Speakers include Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and more.
Seems like a pretty neat event. It may or may not have gotten together due to the recent popularity of atheist literature and atheism in the media, well it almost certainly got together due to that reason, but I'm hoping it's not just an excuse to make money. There are enough cool speakers and topics of discussion that I'm seriously considering going. I've just seen and read so much by Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris that I hope I don't pay to listen to re-hash of everything I already know.
[ June 30, 2007, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: There are enough cool speakers and topics of discussion that I'm seriously considering going. I've just seen and read so much by Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris that I hope I don't pay to listen to re-hash of everything I already know.
It would be sad if it just turned out to be a bunch of preaching to the choir.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
exactly.
Some of the workshops seem pretty interesting though.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Definitely seems interesting. I've never been to any convention, but a lot of those workshops do look intriguing.
Might be worth it just for the screening of "The Life of Brian". Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: There are enough cool speakers and topics of discussion that I'm seriously considering going. I've just seen and read so much by Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris that I hope I don't pay to listen to re-hash of everything I already know.
It would be sad if it just turned out to be a bunch of preaching to the choir.
Isn't that what most conventions boil down to?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I like to go to conventions where I can learn new stuff and buy exclusive swag. I don't know of a whole lot of atheist swag to be had, and "Hey guys, did you realize there's no God?" isn't really news Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
@ Mighty Cow
That was hilarious!
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I've watched most of it. Very good stuff.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I like to go to conventions where I can learn new stuff and buy exclusive swag. I don't know of a whole lot of atheist swag to be had, and "Hey guys, did you realize there's no God?" isn't really news
Well, apparently there's going to be an "Evolvefish" store, so there is swag to be had.
Get your very own Darwin fish key chain!
Want something flashier? Entertain your friends with your very own "Pope Benedict looking like Emperor Palpatine" t-shirt!
...or something like that.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
On BeyondBelief- I watched the 4 clips of the people talking.
i liked the one lady saying that reality (the formation and development) is the best story ever told- that it trumps any religious story. Then at the end she said "Amen tot that." I just thought that was funny.
And the last guy who claimed that he was called by the universe to be an astrophysicist. Thought that was interesting for a group that seems dead set against any religious ideas.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I guess it depends what you mean by "religious" -- they're a-theist, aka, they don't believe in a God. That doesn't mean some of them can't be "religious" or spiritual or believe in an underlying order or energy.
I really want to go to this convention!
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I watched all of that a few months back. I thought most of the talks were awesome, as well as the round table discussions. The most interesting discussions I thought were the ones where they talked about how to get science out to the general populace. Not, why you should be an atheist, but why so many people aren't. Why so people believe the things they do, and how science and scientists can address that. I agree science needs PR.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
why are you wearing that pretty dress?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
sorry, i do that sometimes.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Until scientists can show, mathematically, exactly how everything in the Universe works....people will speculate. End of story, until there's an end to people.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Until scientists can show, mathematically, exactly how everything in the Universe works....people will speculate. End of story, until there's an end to people.
True...What's you're point?
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
This summer I am going to a convention of people who don't believe in hobbits. We're going to have 3 days of workshops about how hobbits don't exist and are evil anyway. What fun!
Seriously, a non-theist Quaker friend of mine *did* go to a non-theist Quaker convention, and found that they had nothing really to talk about.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
It's funny how much you actually *can* find to talk about when you have some of the world's most reknowned biologists, scientists, and thinkers in a room together.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: This summer I am going to a convention of people who don't believe in hobbits. We're going to have 3 days of workshops about how hobbits don't exist and are evil anyway. What fun!
Seriously, a non-theist Quaker friend of mine *did* go to a non-theist Quaker convention, and found that they had nothing really to talk about.
Well, if the people who believe in Hobbits insisted that everyone must go barefoot, even if they don't believe in Hobbits, there might be something to talk about at a convention. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Atheist Convention in Virginia this fall
But the song says it's in L.A.! Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
i'm totally not getting the reference!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: I guess it depends what you mean by "religious" -- they're a-theist, aka, they don't believe in a God. That doesn't mean some of them can't be "religious" or spiritual or believe in an underlying order or energy.
Which is only atheistic if atheists keep letting certain types of theists define "God."
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
it's almost unavoidable -- the prevailing theory of God is a specific kind of God, and atheists are reacting to that idea, not others.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
well, to be fair, some atheists are reacting to that concept of God, and other atheists are reacting to any concept of god or a creator.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: well, to be fair, some atheists are reacting to that concept of God, and other atheists are reacting to any concept of god or a creator.
Many of the atheists I know would be better described as a-supernaturalists which do not believe in idea for which they feel there is insufficient evidence, only one of which is the Christian God. Very few atheists, in my experience, could be described as exclusively rejecting the type of God which Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think it is an important distiction to make. Leonide, the prevailing theory doesn't have to be your personal theory - and it is a very personal choice.
The notion that you have to believe in the God that soe people define or no God at all is a false notion. Heaven's, if I were stuck with that choice, I'd be an atheist, too.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Atheists do tend to me most vocal in their opposition to the Christian-style God because that is the one people seem to be politically motivated by. Gods are only worth arguing about if their followers beliefs require applying the rules of their God to those who don't follow the same God. To my knowledge, Buddhists and Wiccans have never insisted on having their religious customs mandated or endorsed by the government.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not in the United States, at least.
And it's really not very fair to measure Wiccans with that yardstick until it would even be possible for them to attempt such a thing.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:And it's really not very fair to measure Wiccans with that yardstick until it would even be possible for them to attempt such a thing.
Sure. To the extent that atheists are political, it's in response to perceived threat rather than a holy edict. Wiccans are not a threat because they are not very politically active. That could change if their numbers were to dramatically increase.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Well, believe it or not, Ericka (my fiancée) and I might be going to this thing. I casually mentioned yesterday that I wouldn’t mind going to such an event, and she surprised the heck out of me by responding, “Well, why don’t we?” I’d thought for sure that she would be bored out of her mind, but she actually seems as interested in it as I am.
So anyway, we now have tentative plans to attend, assuming our vacation times are approved, of course. I’m pretty excited, particularly in hearing Sam Harris speak. I nearly always find what he has to say incredibly intriguing, even when I completely disagree with him. I’m sure it’ll be awesome to see Dawkins and Dennett in person, too. Plus, neither of us has been to D.C., so that ought to be fun.
----
On a related note, I think I really upset a friend today, and I’m not really sure what I could have done differently, other than to have just not said anything at all. I’d sent him a text message asking if he’d like to come with us to the conference if we go. His response was just as surprising to me as Ericka’s was, if not more so. We went back and forth a few times until the conversation started getting a bit uncomfortable, and eventually it just ended. Here’s what was said, more or less verbatim (and yes I actually text full sentences, punctuation and all):
Me: We’re seriously thinking about going. Wanna come? We could visit D.C., too, while we’re there.
Him: I’m against organized religion.
Me: Huh? It’s not anything like that. It’s just some speakers lecturing and discussing issues like how religious or otherwise dogmatic beliefs are affecting the world, how religious beliefs can impact ethics and morality, religion vs. science, etc. True, there will be some passionate atheists there, but I swear, it’s not a cult gathering. There’ll be many different views expressed. You might be surprised how many things atheists can disagree on.
Him: Just like religion. Interesting…
Me: How’s that exactly?
Him: Speaking about religion over science. Discussing different points of view. You’d be surprised how many things Christians disagree on.
Me: Obviously any group of people can disagree on things. What’s your point? Mine is simply that this conference is not an “organized religion” and that an atheism-based conference is not itself in the least dogmatic. I’m not saying it’s all about science vs. religion. The real issue as far as I’m concerned is faith and dogmatism vs. logic and reason.
Him: Sorry, I didn’t leave one church to join another.
Me: What does that even mean? You know I’m not a member of the Atheist Alliance or some other organization. Neither are at least some of the speakers, I’m sure. I’m going to listen to different perspectives, maybe hear something I hadn’t thought of before. What I ultimately believe in will be entirely my decision based on logic, reason, and experience – not on what someone else tells me just because it sounds convincing.
Him: Stop defending something that no one is attacking. I’m just saying I have no desire to be a part of that. Almost like preaching the Gospel. Haha.
Me: I’m not trying to convince you to go. If you don’t want to, that’s fine, but if it’s because of some incorrect preconceived notion, then I feel I should inform you otherwise. I’d expect the same from you. Let’s talk about this. I still don’t understand why you’re so convinced that a group of people critically discussing the nature and effects of certain beliefs is similar in some negative way to organized religion. Anyway, you’re welcome to at least meet up with us in D.C. if you’d like. If we go, that is.
Him: I don’t see that there is anything to discuss. Furthermore, the fact that you feel so strongly about this kind of creeps me out.
Me: Why? What exactly do you think I feel so strongly about? We’ve had plenty of deep conversations about religion and the existence of God. You’ve never been creeped out before.
He never responded. I called him later and got no answer, so I left a message saying if he was really bothered, then I’m sorry and let’s just drop it.
I’m just really confused because in nearly every other situation, he has a logical answer for everything. No matter what I throw at him, he always has a reason for every belief and every decision. He’s always been so sure of himself. Many a discussion between us has ended with me going “Huh…well…I guess you’re right.”
It’s not even like I pressed him too hard. We’ve always been brutally honest with each other, he typically much more than I. But this time was different. Not that I’m worried about our friendship or anything. We’ve been friends for ten years, and we’ve gotten through some pretty bad fights before, certainly much worse than this. It’s just…odd.
Eh. Sorry for the rant. I’m just a little perturbed by the whole situation. Advice or comments anyone?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
No advice...i just had a conversation somewhat similar with my dad, when I told him I might be attending.
He basically said he looked on my desire to go as a failing on his part to raise me right.
...
I really wish I had some advice for you...i guess we can commiserate together.
edit: also, if you are planning on going, register this week -- the coordinators told Strider and I that they were almost sold out.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: To my knowledge, Buddhists and Wiccans have never insisted on having their religious customs mandated or endorsed by the government.
Not that I disagree with your first point, but AFAIK Tibetan Buddhists did insist on having their religious customs mandated by the government, if only due to the fact that their Dalai Lama was the head of the government in Tibet for more than two centuries link I recall that at least a few of their polices were rather draconian.
I also recall that a number of Chinese imperial policies were influenced by Buddhism whenever it was in favour, although I imagine that the results were relatively harmless (I could be wrong).
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: No advice...i just had a conversation somewhat similar with my dad, when I told him I might be attending.
He basically said he looked on my desire to go as a failing on his part to raise me right.
...
I really wish I had some advice for you...i guess we can commiserate together.
edit: also, if you are planning on going, register this week -- the coordinators told Strider and I that they were almost sold out.
