Below is a comment I left on another blog. I thought it would be nice in my blog too:)
I was raised without religion. Religious people were a strange minority. Nice, but silly. Mostly older people. The young ones would sing around candle light and oppose the military(draft). Actually, I didn't think too much about religion because my view was the common view. Now I’m in the US and things are the other way around. The religious ones are the majority and they are in favor of death penalty and war! Very confusing. I read and think more and more about religion, and it feels sillier than ever before. Not that I can't understand the mindset and the power of upbringing, brainwashing and the opinion of the masses. Anyway. I started telling my kids (4 and 6) when they started a discussion among themselves (they are going to a Christian after-school care) whether god was dead or not (confusion between god and jesus?): There is no god, people just made up gods through the ages for comfort etc. Meanwhile I did some reading (Parenting beyond belief) and thinking, and I decided if I force them into non-belief, they could be seduced in anything other as well. So I encourage more critical thinking now. Just asking questions. “Do you think Santa is real? How do you think this or that works. What has been your experience so far? Etc.” I will not be upset for them if they join a religion. I will be upset if they don’t think, but just follow blindly. Of course I will be happy if they come to similar conclusions as me, because that’s what make sense to me…
Friday, October 26, 2007
Joined Atheist Blogroll
It seems that atheists blogs are growing exponentially. However, I'm not sure if just more people get out of the closet, or if all kinds of blogs are growing exponentially!
I decided to join Mojoeys Atheist Blogroll to be part of the fun...
One scary thing though: so many people don't know how to spell atheist!
I decided to join Mojoeys Atheist Blogroll to be part of the fun...
One scary thing though: so many people don't know how to spell atheist!
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Doing some reading
Check out what they are reading... Well actually it's the same person twice. I'm pretty proud of myself for what I did with Photoshop!
Monday, October 8, 2007
Responses to Sam Harris' article
Some smart answers to Sam Harris article I found so far:
Ellen Johnson:
http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=317&article=1
...Is the American Cancer Society just "against" something because they fight against cancer? Are they a "negative" organization? Is Greenpeace a negative organization because they are against pollution? Sounds silly doesn't it? Yet we buy into this nonsense when it is said about us.
In the end, the Theist doesn't give a damn what we call ourselves. You can call yourselves "sugar" and they will still hate you and lie about you if you are an activist or if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior.
While we remain hung up on arguments over defining ourselves the extremist right wing Theists in America are defining the socio-political agenda for America and they don't give a damn what you think about their names.
...
PZ Meyers
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/letter_to_a_nonatheist_new_ath.php
...ike you, I look forward to a post-theist future when the term "atheist" is a quaint relic that lacks any contemporary context, as silly as saying that one is an a-Zeusist or an aleprechaunist. That time is not now, and you are ignoring reality to pretend that it is. We do have a context that makes atheism relevant and appropriate: we are immersed in a deeply irrational religious culture. Those labels you denigrate — "atheists," "humanists," "secular humanists," "naturalists," "skeptics," "anti-theists," "rationalists," "freethinkers," and "brights" — are useful rallying cries for the tiny, scattered bubbles of rationality drifting in the sea of superstition and ignorance. It's how we find each other and grow. It's how we build whole communities working for a common cause, rather than acting as isolated individuals....
It doesn't matter if you try to abandon the name, it's going to stick to you and us for a good long time; what we need to do is build our own positive values beneath that tag and change its meaning from within.
From the discussion on Sam Harris website:
We have to consider the context of this debate. Whatever label we embrace or is bestowed on us, be it atheists, rationalists, Brights, humanists or whatever, the core fact is that we are a minority.
At the same time, we know that many people who do not see themselves as atheists nevertheless harbor doubts about their faith. So the key challenge in moving toward a rational society is encouraging people with doubts to accept the validity of that doubt. This is a tall order in a culture that exerts cradle to grave pressure to reject doubt.
The primary benefit of a widely recognized atheism “brand”, as it were, is that it says to doubters, hey - there are other people who are thinking this too. I am not alone..
It is exactly this effect that sparked the ‘New Atheism’ movement. The books have presented the reasons why faith is a fallacy, but they also served as a rallying point for millions who now saw their amorphous doubt presented with sharp, bright clarity.
Where people once felt obligated to keep their doubts shrouded in opaque minds, now they see other minds going transparent, espousing rational thought, the fire of ideas carried forth by a label: atheism.
The value of a label isn’t so much for the world at large - it’s a way of telling a minority group that, yes, there are other people who think as you do. It establishes a point of gravity that can attract others on the edges.
I’m very glad Sam brought this up; we need to examine the tactical approaches to changing the culture. I think in the current context, the Out campaign is useful. The need for it will diminish in proportion to its success.
--------------------------------
“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.”
—Gene Roddenberry
“All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few.”
—Stendhal
Ellen Johnson:
http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=317&article=1
...Is the American Cancer Society just "against" something because they fight against cancer? Are they a "negative" organization? Is Greenpeace a negative organization because they are against pollution? Sounds silly doesn't it? Yet we buy into this nonsense when it is said about us.
