failures art
 
  1  
Sat 2 Oct, 2010 07:10 pm
@edgarblythe,
I think Hitchens was brought up (recently) because he is dying. He could die before the end of the year. This spawned one of spendi's most offensive (and yet depressingly predictable) responses that suggested (despite him denying such a thing, teeth showing) that Hitchen's cancer might be a product of his atheism. This sentiment, even if meant to troll, is something far bigger than any of the new atheists. It is the same statement made on my facebook wall about Hitchens that when he dies, he "will wish he had changed the name of his book."

This sadistic bullying is unacceptable. And if Hitchens is worth talking about, let it be to illustrate this: That our society allows for too many messages that validate this kind of thing, and ideas that allow for this kind of harassment aren't best fought by being reasonable.

So we can be done with Hitchens. I just thought his reply deserved some defense.

A
R
T
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Sat 2 Oct, 2010 07:19 pm
@failures art,
That's a point I can agree with. I remember when it was brought up and I voiced the same opinion as yours. My major complaint is the way we all seem to be expected to care about Dawkins so much that we center all discussion around his abrasive treatment of religion. It's as if it were brought up just to get a litmus test of who disagrees with him.
failures art
 
  1  
Sat 2 Oct, 2010 07:26 pm
@edgarblythe,
I say forget that these people represent atheism (not that they do in any special sort of ambassador function). They are simply fascinating people who happen to be atheists. We'd be talking about Michael Jordan if he was an atheist and had wrote about his experience. That's all.

I don't like the idea of a litmus, and it wouldn't work anyways because these men don't necessarily agree with each other. I do see where this idea gets momentum though.

A
R
T
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Sat 2 Oct, 2010 07:28 pm
@failures art,
We'd be talking about Michael Jordan if he was an atheist and had wrote about his experience. That's all.

I do not think that I would! Now if he was as smart as them then yes I would agree
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Sat 2 Oct, 2010 07:30 pm
@reasoning logic,
But we talk to this day about Muhammed Ali becoming a Muslim. Smile
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Sat 2 Oct, 2010 07:36 pm
@edgarblythe,
Who is Muhammed Ali ?
failures art
 
  1  
Sat 2 Oct, 2010 07:38 pm
@reasoning logic,
I disagree, and ed found a perfect example. Ali was quite inteligent, but he was a transformational figure who inspired. His experience is no less interesting because he was an athlete. If there is something that people can relate to, in such a person, we will read it. IMO, we are especially interested in such iconic figures, because we want to have an impact as well.

A
R
T
failures art
 
  1  
Sat 2 Oct, 2010 07:39 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Who is Muhammed Ali ?

A very famous Muslim American boxer and Vietnam war protester.

A
R
T
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Sat 2 Oct, 2010 07:47 pm
@failures art,
Sorry about that I was just playing stupid! He stings like a bee
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Sat 2 Oct, 2010 07:51 pm
@failures art,
You are correct as many people will follow people like this, I just happen to have a different taste in the people that inspire me!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 3 Oct, 2010 04:29 am
@failures art,
Quote:
This spawned one of spendi's most offensive (and yet depressingly predictable) responses that suggested (despite him denying such a thing, teeth showing) that Hitchen's cancer might be a product of his atheism.


I suggested no such thing. And I explained why I didn't which ought to have been un-necessary if my original statement had been read properly rather than interpreted by people on the defensive too much and with an insecurity complex.

I suggested that there is a possibility that the inner conflict between promoting atheism and having had a Christian socialisation is a potential cause of stress and repressed stress at that. Freud and Wilhelm Reich, and others, have drawn attention, Reich in a full length book, to links between psychological conflict and disease. I went out of my way to point out that someone who had known nothing else but atheism would not have such an inner conflict in promoting atheism in order that it was clear that the atheism itself is not the potential cause of cell malfunction and nor is there any reason why it should be or any reason why anybody would suggest it is.

The assertion that I bared my teeth in a snarl is as valid as any other similarly stupid and gratuitous assertion.