Thanks Leonide. I just registered, so we're officially going. Have you or Strider decided yet? Maybe we'll see you there. Unless of course that's too wierd for you. We don't really know each other after all. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
rollainm, I know some people like that too. That seem to think that because you decide to be an atheist you must become a loner, or completely separate your atheist beliefs from your day to day life. The fact is that other people's beliefs affect our lives in countless ways. And as a member of society I believe it's important to discuss how to deal with these issues, with other like minded people. And on the other side of it, it's beneficial to discuss how *our* beliefs affect *our* day to day lives. For instance, though I have no children of my own, and don't plan on any in the near future, the panel discussion on secular parenting is of particular interest to me.
If you were going to a scientific convention or a sci-fi convention, or any other convention, would your friend react the same way?
Anyway, if you do end up going, Leonide and I will definitely be there, so we'll have to touch base before the convention to try to meet up.
edit - missed your post. no, i don't think it's weird, it's what makes Hatrack cool!
[ July 03, 2007, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that much of the problem with organized religion is that it is organized. You get organization and you get people who are "in charge" of organizing. You get power.
Along with power, you get the desire to control. You need to decide on membership - who is in and who isn't. You get the need for conformity. People who are "in" need to believe the same things. You need a creed. A mission statement.
I think your friend has a point.
Getting together to hear people speak, etc. is cool and fun and could be worthwhile, but don't ignore the dangers.
And there is a very good possibility that it is purely reactionary. "The Christians are organized so we should organize to defend ourselves." Which may be (somewhat) true. But, again, it has it's own dangers and worse, it is letting other people set the definitions.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
So the good news is my friend wasn’t ignoring me. He was busy, got sidetracked, and forgot to answer me. The bad news is we’re still no closer to an understanding – well, maybe a little. Here’s part two of our text message exchange:
Him: I think it’s funny how you don’t see the similarities.
Me: The only similarities I see are irrelevant.
Him: Interesting.
Me: Like-minded people get together all the time to discuss similarities, differences, agendas, etc. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that, just like there’s nothing wrong with a science or electronics convention. The problem with organized religion isn’t churches or their agendas. Many religiously affiliated organizations do many great things. Some do not. The only problem is the dogmatic way in which beliefs are formed.
Me: And again, I’m not trying to convince you to go. If you’re not interested, that’s one thing. But I feel you’re negative comparison to religion is unjustified.
Him: I never said whether it was bad or not. I just can’t help but feel that a group of anti-religious people gathered together are inherently similar to most religions and therefore doesn’t really interest me.
Me: I understand not being interested. What I don’t get is how this convention is similar to organized religion in a way that you feel is a negative.
Him: I don’t recall ever saying it was negative, only similar.
Me: Your comparison to religion was your given reason for thinking it’s not a good idea, so yes, you are essentially saying they are similar in a negative way.
Him: I simply think they are similar…whether they are good or bad. A group of like-minded people, discussing how they are right…while others are wrong and trying to persuade other people to believe as they do just sounds very similar to religion…period.
Me: Ah. Now we’re getting somewhere. So you don’t like the possibility of groupthink or the idea of one group bashing another without them being present to properly defend themselves?
Him: You’re reading way too much into it. I told you my objections…plain and simple. It has nothing to do with whether or not people are there to defend themselves and whatnot.
Me: Tell you what. Call me later tonight or tomorrow.
Him: Why?
Me: Easier to discuss and less time consuming. You say you’ve stated your objections clearly, but you seem to me to be repeating the same vague response without explaining specifically what you mean.
Him: You irk me.
Me: So’s you’re face.
Him: I’m serious…there is no reason we should still be discussing this.
Me: Fine. Forget about it ok? I’m not angry, upset, or obsessed about it, and I’m certainly not trying to irk you.
Him: Yet you’re still talking about it. Seems rather important to you.
Me: I just tried to end it!
He didn’t respond after that.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I think he's got issues. There is no subject about which I'd tell a friend "there is no reason we should still be discussing this" if that friend was trying to engage me on the topic.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
He doesn't have any more "issues" than you or me. He is very stubborn, though. It's quite possible he actually realized the distinction I was making at some point but kept up the debate so he wouldn't have to admit he was wrong. If that's the case, he'll admit it to me eventually. What I think is he's simply never given this much thought. He was so caught up in what he thought I was saying and/or his preconceived notions on the subject that he wasn't actually listening to me.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"Anyway, if you do end up going, Leonide and I will definitely be there, so we'll have to touch base before the convention to try to meet up.
edit - missed your post. no, i don't think it's weird, it's what makes Hatrack cool!"
Awesome! I'm looking forward to it.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that much of the problem with organized religion is that it is organized. You get organization and you get people who are "in charge" of organizing. You get power.
Along with power, you get the desire to control. You need to decide on membership - who is in and who isn't. You get the need for conformity. People who are "in" need to believe the same things. You need a creed. A mission statement.
I think your friend has a point.
Getting together to hear people speak, etc. is cool and fun and could be worthwhile, but don't ignore the dangers.
And there is a very good possibility that it is purely reactionary. "The Christians are organized so we should organize to defend ourselves." Which may be (somewhat) true. But, again, it has it's own dangers and worse, it is letting other people set the definitions.
kmmboots, I think I basically addressed your points in my last exchange with my friend. Let me know if you disagree or have further comment.
Here's the thing. You say you think he has a point. You do, but I'm not sure he does, or at least he doesn't know what it is any more than I do. Perhaps he does have justified reasons for his statements. I made the best attempt I could to get him to clearly express those reasons, but for whatever reason I failed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that your friend was trying unsuccessful to say what I have said here. Anti-dogma dogma is still dogma. It is also reactionary. Defining oneself by what one is not give too much power to the other side of the argument. Stop letting the worst of religion define the terms of the discussion.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Why must you label it anti-dogma dogma? I disagree with this terminology. I do try my best to practice "anti-dogmatism," but that effort is not based on any authority; it's not "anti-dogma dogma."
Also, I think many atheists, especially those on this forum, would disagree that WE are the ones defining ourselves by what we are not. I honestly try to avoid the term whenever possible, not just because of the stereotypes attached to it, but because it should not be necessary in the first place.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm not saying it necessarily is. I'm saying it is a danger, and one I have seen to often these days. I think you should go to the convention, learn stuff, have a good time. Just be aware.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Gotcha. And I plan on doing just that. Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
It seems that you keep pestering your friend to explain his exact reasons for his distaste, even going to the extent of urging him to call back later and explain in greater detail. That seems to me... *irksome*.
If anything, he's polite enough to explain his distaste to you, and you seem to me rude enough not to accept that explanation but rather call it "vague". Yeah, his reasons for his distaste are vague perhaps. So what? That doesn't make them any less real.
I have lots of vague reasons for my own distastes, why should I bother explaining them to anyone else, and why should anyone else bother pressuring me for them?
If his main reason for getting out of a religion was his distaste towards self-congratulatory groups, then he not wanting to join *any* other self-congratulatory group seems perfectly reasonable to me, even if it doesn't sound so to you.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
going to a convention does not necessitate joining a group. it necessitates being interested in the topics discussed.
And part of the nature of friendship is discussing things together. If one of my friends reacted the same way I would probably want to talk about it to understand why they didn't want to go and why they thought it was like "leaving one church for another". Hopefully an interesting discussion would ensue. If one of my friends just didn't want to talk about it A)that kind of person probably wouldn't be my friend and B) I'd question their unwillingness to discuss their ideas/beliefs. Because that would usually indicate to me that they hadn't thought it out very well, they knew they were wrong and wanted to shut down discussion, or that it had some sort of strong negative emotional association and was painful to talk about. Only the last of which I would accept as a valid reason to not discuss something(doubtful that anyone could feel this way about an atheist convention). Though even then, that's not a healthy way to go about things in the long term.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
He was invited, he said no, he gave reasons, and his interrogator wouldn't let up? Even after he tried to end the conversation? To the point that the questioner insisted on continuing the conversation because the reasons were inadequate? That was way more rude than I've EVER heard any missionaries being.
If someone left organized religion because of the organized thing and perceived self-righteousness of the members, no wonder the idea of the convention wasn't appealing: all the unpleasantness with no divine blessing or promise of heaven to make it even palatable.
quote:Because that would usually indicate to me that they hadn't thought it out very well, they knew they were wrong and wanted to shut down discussion, or that it had some sort of strong negative emotional association and was painful to talk about.
You know the glorious thing about our personal beliefs? Even if those were the reasons (and you left out "he thought it sounded about as fun as cleaning out a cage with his face but were too polite to say so"), those are perfectly legitimate reasons for that person and are not subject to review by self-appointed thought police.
[ July 04, 2007, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:and you left out "he thought it sounded about as fun as cleaning out a cage with his face but were too polite to say so"
no, that would be a reason not to *go* to the convention, not a reason to not explain why you didn't want to go.
If someone said, "no, that doesn't sound fun" or "no, sorry, i have no interest in that" that's a perfectly valid reason and i wouldn't argue it. if someone's reason for not going was, "i didn't leave one church to join another", that would be begging for a conversation. to then refuse to engage in that conversation is i guess your personal choice, but seems like a cop out to me.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Aris and Javert, I would suggest you reread the exchange before so harshly judging my character and intentions (or my friend's for that matter). And to be honest, I don't think even then you will have enough information to make such judgments. You have no idea how he and I converse. You have no idea that we were joking with each other just this morning as if nothing happened because NOTHING HAPPENED. No one's feelings were hurt. No one's holding any grudges. You have no idea that we're more like brothers than friends and that we'd both rather point out when the other is wrong than be "polite" and let them continue to be wrong. You seem to have missed the fact that he reengaged me, and then further prodded me after I attempted to end it. You also seem to have missed the fact that both conversations are a compilation of text messages and are therefore going to sound more direct and less polite. They also took place over several hours while we were at work, further adding to the impersonal tone. If you get a chance, go back and take a look at a text message exchange between you and a friend. I think you'll see what I mean.
Also,
quote:You know the glorious thing about our personal beliefs? Even if those were the reasons (and you left out "he thought it sounded about as fun as cleaning out a cage with his face but were too polite to say so"), those are perfectly legitimate reasons for that person and are not subject to review by self-appointed thought police.
Do you not see the irony here?
---
Strider, Thanks. Very well put.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
<i>not a reason to not explain why you didn't want to go.</i>
The guy explained quite perfectly why he didn't want to go. Because he "didn't leave one church to join another"
Then when challenged on it, he went on to explain why this comparison seemed appropriate to him. An explanation that seems quite fair to me, and obviously must have seemed fair to the person giving it, even if you, Strider or rollainm disagree with it.
And rollainm would *still* not accept that and kept pressuring his "friend".
