely hinting on some revelation you have had based on a private conversation. Not that I actually mind, I'm just surprised by it.

Cheers Tao,
I said nothing of the sort, and I hope you clean up any 'lies' unless of course you like it when others lie to you.

I compared an atheist to a person who claims that sex does not exist, for a lack of proof otherwise. I further compared some theists or religionists to someone who tells others about sex though they are themselves virgins. The point is that telling someone about an action or experience does not give them the action or experience. If someone says that an action or experience is not real, though it is, then there is the question of whether to inform them or to stay clear.

 

[Avi]

em sorry to butt in but where were the jews in this judeo-christian 'reconciliation'?

Modern Papal views

Pope Benedict XVI has expressed very similar views to those of some of the Orthodox rabbis, saying in a 2004 book with Marcello Pera that inter-cultural dialogue could often be positive, but that theological dialogue was practically impossible and not always desirable.

hey, at least we're trying!

NA, did you notice that this little quote refers to "Orthodox Rabbis". Those folks are similar in their approach to the Fundamentalist Christians. Are you surprised that dialogue was impossible ?

I think it is true that "intrafaith dialogue" is more difficult than "interfaith dialogue"

You are probably aware that Judaism went through two (or more, depending how you count) levels of reformation since the 19th century.

 

[nativeastral]

NA, did you notice that this little quote refers to "Orthodox Rabbis". Those folks are similar in their approach to the Fundamentalist Christians. Are you surprised that dialogue was impossible ?

I think it is true that "intrafaith dialogue" is more difficult than "interfaith dialogue"

You are probably aware that Judaism went through two (or more, depending how you count) levels of reformation since the 19th century.

no lm not surprised Avi, maybe you know about more developments since that date with regard to the other jewish 'denominations' since then, regarding dialogue with christian churches who are more 'liberal'?!

and maybe, being an idealist, reconciliation comes from bottom up rather than faith in religious 'leaders' top down; l think this is happening through international forums etc slowly with the more open minded peace seekers of the world but authority invested in the institutions is a tight knot.

 

[Saltmeister]

That is no surprise though is it? After all there are many that are religious consistently and persistently misrepresenting science, claiming it as their own and even willing to attack and attempt the career destruction of good scientists. There are fields within science where religion can be discussed but if they are theistic debate they cease to be good science.

What seems here to be not so well understood is that some of these scientists are religious people. They just don't discuss religion while they're doing their work, their research. Their religion has nothing to do with their research or profession. They talk about religion only when they come out of their laboratories or when they're not writing or publishing papers on their research. If they do mention religion, it's just for the purpose of socialising, making connections with people and finding common ground.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's.

Personally, I don't know why people pick on science at all. I have ceased to understand why it happens. Their target is either atheism or lack of religion, but science is just a theory on how the universe works. You don't have to lack a religion to have an interest in science.

Ok, maybe I'm starting to remember. It's about evolution.

But heck, science is just a theory on how the universe works, whereas religion (or at least the ones with which I am familiar) is about the human soul. The soul is independent of the mechanics of the universe. Besides, why don't you just pick on evolutionary theories rather than science? Evolutionary theory is the doctrine, science is the peer-reviewed tradition and moderating philosophy. If anything is debatable, it's the theory, not the tradition/moderating philosophy.

People who don't have a religion just don't believe in an independent psyche. Perhaps they believe that this psyche is entrenched in the material universe, but that is just a perspective. There is no need to shoot down one perspective to affirm another.

The fundamentalists just like stirring up trouble. They want us to fight, but we will not fight.

But, oh boy, the temptation is strong . . . I just want to say this again. Let's blame the Americans. They are the ones who allowed fundamentalists to take over their country.

Actually, Chris- being an atheist helps you in networking a lot in academic circles. Theists are considered the odd ones. I've gotten a lot of flack for being a theist.

Really? I actually haven't found atheists to be a dominant force in tertiary education. That would certainly be a case of organised atheism. (Oh look, hey they're organised and they're in the upper echelons of society! What a position to envy!) I don't think it's theism that's a minority (not saying it's a majority either). I think the real reason why you're saying that is because if you start talking about a religion in academic circles, you've got to be a nerd. People expect you to keep religion out of your academic life. It's not because you don't belong. It's because religion doesn't belong. But you are not the same as your religion.

Now that would be funny if you were, if you were your own religion.

Imagine if there was a religion called You. Remember that thread in the Lounge/Feedback forum? Well, now the difference is that we're no longer talking about a user name, we're talking about a religion.

Are you a follower of You?

 

[Saltmeister]

What a load of prejudicial crap from all directions. That's what I say.

They want clear boundaries and either/or here in the West, and anyone in the both/and position pays the price for making others uncomfortable.