And by returning to the matter, as you have done, you have given the matter another un-necessary airing and by failing to counter the suggestion, as is the case, you have allowed it to come to the attention of more people and more emphatically.

When it comes to "sadistic bullying" none of us have the skill to come close to matching the quote from Mr Hitchens given earlier in italics.

If people are going to be charged with sadistic bullying simply for pointing out things that are well known, well documented and the subject of much research, we are in a situation where dumbing down is being foisted upon us by a grossly gratuitous assertion, by a wilful misreading of what we say, and by slimy literary tricks such as the use of "might" in the statement quoted.

The assertion, which is implied in your post, that inner psychological conflict and the resulting repressed stress is not one of the potential causes of cell malfunction flies in the face of the research being done on the problem. To dismiss this aspect of psychosomatic manifestations with a casual flick of the wrist is to write off this important area of the inner life as the possible source of finding reductions in the frequency of illness.

But I understand why atheists need to dismiss psychosomatic manifestations. Their whole case falls apart if they don't. Having dismissed them we are then left at the mercy of mechanical and chemical cures and prevention methods much to the delight of those professionally engaged in providing them. Your life in their hands.

One other product Mr Hitchens' promotion of atheism has been a nice easy lifestyle, with fame and fortune, without getting his hands dirty supplying food, security and warmth to the population. There is no might about that.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Sun 3 Oct, 2010 05:07 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
Lots of atheist fear social rejection and feel that they have a lesser right to express their views openly and with the comfort that others do.


I've never seen that. I don't think your anecdotal experience trumps anyone else's anecdotal experience.

These days, the pushy, preachy christian is longer tolerated as they were in say the 1950s or -60s. Christians whine about it, too. A chrisitan could as easily say (and some do) that they feel they have a lesser right to express their views openly, etc.

I don't shout my lack of belief from the roof tops, but i don't scurry into hiding if the subject of religion comes up, either. I'm not out to convert anyone, and i don't think most of the religious have any such goal, either. I believe that for sake of social lubrication, christians are as likely to forego forceful statements of their belief, just as i will forego a forceful statement of my lack of belief to avoid a socially awkward situation. That's called consideration, not cowardice.

I'm sure many of the religiously convinced get tired of being lumped in with clowns like Pat Robertson and Oral Roberts. That's just exactly how i feel about clowns like Hitchens and Dawkins.
Setanta
 
  2  
Sun 3 Oct, 2010 05:17 am
I'm dubious about referring to Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali as a "Vietnam War" protester. Clay attempted to join the military and was rejected because of his test scores. Later, the scoring standards were revised, and the now Mohammed Ali became eligible for the draft. He stated that he would refuse to serve because of the teachings of the Quran. It was only later that he made his remark to the effect that the Viet Cong had never called him n*gger--by that time public opposition to the war had grown, and a stance like that was useful to someone who had been convicted of draft evasion and lost one appeal after the other.

I don't think we need to be erecting false idols here. There were thousands of young men who heroically resisted, and there many thousands more who heroically endured being conscripted. Ali gets more attention than he deserves because he was a well-known pugilist and because he was already controversial for public statements about boxing and race relations. It is more than a little ironic that his decision to resist conscription, based on his religious belief, is getting him made out to be a hero in a thread about being an atheist.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 3 Oct, 2010 05:42 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
I'm sure many of the religiously convinced get tired of being lumped in with clowns like Pat Robertson and Oral Roberts. That's just exactly how i feel about clowns like Hitchens and Dawkins.


Why are these people classed as "clowns"? They have successfully milked their respective udders and filled their buckets to overflowing. It is their followers who are the clowns and who have nothing to show for it except authoritative validation of their own position which shouldn't need such validation if it is secure in the first place.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Sun 3 Oct, 2010 06:03 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

failures art wrote:
Lots of atheist fear social rejection and feel that they have a lesser right to express their views openly and with the comfort that others do.


I've never seen that. I don't think your anecdotal experience trumps anyone else's anecdotal experience.

Who is trying to trump?

Setanta wrote:

These days, the pushy, preachy christian is longer tolerated as they were in say the 1950s or -60s.