That sounds to me just plain obnoxious. As if rollainm had said: "Oh, no, I'm not saying you ought to go, I'm just saying that I'll keep challenging your reasons for not coming until I get you to see they are stupid, vague and meaningless. Because I'm not actually bothering to listen to you, just want you to get to share my own worldview."
Rollainm's minor points were also pretty flawed. His friend made a comparison between church and this convention. Just as his friend said, the comparison doesn't necessarily have to be negative even if it's the reason for his own lack of interest.
To give an example, if I one day declare I have no taste for meat (having overfed myself on chicken the previous day), a person suggesting I have roast pig might get the answer "sorry, that's still too meaty for me", even if there's nothing particularly bad about meat products in themselves. Even if it's just a matter of *taste*.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Rollainm, I assumed you were providing the conversation to invite comments on it -- so as to help you understand where the guy was coming from, perhaps, or to invite opinion on whether you were missing something obvious, or doing something wrong.
I don't see why you provided the conversation if not for us to comment on it. So I commented.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I'm having a very hard time...very hard...understanding how anything rollainm did in his conversation with his friend could be considered in the slightest bit rude. They're friends. Friends discuss things. If they were lesser friends, probably rollainm wouldn't have asked for elaboration. His friend made a statement that rollainm didn't understand, and asked for clarification. Rollainm has TOLD us that his friend and he have a relationship that encourages that kind of dicussion.
Heck, Hatrackers engaged in spirited debate on all manner of disagreeable subjects daily. If someone had come onto this thread and said what rollanim's friend had said, would anyone have been criticized for asking him/her to elaborate? It's a loaded statement, one meant to inflame rollanim, and there was nothing rollainm did -- especially between friends -- that was rude!
[ July 04, 2007, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: To give an example, if I one day declare I have no taste for meat (having overfed myself on chicken the previous day), a person suggesting I have roast pig might get the answer "sorry, that's still too meaty for me", even if there's nothing particularly bad about meat products in themselves. Even if it's just a matter of *taste*.
Matters of preference, such as taste, are not analogous with unjustified beliefs about how something IS. And once again, had he simply said “I just don’t want to go” I would have left it at that.
A more appropriate analogy would be you saying you don’t like roast pig (or meat in general) because people who eat roast pig are like dinosaurs. Sure, I suppose there could be a reasonable justification there, but it’s certainly not obvious in itself. I don’t know who wouldn’t question how people eating roast pig is related to dinosaurs in such a way that eating meat is something you’d rather not do.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Rollainm, I assumed you were providing the conversation to invite comments on it -- so as to help you understand where the guy was coming from, perhaps, or to invite opinion on whether you were missing something obvious, or doing something wrong.
I don't see why you provided the conversation if not for us to comment on it. So I commented.
Comments are one thing. Personal attacks are another.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I watched that last week. Sam Harris is so good at debating. Chris Hedges whole spiel was a prepared speech and prepared remarks. Sam Harris was just going off the cuff and did beautifully. It allowed him to make points AND respond to Hedges points. Where as Hedges never really responded adequately to Harris. Though I'll also say that too often when two sides are arguing they tend to look at things too black and white, and forget that causes and affects don't exist in vacuums. That there is no ONE thing that is the single cause of any major problem or current situation. I think the only thing that could've made Harris's arguments a bit more perfect would have been a small acknowledgment of the validity of some of Hedge's points in regards to causes of turmoil in the middle east.
Do you go over to richarddawkins.net rollainm?
I watched a debate between Christopher Hitchens(speaking at the convention) and Al Sharpton, and I was seriously disappointed with Hitchens. I'm hoping it was just unfamiliarness with public live debating, but he was really terrible. Changing topics, not answering questions, not making his points strong enough, not taking advantage of prime openings and faulty logic made by Sharpton. I haven't read his book, but I hope it's more solid than his debating prowess. I could've done better up there, and I kept wishing it was someone like Dawkins or Harris up there instead of him.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I do occasionally, but I've yet to wade through all the videos.
Hitchens bothers me for some reason - I'm not really sure why. Ericka loves him, though. She actually mentioned just the other day that she wished he was speaking at the convention in September. I'll check out that debate, though, if for no other reason than to be amused by Sharpton. He gets so angry. It's almost cute.
Edit: Oh! He is speaking. How did I miss that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Matters of preference, such as taste, are not analogous with unjustified beliefs about how something IS. And once again, had he simply said “I just don’t want to go” I would have left it at that.
But it wasn't about how something "IS" - it was a matter of preference:
quote:Him: I think it’s funny how you don’t see the similarities.
Me: The only similarities I see are irrelevant.
In this exchange, you're each talking about how you see things. Clearly, to Him, the similarities between this convention and church ARE relevant. To read between the lines somewhat, what bothers him about church is directly related to those similarities.
Just because you see those similarities as irrelevant doesn't mean they are to him. And since what was being discussed was his opinion that going to this convention would be like going to church, you were calling the basis of his opinion irrelevant.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
If you're sick of Hitchens, check out Daniel Dennett. I love this guy!
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I think you'd be hard pressed to find some form of multimedia with Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, or Stephen Pinker that I *haven't* seen.
But thanks for the link!
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I was pointing it out for anyone.
You know, the world doesn't revolve around you Strider! Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
nice try, but we all know it does.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Hitchens' next book:
"Strider is Not Great: How Hatrack Poisons Everything"
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
So I watched the Hitchens/Sharpton debate. I see what you were saying, Strider. Hitchens just isn't very good at expressing his views. I was more amused by him than impressed really. "My book sales are unhurtable." I had a pretty good laugh at that one.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Matters of preference, such as taste, are not analogous with unjustified beliefs about how something IS. And once again, had he simply said “I just don’t want to go” I would have left it at that.
But it wasn't about how something "IS" - it was a matter of preference:
quote:Him: I think it’s funny how you don’t see the similarities.
Me: The only similarities I see are irrelevant.
In this exchange, you're each talking about how you see things. Clearly, to Him, the similarities between this convention and church ARE relevant. To read between the lines somewhat, what bothers him about church is directly related to those similarities.
Just because you see those similarities as irrelevant doesn't mean they are to him. And since what was being discussed was his opinion that going to this convention would be like going to church, you were calling the basis of his opinion irrelevant.
Of course he finds relevant similarities. I'm not disputing that. The problem is that he has yet to clearly express what those relevant similarities are.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The problem is that he has yet to clearly express what those relevant similarities are.
He expressed them. You didn't find that expression clear. That's an entirely different thing.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Okay...
They were not expressed in a reasonably clear way.
Could you point out what those similarities are?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
They seemed clear to me (considering I wasn't part of the conversation). I pointed out various similarities earlier in the thread.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
kmbboots, You made YOUR points, which I admit are quite reaonable, even though I disagree with them. But the original discussion wasn't with you. Had my friend made those points, the conversation certainly would have shifted.
And I realize you were offering your best interpretation of what he was trying to convey. I disagree that these were his points. Perhaps you could pair specific quotes with what you interpreted them to mean?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You are quite right. I wasn't there. My assumption, though, was based on this:
quote: Him: I’m against organized religion.
The key word as I understood it, was "organized".
And your response:
quote:
Me: Huh? It’s not anything like that. It’s just some speakers lecturing and discussing issues like how religious or otherwise dogmatic beliefs are affecting the world, how religious beliefs can impact ethics and morality, religion vs. science, etc. True, there will be some passionate atheists there, but I swear, it’s not a cult gathering. There’ll be many different views expressed. You might be surprised how many things atheists can disagree on.
Seemed like you were addressing those same issues. My guess (and it is just a guess) is that, having heard similar claims from religious groups, "I swear it's not a cult gathering" might not be terribly convincing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Okay...
They were not expressed in a reasonably clear way.
They were reasonably clear to me, so I don't see how it's only his fault.
quote:Could you point out what those similarities are?
He pointed them out. He said this was just like religion:
quote:It’s just some speakers lecturing and discussing issues like how religious or otherwise dogmatic beliefs are affecting the world, how religious beliefs can impact ethics and morality, religion vs. science, etc. True, there will be some passionate atheists there, but I swear, it’s not a cult gathering. There’ll be many different views expressed. You might be surprised how many things atheists can disagree on.
And he clarified it with this:
quote:Speaking about religion over science. Discussing different points of view. You’d be surprised how many things Christians disagree on.
And then later:
quote:I just can’t help but feel that a group of anti-religious people gathered together are inherently similar to most religions and therefore doesn’t really interest me.
And then he got pretty explicit:
quote:A group of like-minded people, discussing how they are right…while others are wrong and trying to persuade other people to believe as they do just sounds very similar to religion…period.
You acted as if this was a revelation ("Now we’re getting somewhere"), but this was present in the very first list of similar things (the one provided by you that he labeled as just like religion):
1) how religious or otherwise dogmatic beliefs are affecting the world 2) how religious beliefs can impact ethics and morality, religion vs. science, etc 3) some passionate atheists 4) not a cult gathering 5) many different views expressed 6) many things atheists can disagree on
You might think these things differentiate the convention from religion. He does not. And he explicitly told you that he didn't. You chose to link (by setting them in opposition) the concept "organized religion" with "cult gathering" and "not many things being disagreed on." You leaped to what you thought he meant (or what you thought he should mean) by "organized religion" and then insisted he wasn't explaining himself because he didn't accept your leap.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You are quite right. I wasn't there. My assumption, though, was based on this:
quote: Him: I’m against organized religion.
The key word as I understood it, was "organized".
And your response:
quote:
Me: Huh? It’s not anything like that. It’s just some speakers lecturing and discussing issues like how religious or otherwise dogmatic beliefs are affecting the world, how religious beliefs can impact ethics and morality, religion vs. science, etc. True, there will be some passionate atheists there, but I swear, it’s not a cult gathering. There’ll be many different views expressed. You might be surprised how many things atheists can disagree on.
Seemed like you were addressing those same issues. My guess (and it is just a guess) is that, having heard similar claims from religious groups, "I swear it's not a cult gathering" might not be terribly convincing.
I see. In my defense, I was not aware by that point that the conversation would become so...formal. I don't deny I could have worded things a bit more clearly from the start.
In that last quote, I was attempting to address what I guessed might be his immediate-reaction objections to the idea of an atheist convention - objections that are only valid until you have all the details. I provided some of those details. But as the conversation progressed, he did not elaborate on exactly what similarities HE felt the convention had with organized religion. He rejected my suggestions and continued to describe them as simply similar.
(Edited to specify who I was responding to.)
[ July 09, 2007, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: rollainm ]
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
About the Me and Him discussion: if we strip it down to the emotional components, it goes like this.
Me: This is cool. Him: No. Me: Please accept it as cool. Him: No. Me: Please? Him: No. Me: Please? ...
You just can't convince someone that something is cool if they don't want to believe it. It's sort of like a religion. You can't convince them of that either.