That's why I say, IMAO, the world will be in a better position as postmodernism starts to penetrate the collective socio-politico-national psyche. It is where diversity and pluralism is celebrated. The great thing about postmodernism is that it is about accepting, not persecuting, oppressing and dominating over people.

Modernism was about science and technology, political and military power. Postmodernism is about the people. It is about human vulnerability and imperfections.

Postmodernism is where all things that benefit humans are celebrated, whether it is religion, humanism or atheism. It is where we discover the value of everything and the value of nothing.

Jews will still be Jews. Christians will still be Christians. Atheists will still be atheists and Wiccans will still be Wiccans. The important thing is that people learn to accept each other. It is where people will stop making bumper stickers for the world, but only for themselves. We will keep our distinctions, but what changes is the attitude we adopt toward each other's distinctions.

For me postmodernism is the way to go.

 

[dauer]

Salty,

Postmodernism is where all things that benefit humans are celebrated, whether it is religion, humanism or atheism. It is where we discover the value of everything and the value of nothing.

How do you address the problem of relativism that can arise with postmodernism? It doesn't seem intuitive to say, "I am against slavery, but I believe that in some societies the enslavement of others is acceptable and their right to enslave others ought to be valued and respected as part of the diversity of humanity."

It seems like it may have something to do with what benefits humans, but surely slavery benefits some humans, and once you set a standard for what benefits/doesn't benefit humans, aren't you imposing your own values on other societies? And further, if different people have radically different ideas about what benefits humans, what is gained by adopting a postmodernist view?

 

[c0de]

Salty,



How do you address the problem of relativism that can arise with postmodernism? It doesn't seem intuitive to say, "I am against slavery, but I believe that in some societies the enslavement of others is acceptable and their right to enslave others ought to be valued and respected as part of the diversity of humanity."

It seems like it may have something to do with what benefits humans, but surely slavery benefits some humans, and once you set a standard for what benefits/doesn't benefit humans, aren't you imposing your own values on other societies? And further, if different people have radically different ideas about what benefits humans, what is gained by adopting a postmodernist view?

Good Question - 10 points!

 

[path_of_one]

Really? I actually haven't found atheists to be a dominant force in tertiary education. That would certainly be a case of organised atheism. (Oh look, hey they're organised and they're in the upper echelons of society! What a position to envy!) I don't think it's theism that's a minority (not saying it's a majority either).

There are very few anthropologists I have met that are not atheist or agnostic. And they are not particularly quiet about their views about religion, either. Occasionally in the classroom and far more frequently in less formal professional functions, first world white people who have a religion are ridiculed. I still love my field and esteem many of my colleagues, but I think such behavior is not only rude, but unprofessional given their avowed purposes of things such as cultural relativism and cultural survival. I basically observe inconsistency between behavior and espoused goals for the profession.

I think the real reason why you're saying that is because if you start talking about a religion in academic circles, you've got to be a nerd. People expect you to keep religion out of your academic life. It's not because you don't belong. It's because religion doesn't belong.

I am not open about my beliefs in a professional context. However, I do find it rather repugnant that others have openly ridiculed believers in various religions. I think it's unprofessional and biased, and indicates a lack of objectivity in social science that is disturbing.

Otherwise, I have only responded to pointed questions. Of course, as I have gotten to know some colleagues quite well, the intricacies of my life and character (and of theirs') become more apparent. I won't refuse to answer questions about my beliefs should someone ask. If, then, I observe their different attitude toward myself as opposed to the (often) third world minority people that they study with regard to religion and spirituality... how should I perceive it?

But you are not the same as your religion.

Now that would be funny if you were, if you were your own religion.

Imagine if there was a religion called You. Remember that thread in the Lounge/Feedback forum? Well, now the difference is that we're no longer talking about a user name, we're talking about a religion.

Are you a follower of You?

Actually, yes. I don't think I have any religion. I'm what my user name suggests.

I do draw from various traditions, and could attempt to take various labels, but as I'm syncretic, I see less and less reason to do so unless it is to attempt a shorthand description to someone knowledgeable enough in all the traditions to understand.

I agree that religion doesn't belong in the scientific approach, though it's sticky in my discipline, because cultural anthropology must necessarily investigate religion or it would be lacking a substantial component of human social life. However, what is problematic is not an objectivity toward religion (agnosticism) but rather the assumption that one's own beliefs (atheism) makes one superior to the people one studies and to others who are not atheist. It is the position of superiority, often revealed through ridicule of others in one's own social group, that highlights the lack of real relativism and endangers the objectivity and open-mindedness of one's studies. My spirituality has nothing to do with my research design, my data, my results or my theoretical conclusions, which is why I am (thus far) respected as a scientist. But my spirituality has everything to do with my open-minded approach to other human beings and their beliefs, and if it were not guided by my sense of spirit, it should be guided by my sense of anthropological ideals and ethics. To this end, I cannot but be dismayed over finding less tolerance and openness in my colleagues, whose assessments of the human condition thus seem less accurate than they might be if such biases were not present.