I can't comment on the 50s and 60s, but preachy Christians are not only tolerated today, but get rich on it and develop powerful media platforms. I don't see how you can say that this is not tolerated. I'd say it's encouraged and rewarded.

Setanta wrote:

Christians whine about it, too. A chrisitan could as easily say (and some do) that they feel they have a lesser right to express their views openly, etc.

If you'd like to evaluate to two claims against each other, be my guest.

Setanta wrote:

I don't shout my lack of belief from the roof tops, but i don't scurry into hiding if the subject of religion comes up, either. I'm not out to convert anyone, and i don't think most of the religious have any such goal, either.

It's not about shouting from the rooftops. This isn't a goal of mine or anyone I know.

Setanta wrote:

I believe that for sake of social lubrication, christians are as likely to forego forceful statements of their belief, just as i will forego a forceful statement of my lack of belief to avoid a socially awkward situation. That's called consideration, not cowardice.

We will disagree. I do not believe that such considerations are so often taken.

Setanta wrote:

I'm sure many of the religiously convinced get tired of being lumped in with clowns like Pat Robertson and Oral Roberts. That's just exactly how i feel about clowns like Hitchens and Dawkins.

Again, if you'd like to make the comparison, be my guest.

A
R
T
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 3 Oct, 2010 06:22 am
Two quotes from Samuel Johnson which have a bearing on my last post--

Quote:
.......do not accustom yourself to enchain your volatility by vows; they will sometime leave a thorn in your mind, which you will, perhaps, never be able to extract or reject. Take this warning; it is of great importance.


Quote:
I wish there were some cure, like the lover's leap, for all heads of which some single idea has obtained an unreasonable and irregular possession.


From a letter to James Boswell Aug 21, 1766.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Sun 3 Oct, 2010 06:24 am
@failures art,
I didn't say that anyone is trying to trump, i'm just pointing out that one person's anecdotal experience is as good as another's. Your claim was about atheists fearing social rejection and feeling that they have a lesser right to express their views openly. That is a reference to everday experience, and is not reasonably compared to some televangelist clown prancing about the stage and getting rich from it. Since the launch point for this part of the discussion in this thread was Hitchens and Dawkins, it is worth noting that they make money from their endeavors, just as do the televangelists, albeit probably with not nearly the same degree of success. So you're comparing apples to oranges simply for sake of sustaining a feeble argument. If you're going to talk about "everyday" atheists being reluctant to declare their views, it is not appropriate to drag in Pat Robertson or others like him for a comparison. Socially, strident religious evangelizing is unpleasant and unwelcome.

You started this, but now you want to shift the burden of sustaining a position--you're trying to weasel out. You claimed atheists are reluctant to acknowledge that they are. If you have no more basis for such a claim than your anecdotal experience, than i am happy to point out once again both that that is not my experience, and that one person's anecdotal experience is no more valid than someone else's--it doesn't trump anyone else's claim. Don't tell me about comparisons. If you have no proof for your claims, my unproven claims are just as good as yours. Keep your snide, childish and ineptly expressed resentments to yourself.
failures art
 
  1  
Sun 3 Oct, 2010 06:39 am
@Setanta,
Then forget anecdotes all together. When polls come out that Atheists are the least trusted minority in the USA, it can make atheists feel like they are hated or should have to work harder to earn the trust of a disapproving majority. It reinforces the idea that we need to be "reasonable atheists" (read: silent).

That when added media messages on sad and unfulfilled atheists further feed the idea of atheist ascetics. Name three atheist characters in popular books/TV/film. They are always socially inept, rude, sad and hard to get along with.

It's the Lt. Dan meme; that behind everything, the atheist is just angry and bitter. That if they accept religion (and pop media has a suggestion on which one they should pick) they will be happier.

http://tp4ww.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/6071754_14b54a27cb_m.jpg
poof!
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRrMmc1xp546bKQTSwfZ87RzMpKXErHD3FA1kc7vaswXRxLnWg&t=1&usg=__NBgWHVJKAHOwWKsULfF2GS2Xzxc=

You don't think this kind of media has an affect on people? You don't think that this sort of message places social pressure on people to comply with a social narrative?

