(February 20, 2013 at 7:38 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: He didn't call you depressed. He called you stupid.

if thats the best he has, i'm not impressed

Wasn't trying to impress you. It's too bad you have to behave this way. You aren't impressing anyone here. I don't hate you but did you ever stop to think that by poking your stick between the bars to rile up the atheists to spew the hatred that you think runs us, you are actually the one being hateful and betraying your true nature in the process?

(February 20, 2013 at 2:07 pm)junkyardboy Wrote: evolutionary luck put you here to enjoy your bounty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6jCJZEFIto

Quote:no different than evolutionary bad luck put the indian in mumbai on a trash heap.

There's good or bad luck... evolutionarily?

Quote:why are atheists, especially in the usa, ever depressed?

It's like going to a Star Wars convention. If you're into the Star Wars, it's fun and shit... if you're not: a bunch of people are geeking out, and you just feel left out and awkward.

That's my take on it. Other people might mention stuff like human trafficking, or silly rhetorical questions that demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of the subject at hand

Quote:your mutant primate life to tough?

English language too difficult for the worm's mind?

---

(February 20, 2013 at 2:14 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: what is "atheist dogma"?

Dyslexia.

A theist's godma~

(February 20, 2013 at 2:14 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: what is "atheist dogma"?

Well, it isn't anything like religious logic.

I would say that any atheist that holds that in order to be an atheist, then there is a specific ideology that must be held is atheist dogma. One example is that when Sam Harris speaks of "spirituality", he says that many atheists cringe at that word, because of it's religious association, and therefore will shout "There cannot be any spirituality in Atheism!".

That is being dogmatic. I believe that many atheists build a "structure" that they call "atheism" and hold onto that as being the only structure. I am also certain that with age and experience, and especially after a believer becomes a non-believer and swings to the extreme opposite side, eventually he or she finds a more medium way and can reintergrate back into society, and thus be less dogmatic.

That may be. But there is no such thing as a dogma handed out by some atheist organisation which determines what atheism is. Neighter is there any kind of scripture or "holy book" which determines how atheism has to look like and what can be atheism and what not.

It is a personal conclusion out of an individual thought process.

Such may also exist in religion amongst those who choose faith by themselves, but unlike atheism - religion has a "dogma" which determines how the people who chose that way have to live their life, even when they chose that dogma themselves.

Ok, we don't have an atheist Pope - well, not yet anyhow!

Heh!

---

Although I do recall that the Amazing Randi did have his enemies claim he liked young boys, but it turned out to to be nothing. For Pope you need some real scandals!

Not only do atheists not have a pope, there is also no such thing is an "atheist bible".

(February 21, 2013 at 7:45 am)EGross Wrote:

(February 20, 2013 at 2:14 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: what is "atheist dogma"?

Well, it isn't anything like religious logic.

I would say that any atheist that holds that in order to be an atheist, then there is a specific ideology that must be held is atheist dogma. One example is that when Sam Harris speaks of "spirituality", he says that many atheists cringe at that word, because of it's religious association, and therefore will shout "There cannot be any spirituality in Atheism!".

I can't help but wonder if Sam isn't simply wrong. I wonder if perhaps Sam's fascination with meditation and Vipassana isn't akin to Newton's obsession with alchemy. A bit of woo that has found a warm, comfy spot in his soul and refuses to be evicted. But I think, perhaps, people suggest that because Sam Harris says it, and he's really smart on other things (including neuroscience), we should listen to him on this. That's little more than the argument from authority rearing its ugly head. As Michael Shermer says, "Smart people believe weird things because they are better at rationalizing their beliefs that they hold for nonsmart reasons." (Or Feynman, "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.")

I'd likely be one of the first to suggest that spirituality has a useful place in anyone's life (even beyond the fact that I'm deeply religious), but only spirituality properly understood and kept in its bounds. What Sam Harris appears to be advocating by spirituality is simply alternative religion, and imo, those alternative religions he's drawing on are just as corrupt and woo filled as the mainstream. So what is Sam ultimately recommending? It sounds like he's suggesting we follow the path set out by these other religions because "they seem to work" and "they haven't been proven false." These seem like the same excuses that mainstream religions use. Why is this kind of thinking more respectable because it's Buddhism or whatever?


Granted, I haven't listened to or read Sam at any length, but it seems he's following the same trap that others in the west follow, that because a religion, its practices and its beliefs (and their criticisms) aren't as familiar or deeply ingrained in the Western mind, that somehow they are less suspicious of them than the religions that people in the west are familiar with (though what little I've read suggests, that if you are from the East, you have similar complaints about those practices as Westerners do about Christianity and Islam). As a Taoist and Hindu, I should be clear about my biases. I really dislike Buddhists and Buddhism, and think it's all a crock of shit. But for reasons stated, because Buddhism is different and unfamiliar to westerners, it seems to get an automatic pass.

(February 21, 2013 at 11:08 am)apophenia Wrote: I can't help but wonder if Sam isn't simply wrong. I wonder if perhaps Sam's fascination with meditation and Vipassana isn't akin to Newton's obsession with alchemy. A bit of woo that has found a warm, comfy spot in his soul and refuses to be evicted. But I think, perhaps, people suggest that because Sam Harris says it, and he's really smart on other things (including neuroscience), we should listen to him on this. That's little more than the argument from authority rearing its ugly head. As Michael Shermer says, "Smart people believe weird things because they are better at rationalizing their beliefs that they hold for nonsmart reasons." (Or Feynman, "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.")

I'd likely be one of the first to suggest that spirituality has a useful place in anyone's life (even beyond the fact that I'm deeply religious), but only spirituality properly understood and kept in its bounds. What

As a Taoist and Hindu, I should be clear about my biases. I really dislike Buddhists and Buddhism, and think it's all a crock of shit. But for reasons stated, because Buddhism is different and unfamiliar to westerners, it seems to get an automatic pass.

I'm suspicious of anyone who says they are 'spiritual'. I suspect that usually means the person wants to escape parts of their animal or human nature .. which I don't think is desirable or even possible, although deluding oneself is very easy to do.

Now you say you are religious and I don't have the same response to that. If I might pry I'd like to ask if your religion is your birthright or chosen by you (or both I suppose). Also I wonder if you can elaborate on what you consider the safe way to properly understand and keep ones religion in bound?

See, strange thing about that, to me to be "spiritual" means embracing the animal and human( how redundant) nature of one's self. Unfortunately, in the case of "spirit"uality - by proxy. Find me a "spirit" that doesn't exemplify some human trait or range of traits. What exactly are we embracing when we embrace those stylized examples of ourselves -if not- ourselves? I'd call being "spiritual" alot of things, but I wouldn't call it escapism - even if the "spiritual" person is of the opinion that it offers such an avenue.

Bit like trying to escape the wolves by cornering yourself in their den, but that's just my opinion.