Dangers of atheism -Sam Harris

a reply to: vjr1113

yes you are right . that argument has no traction. in your opinion a rejection of a claim is superstitious. i believe it to be skeptical.

you have a right to believe in whatever you want. i just like to point out where you are wrong, gives me a smile.

Once again—and I have corrected you from misrepresenting my argument many times—I never stated a rejection of a claim is superstitious. In fact, I explicitly stated that the idea of one being without God is superstitious, meaning, that condemning someone on the grounds of atheism is a superstition.

Pointing out your consistent fallacy has put a smile on my face.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
It was objectively a slur for thousands of years. I don't see how this can be doubted.

So what??? People have held horribly incorrect opinions about things for thousands of years regarding many things. I'd say after so much negative attention for so long, the fact that Atheism is still here might be a good example of how you can't destroy the truth of it.

I am only saying there is a risk, as I hoped to point out. Given the nature of the beliefs we are speaking about, tribalism and group think is inevitable. I'm not saying you are evil because you are an atheist, but that's not to say theists won't think you are evil. They will see the label before the person.

I can see what you're saying here. But what can you do about it??? Haters are gonna hate and they'll hate you for one reason or another no matter what. Whether they hate on ya for having no God or what they feel is the wrong God the fact is they are the ones in the wrong. All you can do is stay true to yourself.

My argument is that atheism, that one can be without God, is a superstition. Theists must believe there is a God before they can believe that there are people without a God. I have a complicated argument that follows this, but I doubt it will have any effect.

It's a superstition for someone who believes there is a God. But it works the same the other way around. To those without God it's the believers who are superstitious. So what difference does it make???

The fact that people get so twisted out of shape because someone doesn't believe what they believe to the point where they may hurt you because of it is the real problem.

Cheers.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Annee

For now I'm just trying to find a place for us all to start from without having to argue about which words mean what.

I have some time probably begrudgingly to some here while I wait for laquer to set.

First fine your definition in that context is perfect. It's the opposite and it s Greek roots point to that. Diagoras aproves.
Let's talk about the video.

Harris again is a favorite of mine. But there are things that also bother me. One being he thinks Dawkins is a philosopher.

But he says some very interesting things about
Meditation. In the video. I agree for the most part with his analysis. Especially of how we think people are crazy who talk to themselves yet the average person has a constant dialogue with themselves in their mind.

He also differentiates the differences of religions. How some are crazier than others. I have been saying similar things here and have been skewered on this site as if I am an islamaphobe. Even when I explain the differences of Modern Islam and modern Islamic nations like Jordan, Indonesia, pre war Syria and Iraq to the monstorous subjugating barbarians in Saudia Arabia and most of the ME and Afghanistan. It's baffling to me the same people who bring up Christianities problems will defend Muslims as if they have no blame culturally as well. Even when prefeced not all Muslims but many.

Last I think I the flying speghatti monster and Russel:s teapot at least academically have been dismantled by pretty good reason as a petty arguement. This may lead into atheism being not the same as antiastrolgist or antisanticlasue. Even if you somewhat say the teleological is a halfway good arguement it discredits that premise IMO.

Without going minute-by-minute through the video ... yes ... Sam Harris has a point ... adopting any label is a severe limitation.

I have resisted labels all my life. Why? Well, I'm not really good with authority for one; bottom line.

Why would I take on any single TERM as descriptive of the totality of me?

It's a valid point.

Here's one counter: we are all of us individuals embedded in phases or circles of larger and larger cultures. We are labeled, every day, whether we agree with the labels or not. What we feel or think or understand about ourselves is challenged minute by minute in our social conversation with others ... EVEN if we have secreted ourselves away.

The cultural dialogue continues ... even in silent solitude.

LesMisanthrope makes several good points ... and while I don't share his distaste for the word "atheist" I understand it.

Why should I have to make the point to anyone that I do not believe in the actual reality of imaginary things?

Why would I take on this word which has been used, historically, as a slur against anyone offending the religious?

And I would answer ... as an act of defiance. I will not conform. Non serviam.

I do it because it PISSES people OFF.

(I do lots of things for that reason, apparently.)

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Without going minute-by-minute through the video ... yes ... Sam Harris has a point ... adopting any label is a severe limitation.

I have resisted labels all my life. Why? Well, I'm not really good with authority for one; bottom line.

Why would I take on any single TERM as descriptive of the totality of me?

It's a valid point.

Here's one counter: we are all of us individuals embedded in phases or circles of larger and larger cultures. We are labeled, every day, whether we agree with the labels or not. What we feel or think or understand about ourselves is challenged minute by minute in our social conversation with others ... EVEN if we have secreted ourselves away.

The cultural dialogue continues ... even in silent solitude.

LesMisanthrope makes several good points ... and while I don't share his distaste for the word "atheist" I understand it.

Why should I have to make the point to anyone that I do not believe in the actual reality of imaginary things?

Why would I take on this word which has been used, historically, as a slur against anyone offending the religious?

