(September 28, 2016 at 7:04 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I get the impression having just listened to the entire "Moving Naturalism Forward" conference (first day episode here):


that they (our "leaders") do not get along with each other very well and may not even like each other.

Thoughts?

So...

I listened to more than half of this on my way home, and not once did I get the impression that they were not getting along, or showing any sort of dislike for each other.

I heard plenty of disagreement, which is expected, given the complex and controversial subjects they are discussing. Quite a few friendly jibes, but nothing that I head that sounds like dislike.

And I will reiterate. None of these, or other prominent atheists are my leaders. I respect them based on the content of their words, not because of who they are.

(September 29, 2016 at 3:42 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(September 28, 2016 at 7:04 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I get the impression having just listened to the entire "Moving Naturalism Forward" conference (first day episode here):


that they (our "leaders") do not get along with each other very well and may not even like each other.

Thoughts?

So...

I listened to more than half of this on my way home, and not once did I get the impression that they were not getting along, or showing any sort of dislike for each other.

I heard plenty of disagreement, which is expected, given the complex and controversial subjects they are discussing. Quite a few friendly jibes, but nothing that I head that sounds like dislike.

And I will reiterate. None of these, or other prominent atheists are my leaders. I respect them based on the content of their words, not because of who they are.

I listened to all of it, too!  Steven Weinburg was reading his newspaper on Day 1 and complaining about not being with his granddaughter, Sean Carroll made a disparaging comment about Lawrence Krauss "cashing in" (even though Carroll did the same thing) and Dawkins, when invited to dinner, stated, on camera, that he refused to attend, and throughout the entire 3-day conference, he barely said 20 words, if that. I could go on, but I'll stop.

...and?

I'm waiting to hear why I should care that these guys may not get along.  Why I should be upset, or consider it scandalous, or anything else?  Because all I'm getting is that several smart people who agree that theism is bad/dangerous/dumb may have personality conflicts or disagreements on certain things, which is about as alarming of a headline as "Humans caught bickering, film at 11!"

Maybe I'm the weirdo because I don't read these guys' books, or watch atheist YouTube videos, or otherwise engage in whatever atheist community exists outside of here.  But I really don't see the issue.  People I don't know, whom I agree with on at least one issue, may not get along personally.  Okay.  So what?

(September 29, 2016 at 2:50 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(September 28, 2016 at 8:02 pm)comet Wrote: "ministry"


hmm, sounds like religious atheist. count me out.

A religious atheist?

What, like a Buddhist?

Please consider that line from my OP to have been withdrawn.

A movement is important in order to motivate people to become atheists, and to repel religion.

To be honest, if I have to thank religion for something, it is for giving me a motive to live, which is, ironically, destroy religion.

Lol 

I think the thing that gets me is that just because YOU weren't answered doesn't mean they don't answer other questions or people. It's nice that Hawking had assistants to get your question through to him. What if those other men don't? What if your e-mail went to spam? I feel like I could ask a hundred questions regarding that. I just don't think it's a reason to look down on them as public figures.

Seems to me that a better way to get sifu to notice you is to do something more useful for the movement you want to be a part of than offering unsolicited help to minor egotistical celebrities and complaining about getting ignored by them to a mostly disinterested forum audience.

Organize a rally, or get involved in the groups that do
Give talks (if you're sufficiently qualified)
Publish something

(September 29, 2016 at 11:24 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: I think the thing that gets me is that just because YOU weren't answered doesn't mean they don't answer other questions or people. It's nice that Hawking had assistants to get your question through to him. What if those other men don't? What if your e-mail went to spam? I feel like I could ask a hundred questions regarding that. I just don't think it's a reason to look down on them as public figures.

As I said, I don't think that Krauss owes me anything, however, he does owe his scientific colleagues, and so, my question to him was legitimate.  William Lane Craig, by the way, does not have that attitude.  As much as I despise Craig and think that he is a lying, conscious charlatan, he does at least respond to criticisms of his work and ideas, not to mention his large public outreach program.  While I think that some of his answers are vacuous and superficial, he does at least provide them.  On the other hand, if people like Krauss and Carroll are just finding their niche in the modern-day marketplace, then that's fine, but if that's the attitude of atheist authors (just to make as much money as possible), then it's self-evident why religious movements are maintaining their ground, if not gaining more adherents over the years.

(September 30, 2016 at 1:14 am)KevinM1 Wrote: Seems to me that a better way to get sifu to notice you is to do something more useful for the movement you want to be a part of than offering unsolicited help to minor egotistical celebrities and complaining about getting ignored by them to a mostly disinterested forum audience.

Organize a rally, or get involved in the groups that do
Give talks (if you're sufficiently qualified)
Publish something

Who's 'sifu'?