Since when did Sam Harris think he could speak for me

[toddaa]

This Atheist Manifesto nonsense is just going to ratchet up the negativity towards atheists. Totally counterproductive. Hey Sam, STFU!!!

[jonnyblitz]

1. well he most certainly speaks for me! nt

[Taxloss]

2. I don't want any part of creeds, manifestos, declarations of belief.

But I was shocked at the reaction of some religious DUers.

[soleft]

3. I thought Sam Harris was that short singer from Star Search

[Az]

4. This is where the notion of atheism being a religion comes from

Declaritive statements of shared values and beliefs. Pretty much makes a religion.

Its true though. We do have shared values and beliefs. A great many of them. But if the only thing we rally around is our atheism alone then we will forever be reactionary and critical. If we want to have any sort of collective voice in this society its gonna have to be based on the positive things we share and not our lack of belief in god.

The hope is of course that the positive things we believe in build towards a society that is not as dependent on god centric belief.

[salvorhardin]

6. I really disagree with you that atheism is negative and reactionary

For myself anyway, I see my disbelief as quite positive and leads to all other positive beliefs I hold, some of which even I feel content are rooted in science and not just belief. As far as being reactionary, it's a lack of belief and not a rejection of belief. Critical? I don't see that as a bad thing either, but I know you didn't mean it that way.

But you're absolutely right that we need to organize around more than just our lack of belief if only for the reason that single issue driven groups do not lead to real or long-lasting progress.

[Az]

8. You describe additional factors beyond atheism

The basis of your positions is not built upon not believing in god. It is based on a collection of philosophical positions that are unique to your mind set and include among other aspects a lack of reliance on a belief in god. Its like saying you are contructing a building and its structure is based on its lack of ducks in the mortar.

If theists were to vanish from the world tomorrow somehow our need to distinguish ourselves as atheists would vanish. Our other forms positions and beliefs would remain intact (unless we are obsessed with theists and define ourselves in opposition to them).

I suspect we are on the same page in reading through what you wrote. I suspect there may have been a misunderstandig. So I just wanted to clarify my statement.

[salvorhardin]

12. You're telling me what my beliefs are built upon!?

My point was that atheism, my lack of belief, is what my whole personal philosophy is built upon and that my lack of belief is not in opposition or reaction to anything. For you to try to tell me otherwise is highly presumptuous. Yeah, there's been a misunderstanding. I said I disagreed with you and you couldn't fathom that someone could actually believe that their lack of belief is both positive and foundational.

[Az]

13. Hold up there

You seem to be taking this far more personally than it was intended.

Maybe I am wrong. But I am not trying to force anything on you. I am merely positing that atheism at its absolute core is nothing more than a lack of belief in god or gods. It is not a philosophy. It is not a religion. It is just one singular recognition of a particular state of belief or lack of.

There can be a wealth of beliefs that do not include a belief in gods. Ranging from supersticious to reasoned concepts. A lack of a particular belief does not seem to me to be a foundation for developing beliefs. It can be part of a developed philosophy. But alone it is defined only by that which it is without.

If you have a philosophy founded on atheism I would love to hear it.

[PassingFair]

5. Ahem.

I like it.

[onager]

7. Harris reminds me of Richard Dawkins

At least in the way he not only refuses to suffer fools gladly, but refuses to suffer them AT ALL.

I wish the world had about a thousand more like him, cranking out books like "The End Of Faith."

Some say we won't make much progress with the believers by being confrontational. Unfortunately, we can't make much progress with them by being NON-confrontational, either. Then they think you're one of those rare "weak atheists" and try to convert you.

I'm just kidding. Sort of. :shrug:

[Az]

9. Dawkins is one of my faves

But I have talked to him and he does regret the persona he has currently. He has expressed fear that by so strongly identifying himself as opposed to religious belief he has poisoned believers to considering his works.

There is a need for champions such as him. But we also need champions like Sagan and Gould that do not directly criticize belief.

The ideas have to get to them somehow. If they are delivered in hostile assaults then they will not be heard.

We need all manner of voices. Both the strong ones to wake the fence sitters up and the diplomatic ones to bring ideas to the believers. The strong ones had best be ready for reactions and rejection.

[PassingFair]

22. Richard Dawkins gave me the courage to speak up after 9/11.

Religious fanatics flying into the World Trade Center made me a born-again atheist.

[toddaa]

10. It's the word MANIFESTO that ruins it for me

The essay wasn't a defense of atheists rights, it was a rather run of the mill rant on Christian irrationality in the wake of Katrina. If Harris had titled his essay, "I Think Christians Are Irrational," I wouldn't have cared all that much. The problem is taking a philosopical critique of Christian belief and attaching a loaded political word to it that implies atheists are going to rise up and wipe Christianity from the face of the earth.