And I would answer ... as an act of defiance. I will not conform. Non serviam.

I agree with your points minus maybe the last one.

However I think Harris is saying there is no need to call yourself an atheist because you wouldn't be called an an antiastrolgist for believing astrology is false. He is saying the label is trite and unimportant. You wouldn't be called an antisanticlasue becuase it should be assumed santaclause isn't real.

Though maybe I am wrong. I am sure you will let me know.

originally posted by: luthier
One being he thinks Dawkins is a philosopher.

You mean officially??? Or does he mean he's a philosopher in just a general sense. Like saying someone who discusses philosophy sometimes with friends and has good insight is a philosopher???

Because I'm sure he has to know Dawkins is not an actual philosopher.

Especially of how we think people are crazy who talk to themselves yet the average person has a constant dialogue with themselves in their mind.

Well, there is some difference in those two things though. We all talk to ourselves, even carry on conversations and imagined interactions sometimes. But we know we're just putting our thoughts into words because of our use of language. That's a lot different than someone who is actually talking to someone who isn't there.

There is a homeless woman who I see in my neighborhood now and then and she's like that. It's rude to just label her as crazy IMO, but for a lack of a better term, she's f*cking crazy. I've had conversations with her on a few occasions and it's really almost impossible to keep track of what she's saying most of the time. You get the general idea sorta but it's surrounded by gibberish. She's got a man, might be husband or boyfriend not sure which, that she is always yelling at and saying mean stuff too also. That's a lot different than you or I talking to ourselves.

I just started the video so I'll have to watch more before I can discuss it in detail. Unless you want to discuss something specific about what he's saying that you can sum up for me first.

a reply to: luthier

I can't see any reason for us to attempt to communicate; we don't seem to get along.

Best.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: luthier
One being he thinks Dawkins is a philosopher.

You mean officially??? Or does he mean he's a philosopher in just a general sense. Like saying someone who discusses philosophy sometimes with friends and has good insight is a philosopher???

Because I'm sure he has to know Dawkins is not an actual philosopher.

Especially of how we think people are crazy who talk to themselves yet the average person has a constant dialogue with themselves in their mind.

Well, there is some difference in those two things though. We all talk to ourselves, even carry on conversations and imagined interactions sometimes. But we know we're just putting our thoughts into words because of our use of language. That's a lot different than someone who is actually talking to someone who isn't there.

There is a homeless woman who I see in my neighborhood now and then and she's like that. It's rude to just label her as crazy IMO, but for a lack of a better term, she's f*cking crazy. I've had conversations with her on a few occasions and it's really almost impossible to keep track of what she's saying most of the time. You get the general idea sorta but it's surrounded by gibberish. She's got a man, might be husband or boyfriend not sure which, that she is always yelling at and saying mean stuff too also. That's a lot different than you or I talking to ourselves.

I just started the video so I'll have to watch more before I can discuss it in detail. Unless you want to discuss something specific about what he's saying that you can sum up for me first.

No he was making more of a joke about it. Not talking about people talking to imaginary people. Talking about people talking to themselves. Like "I better take the trash out, boy its cold". It s an interesting section where he talks about excepting that some practices are not religious and have purpose like meditation slowing down your constant mind babble.

Also Dawkins has written some books in subject of philosophy argueing some of the points in the arguement for the existence of God and tried some debates. Most of which were not received well by philosophers.

He is a brilliant evolutionary biologist but that doesn't make him a good philosopher.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: luthier

I can't see any reason for us to attempt to communicate; we don't seem to get along.

Best.

Wow!
Really?
No problem.

I also expect you to not reference any arguements I make if I can't defend my position. However that doesn't seem likely.

a reply to: mOjOm

What do you think about the semantics argument against "atheism" mOjOm?

Does it hold water, in your opinion?

originally posted by: luthier
It s an interesting section where he talks about excepting that some practices are not religious and have purpose like meditation slowing down your constant mind babble.

I look forward to watching that part. Sort of like other ritual type activities like how tribes dance around a fire wearing animal heads and chanting and stuff. On one hand it's viewed as being some kind of Religious Ritual asking the Gods for a good hunt or whatever. But it's also a practical and beneficial activity too although having nothing to do with Gods or Magic or anything. Doing those rituals is a way to help visualize and prepare mentally for a hunt. The repetition creates in the mind an experience that to it is just as real as any other experience and does result in better performance.

Also Dawkins has written some books in subject of philosophy argueing some of the points in the arguement for the existence of God and tried some debates. Most of which were not received well by philosophers.

I'm not surprised. Physical Scientists and Philosophers I'm sure have very different ways of seeing the world. Krauss had similar problems when using "Nothing" in his books. After talking with some philosopher friends he realized that "Nothing" means something a little different when used by Scientists and Philosophers.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mOjOm

What do you think about the semantics argument against "atheism" mOjOm?

Does it hold water, in your opinion?

Can you sum up or describe what it is for me???