I don't know how to address the thing of whether it's cool, but if you're trying to point out that your conference is not pushy, not evangelistic, diverse in thought, etc., as you said, relentlessly asking him to agree with you wouldn't be the best way.
OTOH I sympathize with being mystified by a rejection of "organized religion." I personally am opposed to organized government, organized business, and organized organizations, but for some reason the disorganized ones never seem to last, so I've given up trying to preserve disorganization in my life, except of course in terms of housecleaning.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Qaz, Your summary quite crude and grossly misunderstood. I never tried to convince him that the convention was "cool" (though admittedly I think it will be). I said several times that I was NOT trying to convince him to go. I simply wanted to better understand WHY he didn't want to.
"OTOH I sympathize with being mystified by a rejection of "organized religion." It would be interesting to know what he dislikes about it."
This is exactly what we were discussing. I suppose I could have been more clear in stating that I can understand being against "organizations."
Dag, I have to step away for a bit, but I will respond to you later today.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It still seems to me that the friend was shutting down the conversation prematurely and being rather unfriendly in the process. It is clear that rollainm was unclear about this friend's reasoning and desired to understand his reasons and possibly correct mistaken impressions.
If I were rollainm, I'd feel that I was being unfairly painted with the same disapproving brush that her friend was painting the conference simply by attending it. I'd want to fully understand the basis for the disapproval and have a chance to discuss it thoroughly and I'd expect a good friend to be willing to have that conversation.
When a friend invites me to an Amway pitch I don't just roll my eyes and tell them I think the whole thing is a sham. I explain, in detail, my concerns about MLM businesses in general, and the specific flaws with Amway.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:When a friend invites me to an Amway pitch I don't just roll my eyes and tell them I think the whole thing is a sham. I explain, in detail, my concerns about MLM businesses in general, and the specific flaws with Amway.
I would think this to be very, very rude. If someone invited to an event which I did not wish to attend, it would be incredibly rude of me to detail why I thought the event sucked. They clearly do want to go, and it can be very rude to trash something that someone likes.
Refusing an invitation should be enough. Subjecting someone to the third degree when they have refused the invitation is rude.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It still seems to me that the friend was shutting down the conversation prematurely and being rather unfriendly in the process. It is clear that rollainm was unclear about this friend's reasoning and desired to understand his reasons and possibly correct mistaken impressions.
Rollainm was not just unclear, he was dismissive in that first "not a cult" paragraph. It doesn't come across as someone wanting to have a frank exchange of ideas. A friend shouldn't need to give "good enough" reasons to another friend for not discussing something. A friend should just accept a friend not wanting to discuss it.
quote:If I were rollainm, I'd feel that I was being unfairly painted with the same disapproving brush that her friend was painting the conference simply by attending it.
There were two aspects of the disapproval: the friend didn't want to go, and the friend said it was because it was too similar to organized religion. If you feel painted with a disapproving brush by that, it's very possible it's because you are adding more negative content to that characterization than is intended.
Rollainm clearly was. Something is not like an organized religion if it's not a cult and people disagree a lot. I can easily see someone not wanting to get on that topic in this context after starting out like that.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I would think this to be very, very rude. If someone invited to an event which I did not wish to attend, it would be incredibly rude of me to detail why I thought the event sucked. They clearly do want to go, and it can be very rude to trash something that someone likes.
Refusing an invitation should be enough. Subjecting someone to the third degree when they have refused the invitation is rude.
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm not sure how many Amway invites you have received, but I've had a number and they rarely let a polite "no thank you" end the conversation. If they are honestly interested in my objections, I will honestly share them. I don't just go off on an anti-Amway rant in response to the initial invitation nor do I refuse to discuss my reasoning when asked.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
My actions would still stand. It doesn't matter if they don't take no for an answer - I don't have to offer anything but no and they can't do anything about it but get used to dissapointment.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Rollainm clearly was. Something is not like an organized religion if it's not a cult and people disagree a lot. I can easily see someone not wanting to get on that topic in this context after starting out like that.
I guess I just have a different sort of relationship with my friends. The whole idea of "I don't want to discuss this, so I won't" just seems foreign to me.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: My actions would still stand. It doesn't matter if they don't take no for an answer - I don't have to offer anything but no and they can't do anything about it but get used to dissapointment.
I like to understand my friends and I like them to understand me. But, like I said, maybe my definition of "friend" is a bit different. I've always felt that I had fewer, yet more intimate, friendships than others.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm not sure how many Amway invites you have received, but I've had a number and they rarely let a polite "no thank you" end the conversation. If they are honestly interested in my objections, I will honestly share them. I don't just go off on an anti-Amway rant in response to the initial invitation nor do I refuse to discuss my reasoning when asked.
A polite "no thank you" ends any conversation I wish to end. After that, a new conversation about the person's inability to accept my answer may begin.
As for going off on a rant, that description is more (but not very) applicable to rollainm's response than his friends. His friend gave a one-sentence answer, hardly a rant.
quote:I guess I just have a different sort of relationship with my friends. The whole idea of "I don't want to discuss this, so I won't" just seems foreign to me.
The whole idea of "discuss this with me even though you don't want to" seems foreign to me.
quote:I like to understand my friends and I like them to understand me. But, like I said, maybe my definition of "friend" is a bit different. I've always felt that I had fewer, yet more intimate, friendships than others.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:I guess I just have a different sort of relationship with my friends. The whole idea of "I don't want to discuss this, so I won't" just seems foreign to me.
Me too. Most of the discussions I have with friends involve quite a bit of challenging the other's view and insisting on in depth reasoning. It's how we try to stay on top of things and hone(sp?) our thought process. I enjoy it quite a bit.
But then, I've been called much worse things than rude.
Edited to add quote.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Me too. Most of the discussions I have with friends involve quite a bit of challenging the other's view and insisting on in depth reasoning. It's how we try to stay on top of things and hone(sp?) our thought process. I enjoy it quite a bit.
There's nothing incompatible about this and also not wanting to discuss certain things at certain times.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:
No need to be rude. I was trying to understand why my view was so different from people here and offered a bit of introspection.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Oh, please. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. A lack of boundries does not equal a greater capacity for friendship.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Oh, please. You are not a special and unique snowflake. A lack of boundries and politeness does not mean you have a deeper relationship with friends than those who do have some basic respect for other people.
The hell? It's because I respect other people that I am willing to take a conversation beyond the point where it is no longer personally interesting. I won't do that with a telemarketer or some guy passing me in the hall at work, but with my friends, sure I'm willing to keep talking as long as they want to until they completely understand my position and, if they desire, until I completely understand theirs.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
No need to be rude. I was trying to understand why my view was so different from people here and offered a bit of introspection.
Suggesting that those who think it reasonable for a friend to not insist on discussing something someone doesn't want to discuss have less intimate friendships is more than a little rude, Matt.
It's basically the same as if I were to speculate that those who can't respect such boundaries because they're afraid they're being disapproved of have less secure friendships.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Suggesting that those who think it reasonable for a friend to not insist on discussing something someone doesn't want to discuss have less intimate friendships is more than a little rude, Matt.
To quote you, "it's very possible it's because you are adding more negative content to that characterization than is intended."
quote:It's basically the same as if I were to speculate that those who can't respect such boundaries because they're afraid they're being disapproved of have less secure friendships.
Could be. I disagree, but I wouldn't use dismissive emoticons to express that disagreement.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, then suggesting that you have more intimate friendships because you don't think it reasonable for a friend to not insist on discussing something someone doesn't want to discuss is more than a little rude.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.
*chuckles*
quote:There's nothing incompatible about this and also not wanting to discuss certain things at certain times.
That's true. I don't really see how that's relevant though. rollainm has already stated that he and his friends converse similarly to my group. If that is their norm, I disagree that it is rude to pursue that line of discussion, especially if the friend offers reasoning that is more nebulous that normal.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: OK, then suggesting that you have more intimate friendships because you don't think it reasonable for a friend to not insist on discussing something someone doesn't want to discuss is more than a little rude.
There are a confusing number of negatives in there, so I'll just take another bite at the intimacy thing. I see all of our relationships on a sliding scale of emotional intimacy. I view intimacy as being a reflection of trust in a relationship and the extent to which you are willing to share yourself with the other person and the other person with you.
I have a relatively low level of intimacy with, say, the mailman. I have a relatively high level of intimacy with my wife. Somewhere between those two points I have friends, acquaintances, associates, etc. The location of each of this designations on the continuum is rather arbitrary.
I believe that the position on continuum where I place "friend" is higher than other people. This says nothing about other people's relationships, but suggests that other people delineate "friend" at a point closer to where I put "acquaintance". The total number and quality of relationships is not necessarily any different, but my categorization of those relationships may be different.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that my definition of "friend" is out of line with reality. But I had no intention to be rude and apologize for any offense I may have given.
[ July 09, 2007, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think there are as many different definitions of "friend" as there are friends. We don't have all the information. Rollainm's friend could have plenty of reasons to be disinclined to discuss this. One of which could be that he knows it would be a futile argument that could end in hurt feelings.
Goodness knows, I am the girl with no boundaries, but I will still avoid certain topics with certain people jsut because it isn't worth the cost. I have no way of knowing if that is the case here, but it is possible.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Rollainm, you are correct, "Him" did say what he didn't like about organized religion. I have edited my post.
I didn't mean to suggest that you tried to get him to go. "This is cool" and "you should go" are related but certainly not identical. But he *did* keep saying it wasn't cool with him, and you *did* keep pushing him, and he apparently doesn't like being pushed. What can you do? Accept it, or get out the truth serum.
--
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
i don't see the connection between that article and the convention. Am I missing something?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Wow. This thread sure has exploded.
Dagonee, I think we’ve got a bit of a disconnect here, and I’d also like to address some of the things others have said, so I’m going to try to bring things a bit back into focus – or at least attempt to address all the major points. At any rate, a good portion of this post is not directed at you.
Okay, first of all, I think it’s important to remember some aspects of the discussion in question, some of which I’ve already mentioned. The conversation took place via text messages, in two parts on two separate days, each over a period of several hours, while we were both at our respective jobs. We both could have stated our points more clearly. We both made mistakes. I know I made some points that were not entirely relevant to the discussion. I admit I jumped the gun early on. I was already thinking way ahead, ready to fire off a response to every possible objection I thought he might make, and I did not phrase my initial response as well as I could have if I’d taken a few minutes to think things over. I don’t by any means claim to be a master debater (*cough*). Dagonee, perhaps if I had your way with words my friend and I would have had a more productive conversation (assuming you held my views of course). Perhaps we each misunderstood what the other was trying to say. Perhaps our grammar and spelling could have been better. Neither of us has a perfect memory, and the conversation did not flow nearly as well as it could or would have in, say, a forum-like atmosphere, or face to face for that matter. As specific as a discussion like the one we’re having NOW has become, it is very important to keep these things in mind. Yes, it makes productive discussion a bit more difficult, but it is necessary because it drastically affects how things like motive, rudeness, and the nature of our friendship are perceived. It can sometimes be unclear how what someone says relates to what he/she actually means – not just word for word, sentence by sentence, point by point – but overall. This distinction is made even more ambiguous by the detached tone of that particular discussion.