In fairness to Harris, I have only read the excerpt of this mysterious Atheist Manifesto on the Huffington Post, so maybe I need to wait for the full diatribe. However, if the excerpt is any indication, all he is doing is equating atheism with anti-Christian, which does nothing but confirm the worst fears of people who hate us already.

[Arianrhod]

11. Which part of the manifesto do you disagree with?

That there is no god? That atheism is neither a philosophy nor a religion, but rather the default mental state? That the term "atheism" itself should not exist? That religious believers should finally be forced to provide evidence for their beliefs?

Personally, I'm happy to see any defense against the onslaught of fanatical Fundamentalism.

[toddaa]

15. The word manifesto for a start

The whole excerpt was nothing more than a problem of evil critique of Christianity. There are lot's of religious and superstitious beliefs out there that don't have a problem of evil. I read nothing in it that explained why Christians should defend atheists rights. All it did was reinforce their fears that we are out to get them. You want to continue the current political environment in which it's okay to discriminate against atheists? Fine, keep posting philosophical arguments against Christianity.

Maybe instead of writing yet another critique of Christian irrationalism, we start finding some common ground with the saner elements in religious circles as to why we deserve to have our civil rights upheld. "You're all fucking loonies," isn't going to convince anyone that we deserve the same rights as religious people.

[Arianrhod]

17. I do make the distinction, actually.

Just last night, in fact, I had a wonderful 5-hour-long dinner conversation in the home of my devout Christian neighbors about true spirituality, the End Times and the role of government in the realm of the coming Antichrist. I don't personally believe in a coming Antichrist, but the discussion was vibrant and illuminating--and I was invited back. :)

OTOH, I'm not particularly worried about offending people's irrational fears. How Christians can possibly believe that less than 2% of the population is somehow going to destroy their beloved consumer society is beyond me. With the use of what weapons? Come on, people, let's get a grip.

Fundamentalists are lunatics. Pointing this out may piss them off, but kowtowing to them is not going to have the opposite effect. They have made up their minds that a tiny minority of the world population comprises the greatest threat to their worldview ever known to Christendom. Nothing we say will change that. So I say: Let's speak truth to power. If I'm going to be condemned for being an atheist no matter what I do or say, then I'm going to exercise what's left of my constitutional rights and say what's on my mind.

The opportunity for compromise is long past, I'm afraid. :(

[phantom power]

20. They do so lovingly cultivate their status as endangered victims.

It's a form of institutionalized paranoia. Like the Red Scares of the 50s. Nobody is safe, as long as one atheist remains to do the Devil's work.

Our pledge of allegiance is threatened! Christmas is under attack! The terrorists will win if the Ten Commandmands aren't displayed in every public building! There is an atheist conspiracy to prevent the establishment of an all-Toby-Kieth radio station!

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. MOst here have probably seen it, but here's the Humanist Manifesto (III)

http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm

as a statement of principles without being againast any particular religion, but just shunning supernaturalism in general.

[toddaa]

16. Now that's a manifesto

Sticks to the point and doesn't wander off into another lame philosophical critique of Christianity, which has nothing to do with atheist rights.

[Arianrhod]

18. And yet, one of the greatest humanists of the last century,

the agnostic Bertrand Russell, wrote as his seminal work an essay entitled, "Why I Am Not A Christian"--in which he lambasted Christianity for its lack of humanity and dependence on superstition.

There are other humanists from that era, too, who also attacked Christianity without wavering: the Danish Christian Soren Kierkegaard (he gave us the term, "Leap of faith"); the French Resistance fighters Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, whose existentialist philosophy laid the groundwork for modern atheism; and Pope John XXIII, who fought against the right-wing reactionaries in the Catholic Church and gave us Vatican II; to name just a few. None of these men held back their views out of fear of being labeled "troublemakers".

And then there's the Apostle Paul, who condemned the Galatian church for its adherence to the Fundamentalist-like Jewish Law, and the Corinthian church for depending on rules instead of living lives of human compassion.

Would that we had a few like them around today. . . .

[goddess40]

19. Did anyone actually read the entire book?

I was thinking about buying it but I'd sure like to hear from fellow atheists what they thought about the actual book.

Thanks

[onager]

21. G-40, do you mean...

..."The End of Faith?" I read the whole thing, and it's one of those books I want to read again with more thought behind the reading.

I thought it was very good. In one section Harris talks about the true-believer propaganda of Islam as "a religion of peace," then quotes directly from the Koran for several pages of unpeaceful stuff that should be done to non-believers.

And before any lurkers start screeching about "Islam-bashing," Harris is just as honest about Xianity. One of his main points is that in an era of available WMD and extremist religion on several sides, it's pretty much a toss-up as to which bunch of Fundies wipe out the rest of us first.