I haven't yet seen the video so I'll need the short short version.

a reply to: mOjOm

It's not necessarily in the video ... but Harris certainly touches on it.

Why would we use a word to describe our "lack of belief" that carries so many unintended implications? Why would we point to the "absence" of the quality of belief in God?

That seems to be the real sticking point here for some ... along with trivial side notes about definitions, levels, etc.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: luthier
It s an interesting section where he talks about excepting that some practices are not religious and have purpose like meditation slowing down your constant mind babble.

I look forward to watching that part. Sort of like other ritual type activities like how tribes dance around a fire wearing animal heads and chanting and stuff. On one hand it's viewed as being some kind of Religious Ritual asking the Gods for a good hunt or whatever. But it's also a practical and beneficial activity too although having nothing to do with Gods or Magic or anything. Doing those rituals is a way to help visualize and prepare mentally for a hunt. The repetition creates in the mind an experience that to it is just as real as any other experience and does result in better performance.

Also Dawkins has written some books in subject of philosophy argueing some of the points in the arguement for the existence of God and tried some debates. Most of which were not received well by philosophers.

I'm not surprised. Physical Scientists and Philosophers I'm sure have very different ways of seeing the world. Krauss had similar problems when using "Nothing" in his books. After talking with some philosopher friends he realized that "Nothing" means something a little different when used by Scientists and Philosophers.

Thats what I like about Harris. He is both a scientist (neurologist) and a philosopher where he really does work through the arguements thoughtfully. Nobodies perfect but he is very good at both.

Yeah you got it in terms of ritual. Breaking down what it is within the process that allows deeper concentration and self awareness.

His grading of how crazy religions are is also pretty good. Like Mormonism being even crazier than Christianity. Or muslims being a greater danger to the public than amish.

Although the show amish mafia ma change his mind.....

originally posted by: Gryphon66

It's not necessarily in the video ... but Harris certainly touches on it.

Why would we use a word to describe our "lack of belief" that carries so many unintended implications? Why would we point to the "absence" of the quality of belief in God?

That seems to be the real sticking point here for some ... along with trivial side notes about definitions, levels, etc.

Still not sure what it is your talking about exactly. An example might help.

But Nothing extra should be linked to being Atheist other than simply not believing or not being convinced that there is a God. Any God.

It's not that complicated. Even Christians are Atheists when you're talking about any God other than Jesus existing.

a reply to: mOjOm

The question is whether to use the word atheism, itself, at all.

Yes, it is really simple. But we've had several pages of dispute over that very issue.

originally posted by: mOjOm
It's not that complicated. Even Christians are Atheists when you're talking about any God other than Jesus existing.

Yes. The most basic way to make the argument.

a reply to: luthier

Mormonism is a bit strange from what I know about it. The followers are pretty typical as far as Religious People go I guess. Similar habits as Christians mostly. Big families and such. Got some pretty violent history in the making of Mormonism too.

It's hard to say if Mormonism is Crazier than Christianity IMO. Being an outsider of both they both seem pretty crazy as far as the Teachings go. Just different really. But then, I find most of them to be pretty crazy once they get past being metaphorical and philosophically abstract.

Has Harris ever discussed Scientology?? Talk about kooky.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The question is whether to use the word atheism, itself, at all.

With so many attributes attached to that word now probably not. Because it quickly creates a certain idea in someone head what that person is all about. But it really only tells you one tiny thing about that person in reality.

So I guess it depends on the interaction. If the person thinks it implies a whole lot of info then I'd say no.

But once you state your position they're going to know you're an Atheist anyway so it's not like you can hide it.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The question is whether to use the word atheism, itself, at all.

With so many attributes attached to that word now probably not. Because it quickly creates a certain idea in someone head what that person is all about. But it really only tells you one tiny thing about that person in reality.

So I guess it depends on the interaction. If the person thinks it implies a whole lot of info then I'd say no.

But once you state your position they're going to know you're an Atheist anyway so it's not like you can hide it.

And /thread.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: luthier

Mormonism is a bit strange from what I know about it. The followers are pretty typical as far as Religious People go I guess. Similar habits as Christians mostly. Big families and such. Got some pretty violent history in the making of Mormonism too.

It's hard to say if Mormonism is Crazier than Christianity IMO. Being an outsider of both they both seem pretty crazy as far as the Teachings go. Just different really. But then, I find most of them to be pretty crazy once they get past being metaphorical and philosophically abstract.

Has Harris ever discussed Scientology?? Talk about kooky.

Yeah Scientology was in there too. He was explaining the varying degrees of crazy. Listen when you get a chance.

I also want to point out you are being drawn into an argument that gryph has with me. He has told me not to communicate with him and chooses to argue through you
The specific point i made sobwe are clear was the position of active claim called strong atheism where one says God is make believe is a different arguement than simply not having a belief in God. Maybe I am wrong but its pretty commonly talked about.

Thats the last i will argue unless you want clarification. I just think it's a cheap shot to argue through another person.