That said, I don’t think a discussion about the nature or integrity of our friendship is necessary or appropriate here. It would be different if I’d initiated such discussion, but I did not. I HAVE stated, and others have reiterated, that my friend and I often debate and challenge each other rather directly. It is an integral part of OUR friendship. We are often “irked” by each other, and we take such minor and temporary annoyances in stride. I don’t doubt or deny that others might find this kind of discourse rude or unbecoming of a “true” friend, but here’s a newsflash: I didn’t have this discussion with YOU. Neither my friend nor I found the other to be rude or insulting. The thought did briefly cross my mind, but I was reassured this was not the case the very next day. I’ve already mentioned that we were joking around the next morning. Let me add now that later that day, while we and another friend were at lunch, we even made joking references to our prior conversation. So you see, any discussion about how I MIGHT have been rude or inconsiderate by someone else’s standard is completely irrelevant here. Personally, I find such broad generalizations about friendship to be rather rude. I’m not terribly insulted, and there’s no need to apologize, but I do think a few of you were quite out of line. You may still think you’re justified in your claims, of course, and that’s fine. I simply ask that you keep this particular opinion to yourself. I feel that this would be the polite thing to do.
Second, I think it might be wise for some of you to take a moment and consider why you are participating in this discussion or in many of the other discussions on this forum in the first place. Are you genuinely interested in my wellbeing or my friend’s? Do you feel you have some constructive advice, criticism, or experience to offer? Are you simply interested in the discussion and want to better understand where one (or both) of us is coming from? Or are you here to sharpen your debating skills, to pick a fight, to pass judgment, to pick apart others’ statements word for word, or to impress others with your intellect and wit? Please note that I’m not making any accusations myself. I am simply suggesting that perhaps some of you really should evaluate the motives behind your contribution to this discussion. Sometimes it really is best to just keep your opinions to yourself.
****
And now to address your earlier post, Dag.
quote: They were reasonably clear to me, so I don't see how it's only his fault.
I apologize for being unclear. Let me try again: His reasons were not expressed in a way that I believe either of us would have considered reasonable based on our history of conversations over the past ten years. In other words, I expected more from him. Had our roles been reversed, he would never have let me get away with such vague responses. (And yes, I do call them vague. I see this as a matter of fact, not opinion. But of course you are welcome to disagree. And again, I don’t claim that my own stated position was completely clear or free from error.) I felt then, as I still do now, that his comparison of the convention to organized religion was unjustified. I’ll get back to this in a bit.
Moving on, I asked you to point out what similarities between the convention and organized religion you believed he had in mind. You responded:
quote: He pointed them out. He said this was just like religion:
You then quoted MY initial reply to him. Now I’m assuming you worded something wrong here, or perhaps I’m just missing some key word that would allow what you said to make more sense. But regardless, I just want to clarify a couple of things about what I said:
quote: It’s just some speakers lecturing and discussing issues like how religious or otherwise dogmatic beliefs are affecting the world, how religious beliefs can impact ethics and morality, religion vs. science, etc. True, there will be some passionate atheists there, but I swear, it’s not a cult gathering. There’ll be many different views expressed. You might be surprised how many things atheists can disagree on.
The first sentence was intended to give him a general overview of what was to take place at the convention, to clarify any misunderstandings of what it was all about. These are topics, by the way, that he and I, as atheists, have already had numerous discussions about, and I wanted him to see that this was just a similar “discussion” of sorts on a grander scale. In retrospect, I should have also pointed out that the agenda of this particular conference had less to do with atheism itself and more to do the separation of church and state. I should have also pointed out that there will be at least one pastor speaking at this event and possibly many more people with religious beliefs attending. But I didn’t, and I regret that. I’ve already said countless times now that I could have stated things much clearer. The second sentence was intended to address one possible similarity that he might bring up, while the third and fourth sentences addressed another. I did not intend them to be considered related, nor do I personally believe such broad assumptions about religion. I was merely suggesting that IF these were the similarities he was referring to, they were incorrect as far as the convention was concerned, regardless of what he thought about religion.
You then say he clarified himself with:
quote: Speaking about religion over science. Discussing different points of view. You’d be surprised how many things Christians disagree on.
First off, this was the first time HE elaborated at all on what he meant by his comparison. Now as for clarifying himself, I completely disagree. “Speaking about religion over science” is a complete misrepresentation of what will occur at the convention. I also have objections to HIM finding that a negative thing in the first place, especially considering the fact that he has always been more outspoken about his distaste for religion than I would ever consider being. So I felt quite justified in dismissing that claim. I think we can all agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with “discussing different points of view.” I actually think I defended that point rather well, and so have a couple of others here – in even greater detail than I went into. As for his last sentence, I’m not entirely sure what he meant by it (perhaps simply to throw it back at me as another negative similarity), but my similar statement about how diverse atheists’ beliefs can be was only meant as an objection to the possible claim that the convention was just a bunch of atheists sitting around slamming religious people.
Your next quote:
quote: I just can’t help but feel that a group of anti-religious people gathered together are inherently similar to most religions and therefore doesn’t really interest me.
This is actually a pretty accurate summary of our whole misunderstanding. He has again stated that the two are “inherently similar,” but he has yet to clarify what those similarities are. He also adds that these unspecified similarities are the REASON the convention doesn’t interest him. Once again, I feel I must reiterate that HAVING a reason for not being interested in going is not what bothers me. But the particular reason he gives does not make sense on its own. Consider the rest of my post that you’ve already quoted from:
quote: A more appropriate analogy would be you saying you don’t like roast pig (or meat in general) because people who eat roast pig are like dinosaurs. Sure, I suppose there could be a reasonable justification there, but it’s certainly not obvious in itself. I don’t know who wouldn’t question how people eating roast pig is related to dinosaurs in such a way that eating meat is something you’d rather not do.
Obviously this is an exaggerated example, but his reasoning is still ambiguous in exactly the same way.
You then claim that “he got pretty explicit” with this:
quote: A group of like-minded people, discussing how they are right…while others are wrong and trying to persuade other people to believe as they do just sounds very similar to religion…period.
Again, he is misrepresenting, based on incorrect preconceived notions, what will take place at this convention. But he does clarify WHAT he believes will take place, which is why I felt we were finally getting somewhere. I was NOT patronizing him as you seem to me to believe (correct me if I’m wrong).
As for your breakdown:
quote: You acted as if this was a revelation ("Now we’re getting somewhere"), but this was present in the very first list of similar things (the one provided by you that he labeled as just like religion):
1) how religious or otherwise dogmatic beliefs are affecting the world 2) how religious beliefs can impact ethics and morality, religion vs. science, etc 3) some passionate atheists 4) not a cult gathering 5) many different views expressed 6) many things atheists can disagree on
You might think these things differentiate the convention from religion. He does not. And he explicitly told you that he didn't. You chose to link (by setting them in opposition) the concept "organized religion" with "cult gathering" and "not many things being disagreed on." You leaped to what you thought he meant (or what you thought he should mean) by "organized religion" and then insisted he wasn't explaining himself because he didn't accept your leap.
I’ve already explained above what I meant by the particular quote you’re pulling from.
I hope this helps.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: i don't see the connection between that article and the convention. Am I missing something?
Ditto.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Second, I think it might be wise for some of you to take a moment and consider why you are participating in this discussion or in many of the other discussions on this forum in the first place. Are you genuinely interested in my wellbeing or my friend’s? Do you feel you have some constructive advice, criticism, or experience to offer? Are you simply interested in the discussion and want to better understand where one (or both) of us is coming from? Or are you here to sharpen your debating skills, to pick a fight, to pass judgment, to pick apart others’ statements word for word, or to impress others with your intellect and wit? Please note that I’m not making any accusations myself. I am simply suggesting that perhaps some of you really should evaluate the motives behind your contribution to this discussion. Sometimes it really is best to just keep your opinions to yourself.
What was your motive for posting that in the first place? To comment on something you found frustrating, right? You haven't questioned the commentary that supported your point of view. If you want an echo chamber, this isn't the place.
quote:You then quoted MY initial reply to him. Now I’m assuming you worded something wrong here, or perhaps I’m just missing some key word that would allow what you said to make more sense. But regardless, I just want to clarify a couple of things about what I said:
I didn't word anything wrong there. You listed a whole bunch of things the convention was and was not. He then said "Just like religion. Interesting…"
In other words, he took your list of characteristics and said they were just like religion. Which means when you say "First off, this was the first time HE elaborated at all on what he meant by his comparison," you are demonstrating once again that you failed to recognize what he was saying.
quote:But the particular reason he gives does not make sense on its own.
It DOES make sense on it's own. I don't know why you can't see it, but it does. Your dinosaur analogy is an attempt to demonstrate why it doesn't make sense by saying the similarities aren't relevant to the larger point.
Which misses - seemingly intentionally - his entire point. These are exactly the areas of similarity he sees as relevant. These are why he doesn't want to go.
quote:Again, he is misrepresenting, based on incorrect preconceived notions, what will take place at this convention.
You keep saying this, but you haven't come close to demonstrating it. You're also contradicting yourself. Earlier you framed it as "The real issue as far as I’m concerned is faith and dogmatism vs. logic and reason." You yourself put it into a "vs." construct, and it's clear which side of the "vs." the organizers of the conference are on.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
I should have also pointed out that there will be at least one pastor speaking at this event
Um. If by that you are refering to "Pastor Deacon Fred" he is not a pastor. He's the lead character of a website that is a parody of over-the-top evangelical churches.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The thing I found the most shocking about rollain's conversation on the previous page is that they texted the whole thing to each other.
That seriously blows my mind.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: i don't see the connection between that article and the convention. Am I missing something?
Ditto.
My mistake. I should not have assumed there'd be only one atheist convention going on at one time.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:The thing I found the most shocking about rollain's conversation on the previous page is that they texted the whole thing to each other.
That seriously blows my mind.
seriously, i think i would've gotten way too frustrated with text early on and just called my friend to finish the convo.
Qaz, but it wasn't even a convention. It was a gathering of a pre-existing group of atheists(atheists for human rights) specifically to hear the congressman speak. I'd call it more of a political rally. Unless you're trying to be ironic or something.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
I should have also pointed out that there will be at least one pastor speaking at this event
Um. If by that you are refering to "Pastor Deacon Fred" he is not a pastor. He's the lead character of a website that is a parody of over-the-top evangelical churches.
