Fellow Atheists/Agnostic Atheists - Let's Chat: Do you feel it is risky being "out" these days?

Farscry wrote:
Seth wrote:

That's two strikes for me today. One more And I'm in the corner.

Sounds like somebody needs a Scooby Snack!

The Fun Lovin' Criminals make everything better. I still don't understand why they are so big in Europe, but nobody here in their home country has heard of them.

Rallick wrote:

The Fun Lovin' Criminals make everything better. I still don't understand why they are so big in Europe, but nobody here in their home country has heard of them.

The (Hasselhoff) effect?

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
Rallick wrote:

The Fun Lovin' Criminals make everything better. I still don't understand why they are so big in Europe, but nobody here in their home country has heard of them.

The (Hasselhoff) effect?

That's strictly German. The rest of Europe disavows all knowledge of The Hoff.

Rallick wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:
Rallick wrote:

The Fun Lovin' Criminals make everything better. I still don't understand why they are so big in Europe, but nobody here in their home country has heard of them.

The (Hasselhoff) effect?

That's strictly German. The rest of Europe disavows all knowledge of The Hoff.

Hmm, I was goignt o say note the parens, but you may have caused a paradox. Or I'm drunk. At 3:48. On a Tuesday.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
Rallick wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:
Rallick wrote:

The Fun Lovin' Criminals make everything better. I still don't understand why they are so big in Europe, but nobody here in their home country has heard of them.

The (Hasselhoff) effect?

That's strictly German. The rest of Europe disavows all knowledge of The Hoff.

Hmm, I was goignt o say note the parens, but you may have caused a paradox. Or I'm drunk. At 3:48. On a Tuesday.

There is nothing wrong with that!

NathanialG wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:
Rallick wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:
Rallick wrote:

The Fun Lovin' Criminals make everything better. I still don't understand why they are so big in Europe, but nobody here in their home country has heard of them.

The (Hasselhoff) effect?

That's strictly German. The rest of Europe disavows all knowledge of The Hoff.

Hmm, I was goignt o say note the parens, but you may have caused a paradox. Or I'm drunk. At 3:48. On a Tuesday.

There is nothing wrong with that!

Depends on the reason. Mine is my job. So..yuck...but wheee!

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Hmm, I was goignt o say note the parens, but you may have caused a paradox. Or I'm drunk. At 3:48. On a Tuesday.

IMAGE(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8147/7555916976_c6037dfa9d_n.jpg)

It's 5 o'clock somewhere?

McIrishJihad wrote:

It's 5 o'clock somewhere?

I don't keep regular hours, but sure!

Interesting article about a woman who wrote a CNN iReport on atheistic parenting:

CNN wrote:

Lots of people disagreed with her. Tons. They flagged her iReport as inappropriate and criticized CNN for linking to her essay on the CNN.com homepage.

...But Mitchell’s essay also struck a chord with hundreds of like-minded parents raising children in a world where lack of belief puts them in the minority, often even in their own family.

I can't remember if I posted this in this thread or another one, but it's worth posting again. Two things that keep me able to articulate my own beliefs are @GSpellchecker on Twitter and the podcast The Human Bible. The former is a concise (yay, Twitter) refutation of a lot of the logical fallacies that your everyday theist believes. The latter is a great podcast looking at the Bible as a human creation (with all it's inherent flaws) rather than a divinely inspired book. Also useful when confronting your everyday bible-beater.

Late to the party re: Applebee's, but yeah, that wasn't an apology. That was an "I regret that I got caught."

Also, I used to have a roommate that worked as a server in a chain restaurant and he always said that large groups of Christians were the worst tippers he ever had.

I am as troubled by the dogmatism of my fellow atheists and agnostics as I am of theists these days. And I am increasingly wary of the scientism that has pervaded in the arguments of the former to the detriment of logic. It has almost become a religion of its own and as blind to reason as any metaphysical ideology.

I think there needs to be another way. A way that recognizes the faults of both and accepts the peculiar nature of our universe. As it is, it is like watching two children swimming in the kiddy pool with their floaties while an ocean is right next to them.

"Scientism"?

I'd argue that any argument that eschews logic is flawed. It doesn't need a special name. Especially not one that is generally pejorative and used by the religious to knock atheism, agnosticism and science itself...

Interesting way to declare your stance.

I do agree that a lot of my atheist friends have gotten dogmatic of late. It's been a strange evolution to watch.

Sometimes I think it's not dogmatism so much as exasperation.