 

[citizenzen]

There are very few anthropologists I have met that are not atheist or agnostic. And they are not particularly quiet about their views about religion, either. Occasionally in the classroom and far more frequently in less formal professional functions, first world white people who have a religion are ridiculed.

My sister in-law is a professor at SUNY and from her tales it sounds like back-biting and one upmanship is an avocation of faculty members.

As for ridicule, you seem to me to be sufficiently armed intellectually to deflect these attacks and to put the offenders in their place. If that fails, a sharp blow to the solar plexus will usually subdue them.

Don't let the b@stards bring you down.

 

[path_of_one]

Don't let the b@stards bring you down.

Eh, mostly I just keep to myself. It seems back-biting and one-upmanship is almost a national pastime no matter what professional society you are in, so overall I'm just a loner. I find a lot more charity and solace in trees and mountains than in people.

It can be disheartening to be disliked by both atheists and religionists, nearly equally, but I don't take it personally. They generally like me in other ways, and I'm a forgiving sort, so I often just call them on their biases (from either camp) and then move along to some more mutually satisfactory item of conversation.

 

[c0de]

... so overall I'm just a loner. I find a lot more charity and solace in trees and mountains than in people.

awww...

thats cute

here have some loner meds

[youtube]Z8pw0BCb0-0[/youtube]

 

[Tao_Equus]

We arrive alone, depart alone and its not much different between. Each of us has a singular world-view formed from a unique history of experience. That can never be fully shared.

 

[ciberpy]

Peer review becomes increasingly important in academia... as teachers become peers.

I am reminded of a person who described himself as a comedian, and pronounced his jokes as funny. I asked him what led him to think it. He suggested that all of his friends think and tell him he is funny. Apparently, I was not his friend.

 

[c0de]

I am reminded of a person who described himself as a comedian, and pronounced his jokes as funny. I asked him what led him to think it. He suggested that all of his friends think and tell him he is funny. Apparently, I was not his friend.

lol, but apparently, you are a comedian.

 

[ciberpy]

lol, but apparently, you are a comedian.

Have you seen the hobbling scene from 'Misery'. Last words: "God, I love you." True, and yet False. Self-righteous to the core. A good Christian by the accounting of some here... in bliss, communes with God, loves her love, views herself as loving. Self-righteous to the core.

I guess he better write the book the way she wants it... or else.

 

[c0de]

Have you seen the hobbling scene from 'Misery'.

yep

Last words: "God, I love you." True, and yet False. Self-righteous to the core. A good Christian by the accounting of some here... in bliss, communes with God, loves her love, views herself as loving. Self-righteous to the core.

I guess he better write the book the way she wants it... or else.

(lol) I don't know about that bud...

I doubt we have psychos like that "here"

.... or do we? !!

btw, Ive noticed a pretty consistent theme with Stephen King, the Evangelical viewpoint which he frames as hypocrisy and self-aggrandizement, is pretty strongly represented in some characters. Remember the Storm of the Century? And that psycho in the recent King movie, who basically forms a cult through her preaching?? I am actually watching a documentary about the evangelicals right now... so I do know what you're gettin' at. But the evangelicals, of course, are no different then any other such movement... I'm sure King isn't singling them out either, just making a point (which I agree with).

 

[ciberpy]

I would say that either the self-proclaimed comedian is similarly psycho, or that the lady is not nearly as psycho as you may wish to think. As a character, she truly Loved 'something', and she really wanted the other person to write something, or to be something. I find that the majority of individuals here on this forum are psycho in the exact same manner as that self righteous, self-centered lover. I see it in the speech. I have seen it in the behavior of some. I have certainly made the same mistake at one time or another in my life. I do not disclude that the lover who hobbled the author could see the light some day, and no longer act like a psycho. I think many know they behave in this manner and do not care... brings them pleasure. That can always change.

 

[c0de]

I find that the majority of individuals here on this forum are psycho in the exact same manner as that self righteous, self-centered lover..

So you think that some people are not self-righteous and self-centered?

Which category do you think you fall in?

 

[ciberpy]

So you think that some people are not self-righteous and self-centered?

Which category do you think you fall in?

I'll ask God and I'll ask you. What category do you think I fall in, and why do you think it?

 

[c0de]

.

You didn't answer the first question. And what would you think about a person who wrote the following:

I find that the majority of individuals here on this forum are psycho