Heh. So he is. My mistake.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: What was your motive for posting that in the first place? To comment on something you found frustrating, right? You haven't questioned the commentary that supported your point of view. If you want an echo chamber, this isn't the place.
Not frustrating. Unnecessary.
Dag,
I think it's pretty obvious we're not getting anywhere here. I really don't want to continue repeating myself, and I feel every point you've made is adequately addressed in my previous post. Obviously you disagree.
Anyway, I think it would be best to end this discussion. If you have anything else to add, go ahead. I'll read it, and I might respond if I feel a response is warranted. But otherwise I'm done.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, I was tired of repeating myself, too and feel every point you've made is adequately addressed in my previous posts.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
If a person does not believe God (or a god or gods) exists, why does he or she need to go to a convention to reinforce their convictions or belief? Why waste the time and money. The answer, to me, seems simple; if one does not believe in God, so be it. Move on and live a life without belief in God.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat: If a person does not believe God (or a god or gods) exists, why does he or she need to go to a convention to reinforce their convictions or belief? Why waste the time and money. The answer, to me, seems simple; if one does not believe in God, so be it. Move on and live a life without belief in God.
I think it's less about "we don't believe in God" than it is about promoting science, rationality, humanism, political action, etc. And if it's not, it darn well should be!
And, as has been discussed here and in public forums, we can't just go off and live our lives with our non-belief when many believers (I won't say all or even most) want to change our lives based on their beliefs.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Kranky: If a person does believe God (or a god or gods) exists, why does he or she need to go to church to reinforce their convictions or belief? Why waste the time and money. The answer, to me, seems simple; if one does believe in God, so be it. Move on and life a life with belief in God.
Just calling your attention to the obvious substitution Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Thank Leonide, you beat me to it.
The truth is Krankykat, if EVERYONE just went off and lived their lives without worrying about what others were doing, thinks would be a lot better.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I think it's less about "we don't believe in God" than it is about promoting science, rationality, humanism, political action, etc.
quote:If by that you are refering to "Pastor Deacon Fred" he is not a pastor. He's the lead character of a website that is a parody of over-the-top evangelical churches.
Really?
I don't care enough to read the description of the convention, but this person's inclusion certainly belies the supposedly positive nature of the convention.
Pro-anything conventions are way more fun than anti-anything conventions. Let me guess: there will be someone there advocating the word "brights" for atheists, right? *amused* Aw well - there are conventions for everything. It's nice to have somewhere to belong.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If athiests are "brights" I don't mind being a "dark."
:conceals himself in the shadows and lurks ominously:
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I don't care enough to read the description of the convention, but this person's inclusion certainly belies the supposedly positive nature of the convention.
Pro-anything conventions are way more fun than anti-anything conventions. Let me guess: there will be someone there advocating the word "brights" for atheists, right? *amused* Aw well - there are conventions for everything. It's nice to have somewhere to belong.
Uh oh, my sarcas-o-meter is going off!
I happen to find the 'pastor' quite amusing, but that's just me.
And, just for the record, I never really liked the term 'brights'. But, if atheists/humanists/etc do end up adopting it, I would suggest using Daniel Dennett's idea. Not brights and dims or brights and darks, but brights and supers.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
That's just it - it's funny, but it's funny in a "let's mock Christians" way. I can't imagine anything more dreary than being at a convention dedicated to mocking some other group.
I did go and look at the website. Maybe there's something good or positive to the group, but you'd never know it from the (poorly-maintained) joke page.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: That's just it - it's funny, but it's funny in a "let's mock Christians" way. I can't imagine anything more dreary than being at a convention dedicated to mocking some other group.
I did go and look at the website. Maybe there's something good or positive to the group, but you'd never know it from the (poorly-maintained) joke page.
I would agree with you if it were a "Pastor Deacon Fred" convention. He seems to only be talking twice over the weekend.
And if you can't mock Fred Phelps, who can you mock?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
There are only two days of workshops. His inclusion at all belies the description given above.
Is it really necessary to officially mock anybody? Like it isn't possible to build community without first establishing an underclass?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Is it really necessary to officially mock anybody?
Necessary? Maybe not.
But I don't seem to find it as objectionable as you do. And I would feel the same even if it were me or a group I was a part of being mocked.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It doesn't matter if you say you wouldn't mind - I'm not basing this on how you would feel. I find that kind of self-aggrandizing mocking to be...I don't know - I think it's funny when it's individual. I'm all for The Daily Show or the Onion. However, when it's CNN or a church or an organization doing it, it seems like the purpose of the organization is not for Making but for tearing down others.
At that point, what separates you from any other anti-people group?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: It doesn't matter if you say you wouldn't mind - I'm not basing this on how you would feel. I find that kind of self-aggrandizing mocking to be...I don't know - I think it's funny when it's individual. I'm all for The Daily Show or the Onion. However, when it's CNN or a church or an organization doing it, it seems like the purpose of the organization is not for Making but for tearing down others.
At that point, what separates you from any other anti-people group?
But it isn't the group. They've hired this single individual to come and do his comedy routine.
And maybe some things need to be torn down. I speak, of course, of Fred Phelps and his church. He has the right to have his religion, his beliefs and to say whatever he likes. But I also have the right to mock him and 'tear him down' with my words if I can.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Saying that it isn't the group but the person the group hired is a false distinction.
Are you seriously justifying anti-people groups by saying the people being anti-ed deserve it?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I also have the right to mock him and 'tear him down' with my words if I can.
You've got the right, that's true.
But whether it's RIGHT to do so is another matter entirely.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Saying that it isn't the group but the person the group hired is a false distinction.
Are you seriously justifying anti-people groups by saying the people being anti-ed deserve it?
I think it's a false distinction to call it an anti-people group.
I'm for arguing points of view, beliefs and ideologies. If I find any of those things silly, wrong or contemptable I don't think it's over the line to point that out or to mock those things.
How would you feel if it was a civil-rights convention with a speaker who mocked racists? I am not saying it's the same thing, but I think it is a fair comparison.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Don't most conventions supporting a particular idea or ideas speak negatively about the people that don't hold the same idea or ideas? Wouldn't a Christian convention talk about sinners going to hell?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Some might, but I'd hope most wouldn't, and I'm pretty sure there are plenty that don't. dkw has probably been to at least a few conferences that didn't have anything like that at all.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Battle of the Javerts!
I'm actually thinking this Deacon Fred guy is going to be my least favorite part of the convention. I'd never heard of him before seeing his name listed as a speaker, so I just Youtubed him (is that a verb yet?). To be honest, I find him rather annoying. And in principle I think I'm mostly in agreement with Javert H on this one.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Wouldn't a Christian convention talk about sinners going to hell?
I can't speak for other Christians, but in the Mormon General Conferences (2x a year, General leadership speaks to all the congregations all over the world) I've never heard this type of condemnation.
Sinners are often called to repentance, and sin itself is addressed...but we don't generally rally around the fact that others are going to be miserable in the eternal hereafter. (That's not even a belief in Mormonism)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Handbook for Religious Demagogues - Chapter 3
Organizing the Athiests
Nothing solidifies power like having an enemy. The majority of theists think we are irrelevant crazies, but if we can make enough people think that we're threatened, the real fun starts. Fear is the perfect tool for motivating the mob. I mean "base".
We can make it an "us or them" situation! We love those. War is great for extremists.
We can get the atheists to give us publicity. We've been having trouble making people believe that we are anything more than fringe extremists, but if we can get the atheists to talk about religion using our terms, as if we were really representative of the mainstream, we have won.
While we're at it, let's see if we can't get the Phelps guy some free publicity while we're at it. He only has a handful of followers (mostly his offspring) but he hates being ignored.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Don't most conventions supporting a particular idea or ideas speak negatively about the people that don't hold the same idea or ideas? Wouldn't a Christian convention talk about sinners going to hell?
Not really, no.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Well that's good to know. Most, if not all, of the Christian assemblies (mostly Episcopalian, a couple Catholic and one or two Baptist and Presbiterian) I've attended, while focusing more on the exhaltation of worship and what-not, still made a point to bring up the punishment for the bereft. Often these points would take the form of comedy sketches where the sinner is made to look ludicrous. (I actually acted in one. I was the host of a 'moral American Idol' that featured a ditzy slut and a moronic druggy rock star)
But, while it's good to know that not all conventions do it, the practice of mocking non-believers is not unheard of, and is fairly common in my experience.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: Wouldn't a Christian convention talk about sinners going to hell? [/QB]
Let's see, the last Christian conference I was at was the Annual meeting of our denomination in this area. We talked about the budget, the camping program, the Bishop's residence, the endowment fund, the bookstore, building more houses for Habitat for Humanity, whether we should petition our General Conference to support same-sex marriage, who would be our delegates to said General Conference, who had new babies in the last year, who died in the last year, whether we should be spending more money than we are on Spanish-language ministries, how nice it was that the lady who does the close-captioning for the conference session could work at home over the internet this year, why the guys running the electronic voting system couldn't seem to get the question on the screen promptly. We ordained a dozen new clergy and honored those who were retiring. We gave awards and recognized people who had completed various educational programs. We had 8 hours or so of worship time, 4 hours of study, 2 hours of hands-on service work, 9-10 hours of discussion of various budget and program issues, several meal breaks, and my son and I were asked at the last minute to participate in liturgical dance at the service of Reaffirmation of Baptism. Somehow we were so busy we must have completely forgotten to mention sinners going to hell.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
vonk: Talk of hell and damnation to me has always been more of a way to hold an audiences attention and keep interest levels up. If you rely on donations for your upkeep then the temptation to preach sermons in that vein can be quite high.
The classic bible thumping minister traveling and asking everyone, "Have you been saved?! Has Jesus saved you from the fires of hell!?" is almost a stereotype. I am sure the pattern evolved as that approach seems to get the most attention from people.
No offense intended to those whose ministers have said those words or say them now.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
BB: I wonder if Fred is along those same veins? Maybe the convention recognizes that he has a large fan base and using him as a draw will bring in more people to educate/more cash flow at the door, even though he may not be the representative that most would choose for atheism. I don't know that that would be a good thing, but it sure beats "a convention dedicated to mocking some other group"(JH 8:33a).
dkw: Do our respective anecdotal evidences cancel each other out?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
vonk: no. But yours was posted while I was writing mine -- mine was in response to your earlier post which seemed to be assuming that of course a Christian convention would be "speaking negatively" of non-Christians.
Any convention that wastes time mocking its opponents should grow up and focus on their own purpose, not tearing down others. That's true whether it's a political convention tearing down the opposing party, a religious convention scorning "unbelievers" or a atheist convention mocking Christians.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:BB: I wonder if Fred is along those same veins? Maybe the convention recognizes that he has a large fan base and using him as a draw will bring in more people to educate/more cash flow at the door, even though he may not be the representative that most would choose for atheism. I don't know that that would be a good thing, but it sure beats "a convention dedicated to mocking some other group"(JH 8:33a).
