The Atheist Movement.

[Simon Moon]

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.

[Jehanne]

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.

[KevinM1]

...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?

[Jehanne]

thesummerqueen

Over the last six months I have emailed all three of them on occassion, suggesting ideas that I believe would be helpful to their "ministry".  No replies from any of them. 

What makes you think they'd care about what you have to offer?

I realize this is a really confrontational question, but as public figures these guys are getting 'suggestions' all day long. Everyone's a critic. I don't think they really give a fuck what other people think of them, because they know you can't please everyone all the time and the only thing they have in common is their atheism.

Everything that I said to them was short and positive and informative.  Gee, if one is going to take time out of one's schedule to fly all of the World to give lectures on atheism, why not toss a small bone or two to one of the "faithful"?  Or, are their traveling lectures just a way to sell more of their books?  Yeah, I know what you're thinking (well, at least what I am thinking), "Who cares?"  And, you're (or, I am) right, "Who cares?"  Over six months ago, I asked Professor Lawrence Krauss, in a one or two line email (I believe that I also thanked him for his work), if he would please respond to this criticism of his book, written by Dr. Ikjyot Singh Kohli, a practicing mathematical physicist:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.6091

Now, of course, I am a stranger and Krauss owns me nothing, but as far as I can tell, Krauss has never replied to Kohili, who, like it or not, is one of his peers within the scientific community, but, in spite of that, he owes Kohli nothing either, also!  But, ditto for anyone else, including, the New York Times, even though they are much, much, much more prominent than "me", and I am also much less prominent than Kohli!  Now, as far as I know Krauss has not responded to this scientific paper, not a book review, a scientific paper that is published for the entire World to see on the Cornell University eprint server that Krauss and his colleagues themselves use, as does Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, and even Michio Kaku (even though he has not published in a while!); in fact, nearly all physicists and other scientists use the arXiv eprint server.  So, why has Professor Krauss not responded to my one line email, "Professor Krauss, would you please respond to this...."?

Well, who knows and who cares?!  But, let me state to this board that I think that Krauss is a bit of a fraud, and, perhaps, he knows that responding to Kohli would only hurt his book sales, and hence, his pocketbook.  After all, why would an established scientist be unwililng to respond to one of his scientific critics??  And, so, I asked, but there was no reply.  I suspect that I was not the first to ask and I doubt that I will be the last!  A true scientist would, I believe, at least have an "open reply" on his/her website, or have a graduate student, volunteer, or someone else reply to what is an honest inquiry, one, let's face it, is not made every day.  Who here, after all, has heard of Dr. Ikjyot Singh Kohli?

By the way, years ago I emailed Stephen Hawking, not fan mail, not a criticism, just a question, one that I honestly did not know the answer to, but not trivial or "grandiose", either.  Within a day or two, one of his graduate students replied to me saying that, "I'll ask Stephen and get back to you."  Several days later he did.  I have since forgotten my question, but it is good to see even someone like the great Stephen Hawking to have some sort of public outreach, and so, I admire that.  Even Einstein was willing to reply, by letter, to "common folk" such as myself (although, Einstein was dead before I was born!  I am not that old.)

So, is Krauss nothing more than a money-making fraud?  I honestly do not know.  I never bought his book.  Now, I don't blame you if you've stopped reading my post by this point, but over the last several days, I have lost "faith" in the naturalist movement, or at least its "self-proclaimed/anointed leaders".  Perhaps that's a good thing!  I am still very much an atheistic naturalist!  But, yes, I do think that I have something to offer, hence, the somewhat long post!

[Jehanne]

"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.

[Macoleco]

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 

[thesummerqueen]

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.

[KevinM1]

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

[Jehanne]

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.

[Jehanne]

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'?