A
R
T

Setanta
 
  2  
Sun 3 Oct, 2010 06:51 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
You don't think this kind of media has an affect on people? You don't think that this sort of message places social pressure on people to comply with a social narrative?


No, i don't. People who abandon theism don't do so because they think it will enhance their social lives. People who come to adopt an atheist point of view, in my experience, do so from conviction. So no, i don't think puerile attitudes toward social acceptance reminiscent of high school are a motivating factor at all. Personally, i don't give a rat's ass if the "public" trust me, nor how atheists are portrayed in popular media. I certainly have no respect for anyone whose basis for their most deeply held convictions is whether nor not they'll get invited to parties. Those sorts of attitudes are characteristic of politicians, who'll say anything to be "liked." I'm not a politician, and i doubt that any atheists are, either. It would be nice if atheists ran for public office based on a conviction about public service or social change, but if their publicly stated motive were to promote "atheism," i'd no more vote for them than i would a self-avowed member of the religious right. (And when you're considering evidence from public attitudes, consider the "stealth candidate" movement among the religious right--which i consider to be as significant a piece of evidence as references to a silly motion picture like Forest Gump.)
failures art
 
  2  
Sun 3 Oct, 2010 07:14 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

failures art wrote:
You don't think this kind of media has an affect on people? You don't think that this sort of message places social pressure on people to comply with a social narrative?


No, i don't. People who abandon theism don't do so because they think it will enhance their social lives.

I'm not implying that. I'm saying that some people may adhere to religion because they feel that abandoning it would mean social rejection.

Setanta wrote:

People who come to adopt an atheist point of view, in my experience, do so from conviction.

Sure. Also, some simply realize that they no longer believe what they espouse.

Setanta wrote:

So no, i don't think puerile attitudes toward social acceptance reminiscent of high school are a motivating factor at all. Personally, i don't give a rat's ass if the "public" trust me, nor how atheists are portrayed in popular media.

Setanta only values Setanta's opinion on Setanta. Got it.

That's fine, but if you care how it affects others, you may have to revise.

Setanta wrote:

I certainly have no respect for anyone whose basis for their most deeply held convictions is whether nor not they'll get invited to parties. Those sorts of attitudes are characteristic of politicians, who'll say anything to be "liked."

Then you're not describing "convictions" at all if it is to be liked.

Setanta wrote:

I'm not a politician, and i doubt that any atheists are, either.

You introduce another element here. What better reminder that atheists should feel that public service is out of their reach because they don't believe in any gods. It's not socially acceptable to be an atheist in public office.

What message does that send?

Setanta wrote:

It would be nice if atheists ran for public office based on a conviction about public service or social change, but if their publicly stated motive were to promote "atheism," i'd no more vote for them than i would a self-avowed member of the religious right. (And when you're considering evidence from public attitudes, consider the "stealth candidate" movement among the religious right--which i consider to be as significant a piece of evidence as references to a silly motion picture like Forest Gump.)

So while no atheist candidate is running and getting elected on a platform of promoting atheism, there are candidates running on deeply religious platforms. They are getting elected rather frequently. They use words like "heritage."

Sure Forrest Gump is a silly movie, and if this meme was confined to it, I wouldn't thin twice about it. The truth is that this idea is very prevalent. You'd be hard pressed to find a single media character who is an atheist who is happy and well adjusted or even an optimist.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcShH8T--YjYnZ9TujypUQralTCxmBzodzBKVKBsYMarvO2JnUo&t=1&usg=__UAmATE4dpZEXvEULD0uVqjQ87U4=
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bCh-gAJte7Y/S77RsRcE1LI/AAAAAAAAGqo/d4s1qAmwAlI/s400/bones+tv+show.2.jpg

So while you're not concerned with how this media is digested by millions because it's "silly," you can't deny it is prevalent. Silly things that are prevalent still can cause harm.

A
R
T
 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 86
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 03/14/2025 at 07:24:44