I am sure he is there to generate attendance/revenue.
I personally think he decreases the good that could be gained at such a convention rather then enhancing it.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I agree with both of you. I just thought it was worth pointing out that this isn't merely a non-thiest phenomenon. It's fairly widespread, and a bad thing in all it's forms.
However, I don't think that a single speaker is enough to bring any convention into the red (ethically that is).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: I agree with both of you. I just thought it was worth pointing out that this isn't merely a non-thiest phenomenon. It's fairly widespread, and a bad thing in all it's forms.
However, I don't think that a single speaker is enough to bring any convention into the red (ethically that is).
Oh I dunno about that. If Fred Phelps was a featured speaker at say sacrament meeting, I would probably refuse to give him any time at the pulpit and have pretty harsh words for my bishop.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Religious Conferences/Events to which I have been invited recently:
quote: Pax Christi USA is pleased to announce this year's conference, The Pursuit of Peace in a Culture of Violence: A National Catholic Conference on Peacemaking, to be held August 10-12, 2007, at Seattle University in Seattle, WA. Seminar presenters include:
Camilo Mejia, the first US soldier to publically refuse to fight in the Iraq War and author of Road from ar-Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia
Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Dr. Jamie Phelps, OP, theologian at Xavier University and director of the Institute for Black Catholic Studies in New Orleans
Rev. Charles Morris, global warming activist and director of Michigan Interfaith Power and Light
Drs. Jeanette Rodriguez and Ted Fortier, professors at Seattle University and authors of Cultural Memory: Resistance, Faith and Identity
Members of the Pax Christi Anti-Racism Team
On Friday, at a pre-conference gathering, Pax Christi USA will host a very special event, A National Grassroots Discernment for the Peoples' Peace Initiative, to gather the voices and experiences from every level of the national Catholic peace and justice movement to articulate the challenges of Catholic peacemaking in the 21st century. Pax Christi local groups and regions are especially encouraged to send a representative to take part in this unprecedented gathering. (Thursday night housing is available.)
quote: We are inviting people of all faiths and political inclinations to come to the small pier on North Shore Beach in Roger’s Park and participate in a ceremony to recognize the profound suffering this war has caused for Iraq, our soldiers and their families, and the people of America and the world.
As many people of many spiritual and religious orientations, we are asking people to open their hearts to this immense suffering by means of performing sun salutations, prostrations or bows, offering prayers, or contributing to a collective altar of flowers, notes, incense, or candles.
quote: Dismantling racism looms large in the conference, but the other priorities of Call To Action are not forgotten: there are sessions about women's ordination, democratic church governance, peacemaking and the war, and the rights of GLBT persons and couples. Our JustChurch Project, launched one year ago, is training CTA members in nonviolent action for change, and where church injustice is most acute, nonviolent action is already occurring.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Note that believing someone is hellbound is a negative view not about a person, but about a destination.
quote:Originally posted by vonk: I agree with both of you. I just thought it was worth pointing out that this isn't merely a non-thiest phenomenon. It's fairly widespread, and a bad thing in all it's forms.
However, I don't think that a single speaker is enough to bring any convention into the red (ethically that is).
Oh I dunno about that. If Fred Phelps was a featured speaker at say sacrament meeting, I would probably refuse to give him any time at the pulpit and have pretty harsh words for my bishop.
Well then, you're my new favorite...um...guy in charge of pulpit use! Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I really don't understand all the blasting of this convention that's going on. I don't go around blasting every religious convention, vacation bible school, movie convention, sci-fi convention, Hatrack convention, political convention, and so on. Why is this atheist convention bringing out so much animosity in people?
You guys seem to think that the majority of the convention will be this:
quote:I can't imagine anything more dreary than being at a convention dedicated to mocking some other group.
The last thing I want to do is go to a convention where it'll be 3 days of religious bashing. I'm also not going so me and a bunch of other atheists can sit around and gloat about how cool it is to be an atheist. If that's what the convention entails, then I'll be severly disappointed.
Here's a list of the convention workshops and panel discussions(leaving out the lectures by the big name speakers):
From Media Zero to Media Hero Secular Parenting - Panel Discussion Legislative Outreach How to Organize, Develop, and Maintain an Atheist Meet-Up Secular Student Alliance Snappy Answers to Religious Questions: How to Combat Common Questions Posed to Atheists in Formal and Informal Settings The Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Liberties Atheists and Freethinkers in the Civil Rights Movement, 1901 - 1950 Who Pulled the Stake Out? The Resurgence of Young Earth Creationism Why Secular Celebrations are Important Group Roundtable Discussion for Learning, Sharing and Networking
Added to that you have one of the worlds eminent evolutionary biologists(Dawkins), one of our countries most respected philosophers(Dennett), a prominent atheist author(Harris, who attacks the dangers of religious dogma and how it affects our society and our morals), and another prominent atheist author(Hitchens, who i really don't know much about, but haven't been impressed by what I've seen so far).
I agree that having someone like Paster Deacon Fred there at the convention takes away from what I feel the convention is trying to do, especially in the eyes of those outside the atheist community. But he is one person, and he's not giving any lectures or hosting any workshops.
Also worth noting is that this is a new thing here. I don't think there have been any of these type of conventions before and I'm sure there's a learning process involved in setting up a quality convention like this. The last thing I want is for my atheism to be defined as "someone against religious organizations", but I understand why it might seem that way in the public eye, because the fact is a lot of the stuff going on now IS a reaction against much of the religious turmoil and religious political agenda in our society.
I'm hoping that the end result of this convention is that a more organized group of like minded people come out of this with a more solid base built to do some good in the world. That the next convention can deal with more specific social and political issues that affect us and the world around us. Atheists are the most distrusted minority in this country. Admitting you're an atheists basically makes you unelectable to any political position. Many people think atheists are all amoral. And also, given how important religion is in this country to social life and community belonging, by becoming an atheist you basically ostracize yourself from a very important part of human existence. This needs to change, and I'm excited at the prospect of trying to figure out how to do that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Strider: Paster DF aside how do you feel about the rest of those workshops/functions you listed? Are all of them in the spirit of uplifting atheists without doing so at the expense of those who do not share that belief?
Or are you of the opinion that overall the convention will be trying to maximize support without being disparaging?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Snappy Answers to Religious Questions: How to Combat Common Questions Posed to Atheists in Formal and Informal Settings
This one sounds designed to further understanding.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Try to get a bunch of atheists together and we're dogmatic.
Invite a satirist to speak and all of a sudden we're terrible demagogues.
Sheesh.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Strider, I hope for your sake that the convention is what you hope it to be.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Yeah, the Threat of Religous Right and Snappy Answers to Religious Questions ones seem to be rather anti-religion. The others seem to be positive though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Justapose, I didn't say you were demagogues; I said you were doing their work for them.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote: Snappy Answers to Religious Questions: How to Combat Common Questions Posed to Atheists in Formal and Informal Settings
This one sounds designed to further understanding.
maybe you've never had to deal with being an atheist and being assaulted by religious folk about how outrageous it is for you to not believe in God or that everything in the bible happened. I don't think it's wrong to help people hone their debating skills.
I really think you people are forgetting that this isn't a preexisting group getting together to talk about issues. This is a group in the process of being formed. I don't know that it's that easy to just jump into a convention and do everything perfectly. Also, I'm only one atheist and all I can tell you is the things I'm interested in. Everyone else may not be there for the same reason, and that's only something I can find out after the fact.
Blackbade, I don't think any of those workshops listed are particularly disparaging to religion or religious groups. Though it does seem that there is more focus on "atheism against religion", rather than "ok, atheism...now what?"
lucky for me, i can go to the workshops i'm interested in lieu of ones that i'm not interested in.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
That's a pretty fine line, but fair enough. I'm also pretty sure your tongue was ever so slightly in your cheek.
I was more responding to the general tone I've been seeing in this thread. You just gave me the word I wanted to use.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I would guess that a great many of the anti-religion portions of the convention is backlash against religious attacks...real or perceived.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I would guess that a great many of the anti-religion portions of the convention is backlash against religious attacks...real or perceived.
Which are a reaction to attacks against religion...real or perceived (or invented and magnified)...
It is a swinging pendulum. Change has to happen, but people are threatened by it. Fear leads to exploitation. This is why I think you are aiding the religious extremes rather than fighting them.
It would have been nice to see a convention that was interested in moving forward. This one seems like it is just swinging the pendulum further.
I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
kmbboots, what would you have us do/say then?
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
A lot of that sort of thing is justified as defensive.
Maybe the event will be free of "mocking some other group," but it doesn't sound promising to me. Especially the part comparing creationists to vampires.
Why are secular celebrations important?
1. They're fun
Works for me. Maybe the lecture will be about that long, and the rest of the time can be hands-on experiential.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I agree with kmbboots, it just seems several of the workshops are in the vein of, "How are we going to deal with these religious crazies in society." You only swing the pendulum of violence back and forth that way.
If a religious convention had the following worshops, "Snappy Answers to Atheist challenges: How to Combat Common Questions Posed to Christians in Formal and Informal Settings.
The Threat of the Atheist left to Our Modern Liberties
Time to bury the stake: How we are going to get evolution out of our schools.
I'd be very disappointed and I would divorce myself from the Christians hosting those workshops.
Why can't the workshops be something like,
Answers to Religious Questions: How to Combat Misconceptions about Atheists in Formal and Informal Settings.
The Threat of Intolerance: Protecting our Modern Liberties.
The Resurgence of Young Earth Creationism: An Appeal To The Facts.
What of those?
I would hate to see the convention foster something akin to "The Black Panthers" rather then the civil rights movement lead by Dr. Martin Luther King.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Javert, honestly? I would love to see conventions about doing something good in the world. If you noticed the religions conventions/events I listed, they were about trying to help in larger or smaller ways.
"Atheism Convention 2007 - Fighting Global Hunger" would be a great conference for example.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:(1)Answers to Religious Questions: How to Combat Misconceptions about Atheists in Formal and Informal Settings.
(2)The Threat of Intolerance: Protecting our Modern Liberties.
(3)The Resurgence of Young Earth Creationism: An Appeal To The Facts.
As loath as I am to judge a workshop, real or imagined, entirely on its title...
1. This would be better. We don't need one-liners.
2. There's nothing wrong with the organizers targeting a specific source of intolerance for discussion.
3. At an atheists' conference "An Appeal To The Facts" would probably be rightly seen as redundant. YCE is harmful and we should be trying to kill it.
quote:"Atheism Convention 2007 - Fighting Global Hunger" would be a great conference for example.