In the end, the Theist doesn't give a damn what we call ourselves. You can call yourselves "sugar" and they will still hate you and lie about you if you are an activist or if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior.
While we remain hung up on arguments over defining ourselves the extremist right wing Theists in America are defining the socio-political agenda for America and they don't give a damn what you think about their names.
...
PZ Meyers
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/letter_to_a_nonatheist_new_ath.php
...ike you, I look forward to a post-theist future when the term "atheist" is a quaint relic that lacks any contemporary context, as silly as saying that one is an a-Zeusist or an aleprechaunist. That time is not now, and you are ignoring reality to pretend that it is. We do have a context that makes atheism relevant and appropriate: we are immersed in a deeply irrational religious culture. Those labels you denigrate — "atheists," "humanists," "secular humanists," "naturalists," "skeptics," "anti-theists," "rationalists," "freethinkers," and "brights" — are useful rallying cries for the tiny, scattered bubbles of rationality drifting in the sea of superstition and ignorance. It's how we find each other and grow. It's how we build whole communities working for a common cause, rather than acting as isolated individuals....
It doesn't matter if you try to abandon the name, it's going to stick to you and us for a good long time; what we need to do is build our own positive values beneath that tag and change its meaning from within.
From the discussion on Sam Harris website:
We have to consider the context of this debate. Whatever label we embrace or is bestowed on us, be it atheists, rationalists, Brights, humanists or whatever, the core fact is that we are a minority.
At the same time, we know that many people who do not see themselves as atheists nevertheless harbor doubts about their faith. So the key challenge in moving toward a rational society is encouraging people with doubts to accept the validity of that doubt. This is a tall order in a culture that exerts cradle to grave pressure to reject doubt.
The primary benefit of a widely recognized atheism “brand”, as it were, is that it says to doubters, hey - there are other people who are thinking this too. I am not alone..
It is exactly this effect that sparked the ‘New Atheism’ movement. The books have presented the reasons why faith is a fallacy, but they also served as a rallying point for millions who now saw their amorphous doubt presented with sharp, bright clarity.
Where people once felt obligated to keep their doubts shrouded in opaque minds, now they see other minds going transparent, espousing rational thought, the fire of ideas carried forth by a label: atheism.
The value of a label isn’t so much for the world at large - it’s a way of telling a minority group that, yes, there are other people who think as you do. It establishes a point of gravity that can attract others on the edges.
I’m very glad Sam brought this up; we need to examine the tactical approaches to changing the culture. I think in the current context, the Out campaign is useful. The need for it will diminish in proportion to its success.
--------------------------------
“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.”
—Gene Roddenberry
“All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few.”
—Stendhal
Sunday, October 7, 2007
The back lash to the back lash
It has been often mentioned, that the rise and the success (bestseller etc.) of the new prominent atheist (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens) is a back lash because the religious, especially the evangelicals/fundamentalists have become to loud and prominent.
However there seems to be another trend now, coming out from some of the famous freethinkers themselves: Michael Shermer is accusing Dawkins and Harris and others to be too loud and too angry and rather side with the moderates than to make all religious people angry by treating them the same.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1551,Rational-Atheism,Michael-Shermer-Scientific-American
Sam Harris meanwhile has decided that he doesn't want to be called an atheist or something similar, but rather go underground and just point out unreasonable things to fellow humans: because nobody will say to be against reason:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1702,n,n
Well, things of course are never easy. While I acknowledge that most people around me are pretty smart and pretty well meaning (they only suspend logical thinking from time to time), I still would fight against them brainwashing my kids and for my right to not be religious without having to hide the fact (to not have disadvantages or worse). I would to be able to call myself an atheist without most people thinking: "an immoral and evil person!".
We will see what the future will bring, but I'm extremely encouraged by the many blogs and other articles of smart people without religion on the web these days.
http://comingoutgodless.blogspot.com/
They are growing by the minute! I have seen big changes in people's opinion happen in a short time, so we will see. On the other hand, churches are such enterprises and social clubs, many people are too busy being involved to find time to think different thoughts!
However there seems to be another trend now, coming out from some of the famous freethinkers themselves: Michael Shermer is accusing Dawkins and Harris and others to be too loud and too angry and rather side with the moderates than to make all religious people angry by treating them the same.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1551,Rational-Atheism,Michael-Shermer-Scientific-American
Sam Harris meanwhile has decided that he doesn't want to be called an atheist or something similar, but rather go underground and just point out unreasonable things to fellow humans: because nobody will say to be against reason:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1702,n,n
Well, things of course are never easy. While I acknowledge that most people around me are pretty smart and pretty well meaning (they only suspend logical thinking from time to time), I still would fight against them brainwashing my kids and for my right to not be religious without having to hide the fact (to not have disadvantages or worse). I would to be able to call myself an atheist without most people thinking: "an immoral and evil person!".
We will see what the future will bring, but I'm extremely encouraged by the many blogs and other articles of smart people without religion on the web these days.
http://comingoutgodless.blogspot.com/
They are growing by the minute! I have seen big changes in people's opinion happen in a short time, so we will see. On the other hand, churches are such enterprises and social clubs, many people are too busy being involved to find time to think different thoughts!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