A great idea, but we'd need to be organized first. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Well seeing as how I just threw those out, I'm feeling pretty good about your criticisms
2: To say that "Religion" and "Right Wing/Conservative" are synonymous is ridiculous. But fine, if its a perceived threat, address it.
3: We clearly see the issue diferently, so we don't really need to argue on this point.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Especially the part comparing creationists to vampires.
They are not comparing creationists to vampires, they are comparing the creationist "movement" as a political issue to a vampire, as it was largely dead but has reanimated in the last few years.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Especially the part comparing creationists to vampires.
They are not comparing creationists to vampires, they are comparing the creationist "movement" as a political issue to a vampire, as it was largely dead but has reanimated in the last few years.
Wouldn't that be a zombie?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:"Atheism Convention 2007 - Fighting Global Hunger" would be a great conference for example.
A great idea, but we'd need to be organized first.
Yeah. It would just be pretty cool if you could organize around something other than defining what you are not. And, really, if someone has put together a conference, you already have an organization. Somebody is printing those flyers, deciding on speakers, making hotel reservations, etc.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm having an extremely hard time responding to this thread without being snarky, so I'm going to hold off.
In the meantime, here's an example of dialogue I consider positive. Of course, the dialogue isn't necessarily between atheists and theists.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It would just be pretty cool if you could organize around something other than defining what you are not.
I really hate the idea that atheists being defined by what they are not is a bad thing. Atheists are defined by their unique characteristics just like any other defined group. For atheists, the identifying characteric is that they lack the religious belief held by the majority of the population. That is both what they are (nonbelievers) and what they are not (believers).
When "little people" hold a convention, they are there to talk about the issues that they face in a world dominated by people that are taller than them. You can say they are being defined by what they are not (tall) but that's a distraction from the point of definition. Definition allows differentiation and that differentiation is the key, not whether the differences exist because of the existence of absence of features.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
MattP, you know how political analysts are always taling about how the Democratic Party needs to promote a platform that has more to that just being anti-Bush? This is similar.
Differentiation is not necessarily a good thing. Do we really need more reasons to isolate ourselves?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: MattP, you know how political analysts are always taling about how the Democratic Party needs to promote a platform that has more to that just being anti-Bush? This is similar.
Differentiation is not necessarily a good thing. Do we really need more reasons to isolate ourselves?
The problem is being atheist doesn't necessarily mean anything other than the fact that you're an atheist. You can be democrat, republican, liberal, conservative, socialist, facist, capitalist, isolationist...anything.
I think it was Dawkins who said that organizing atheists is like trying to herd cats. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just like religion.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Differentiation is not necessarily a good thing. Do we really need more reasons to isolate ourselves?
Differentiation is neither positive, nor negative. It's descriptive and therefore neutral. As Javert says, there is only one universal defining characteristic to atheists and that characteristic brings a pretty standard set of challenges into their lives. People with similar challenges tend to congregate to share strategies for dealing with them.
Being an atheist can be very isolating so I'm all for any sort of organization that facilitates community amongst atheists, even if some portion of it seems objectionable to theists. There's nothing wrong, for instance, with learning a few snappy (i.e. quick/brief/smart) answers to common challenges issued by theists.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Which is why we're not, for example, going to have a "stop world hunger" convention...not all atheists would be behind it.
Our convention has to cover the only subject we agree on...we're not religious and we don't want the religious to have control over our lives.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:2: To say that "Religion" and "Right Wing/Conservative" are synonymous is ridiculous.
That would be ridiculous. I don't think anyone's said that here. We have enough counter examples right here to disprove such a statement. Hell, my mom has been showing me otherwise my entire life. I recognize that it's unfortunate for someone like you who is religious, conservative, and interested in protecting our rights. However there is a conservative/religious movement in the US that I strongly suspect is a threat to our civil liberties. Given that I want to give a talk where I make the case that this is so, then outline preventative measures, what should I title it?
-------
quote:Yeah. It would just be pretty cool if you could organize around something other than defining what you are not.
I agree. Unfortunately, atheism is, at least in part, a reaction against religion. I would love to see us move beyond that, but we're just not at that stage yet. Atheism isn't new, but it hasn't been that long since it was unsafe to be open about it. Open, mainstream dialog is only just starting to happen. For us, to explain to people who we are and what we believe will necessarily entail explaining what we are not, and don't believe.
quote:And, really, if someone has put together a conference, you already have an organization. Somebody is printing those flyers, deciding on speakers, making hotel reservations, etc.
Yes, and again, it's very new. It's patently unfair to compare an atheist organization to a religious one. As much as I wish it were otherwise, atheism has gotten and will get more press than humanism. I don't really blame the media. They know what sells, and deciding between those two is a no-brainer. At any rate, I hope it's not too long before we can begin doing philanthropic work (and publicizing it, too).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I hope so, too. And I hope this won't be just more fuel for the fire. Good luck.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
What we should do is just hold our own "Atheists of Hatrack" convention so we know that it will turn out right.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
well said Jux.
Javert, the convention sold out but they just opened up a few more tickets for sale. Last chance if want in!
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:Strider, I hope for your sake that the convention is what you hope it to be.
kat, i don't for one second believe you feel this way.
edit: i feel like i should clarify: you've spent the whole thread telling us all how descipable the very idea of the convention is, so i very much doubt that you hope anything like what you just said. If you don't like the concept, that's okay -- I very much doubt Greg started this thread to get believers interested in going. It's to let other atheists know it's happening.
The thing i find most frustrating about the discussion in this thread is the willful disdain towards the legitimate desire we atheists attending have for a gathering like this.
In short, while I appreciate your concern, kmmboots, and while I acknowledge the dislike for such a convention the religious here might have, I know *I'm* still going. I think I'm going to have a lot of fun. I think I'm going to learn some interesting things, hear speakers I've been wanting to hear, and meet like-minded people who will hopefully want to have stimulating discussions with me. If i was gunning for a free-for-all religious-right-bashing-session, well, I don't know that I would have lasted as long at Hatrack as I have. Or in my day-to-day living either
Just because others at the convention will be interested in that kind of gathering, does not mean I have to play into it. I think the Hatrack atheists attending, most of us being long-standing members here, would appreciate the benefit of the doubt
[ July 12, 2007, 03:32 AM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Er... I don't think it was kmboots or kat that said that, Leonide. It was Javert Hugo.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As best I can recall, Javert Hugo is kat.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Javert, the convention sold out but they just opened up a few more tickets for sale. Last chance if want in! [/QB]
Sadly I don't have the time, the funds or the transportation to get there. But I'm sure it will be great. I just hope they hold one in Philadelphia some time soon, because then I'll be all over it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Javert Hugo is kat.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Javert Hugo is kat.
What? You didn't know?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:kat, i don't for one second believe you feel this way.
Then you're really wrong and putting a remarkably uncharitable reading on what was a very sincere statement.
I can tell that there's a real need for a positive sense of community and that he hungers for it. How much of a witch would I have to be to hope that need goes unmet? I'm not, and you are wrong and do me a serious disservice to think so.
Maybe some of the hostility you feel is only in your head.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:I can tell that there's a real need for a positive sense of community and that he hungers for it.
Well, I don't think you could be more wrong. If there's anyone I've ever met LESS looking for his own "positive sense of community," it's Greg. He's pretty happy with his life and his group of friends. What he IS looking for, which you can't seem to acknowledge, is a stimulating, interesting convention. And possibly Richard Dawkins' autograph.
quote:How much of a witch would I have to be to hope that need goes unmet? I'm not, and you are wrong and do me a serious disservice to think so.
If your take on his psyche and the entire situation were remotely accurate, I'd be a lot more willing to hear you out. As it stands, you are once again assigning motives to someone through an only cursory knowledge of their personalities, based solely on your dislike of the things they're interested in doing. I know you don't have much use for atheism, and I complete respect *your* desire to go to a church and sit and listen to someone remind you about things you already know about (a description others have used here to describe the AAI convention) -- and if a religion doesn't give most religious folk that positive sense of community you're talking about, I really don't know what does.
quote: Maybe some of the hostility you feel is only in your head
That's completely possible. I frequently hear my neurons throwing dishes against the walls and cheering loudly -- sometimes i misinterpret that as hostility in a Hatrack Thread.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: and if a religion doesn't give most religious folk that positive sense of community you're talking about, I really don't know what does.
Of course it does. A positive sense of community is a good thing -- and I would include stimulating discussion on topics of mutual interest under that heading. I'm not sure why you seem to be reading it as a slight. Or am I misreading you?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I didn't know kat was Javert Hugo.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I didn't know kat was Javert Hugo.
Well now you know. And knowledge is power!
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Wanting a positive sense of community is so not an insult. It doesn't mean at all that someone is unhappy with their lives. Seriously - it is neither unkindly nor witchily meant. I'm not real happy about your rash assumption of my ill will.
In the course of the discussion, Strider expressed regret at some of the negative inclusions and hoped for a positive experience. Since he's a member of (the positive community of) Hatrack, I hope he gets it. You're tilting at windmills here.
Also, I think Strider can take care of himself. If he wants to rail at me for hoping that he finds what he's looking for, he can do that.
[ July 12, 2007, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If knowledge is power, and ignorance is bliss...
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Okay, I just registered the discussion about Javert Hugo. *waves* It's katharina. I had forgotten about this alt, and Javert generously reminded me.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Always glad to inspire confusion. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If knowledge is power, and ignorance is bliss...
Then I am the most miserable person ever to exist.
edit: But Scott is clearly the most happy. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
BTW, Strider, think you could get me Dawkins' autograph maybe...? Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I am the Lord of All Fools.
I am simultaneously the most powerful and the happiest person you will ever know.
Ever, ever.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I'm sorry, kat -- I did just assume you meant that in the worst possible way. I was talking with Strider about this independently of Hatrack, and I was assuming you meant the statement in a condescending way, i.e.: "you must be so unhappy with your life, that you would "hunger" for this convention to give you a sense of community."
Of course a positive sense of community isn't a negative thing. Assuming that someone's unhappy with their life because they're in search of one is. I apologize for assuming that *that* was what you meant.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Oh, it's okay. I didn't mean that negative part at all. I think wanting a positive sense of community is engrained in being human, and there's usually room for more. For me, there's always room for more.
I think it's nicer to not assume the worst about people.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go wish someone a happy birthday and see what happens next. *twinkle*
[ July 13, 2007, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Knowledge is power. That's why everyone's so afraid of librarians.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: Knowledge is power. That's why everyone's so afraid of librarians.
For me it was more that I was sure at any moment their eyes could turn red, a snarl would escape their lips and I'd be chased out of the confines of the library for daring to return a book late even though I had exact change for the fine.
As a child I used to think that once I grew up and librarians would no longer be twice my size, that their sinister qualities would melt away; boy was I wrong.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
@ Mighty Cow![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)