Robear wrote:

"Scientism"?

I'd argue that any argument that eschews logic is flawed. It doesn't need a special name. Especially not one that is generally pejorative and used by the religious to knock atheism, agnosticism and science itself...

Interesting way to declare your stance.

I thought it was apt because it accurately describes the ideology of some of my fellow atheists and agnostics. They are as dogmatic in their adherence to the scientific method, falsificationism, and faith in scientific knowledge that they have become parallels of some of the people they rail against. And it isn't helping anybody.

If I have insulted, I apologize and it is not my intention. I should be more careful with inflammatory language or more aware of the connotations of the language I use.

duckideva wrote:

I do agree that a lot of my atheist friends have gotten dogmatic of late. It's been a strange evolution to watch.

I see what you did there.

ZaneRockFist wrote:

I thought it was apt because it accurately describes the ideology of some of my fellow atheists and agnostics. They are as dogmatic in their adherence to the scientific method, falsificationism, and faith in scientific knowledge that they have become parallels of some of the people they rail against. And it isn't helping anybody.

First off, I was insulted, just surprised. It's as if someone hopped into a thread on science and religion and started talking about "evolutionists" and "arrogant scientists"; you'd know right off which side they were *actually* on. But I wasn't sure you meant the term to be taken that way.

I still think we need to distinguish between people who adhere to the scientific method in inquiry, and people who unquestioningly lock into one particular hypothesis and never let go. The former are actually practicing science, and their religious beliefs don't matter in that process (they may *direct* their overall approach, but should not matter one bit to the experiments, formulation of hypotheses or the like). The latter are just playing at "being scientific", as if that were a state one could inhabit in life. That's no good. One has to be open to new evidence and new conclusions.

I agree, "knee-jerk" atheism does no one any good. But lumping in science and logic as if they were being properly exercised in those views is probably going a bit far.

ZaneRockfist wrote:

I thought it was apt because it accurately describes the ideology of some of my fellow atheists and agnostics. They are as dogmatic in their adherence to the scientific method, falsificationism, and faith in scientific knowledge that they have become parallels of some of the people they rail against. And it isn't helping anybody.

"Dogmatic in their adherence to the scientific method" is kind of the point of the scientific method, otherwise, it isn't the scientific method.

I never quite grasped the idea of professional codes of ethics, standards, and behavior as being the same (or sufficiently similar to) as biblical morals. They all seem based on best practices, practicality, and good sense. I can only grasp that it comes from fundamental misunderstandings of both professional and religious practices.

I have yet to year "Well the National Academy of Sciences works in mysterious ways."

Jonman wrote:
ZaneRockfist wrote:

I thought it was apt because it accurately describes the ideology of some of my fellow atheists and agnostics. They are as dogmatic in their adherence to the scientific method, falsificationism, and faith in scientific knowledge that they have become parallels of some of the people they rail against. And it isn't helping anybody.

"Dogmatic in their adherence to the scientific method" is kind of the point of the scientific method, otherwise, it isn't the scientific method.

I was trying to think of a way of properly articulating that. In terms of naturally observable phenomena, talking about dogmatic adherence to the scientific method is like having a dogmatic adherence to mathematics.

Now, if you're talking about people who try and use "science" to address philosophical, what's the meaning of life-type questions, that's another story.

Dogmatic indicates an unwillingness to consider evidence. Atheists can be as dogmatic about something as anyone else can, but I seriously doubt atheism is the cause.

And the idea that actual science is somehow dogmatically ignoring evidence about the world is kind of bizarre, too. It implies that religion is as good at describing the world as science, when in fact, the simple observation that no two religions can agree on most things speaks strongly against that. As a way of understanding the world, that is. Religion used to have that purpose; now there's something better for that purpose, it should stick to other things.

Of course, the fact that religion is no longer the best paradigm for understanding the workings of the universe *is* the problem...

Well, I think that many people of a religious or spiritual bent equate a "faith" with a sort of acquired knowledge or of facts.

They conceive that their faith that say bread and wine change into literal human flesh and blood, is akin to a chemist's understanding that a combination of hydrogen peroxide and oxidized Zinc will react to bubble off Oxygen Gas.

There also the sloppy metaphysical arguments, like "Well you have faith that your eyes are accurately representing what is actually happening in front of you."

Scientism as a pejorative, and I would say that people like Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer do have a bent towards scientism, is in fact practical and not mystical. The Clean Air Act was passed because of our cultural nature that science will come up with the answer to our problems. With the CAA, things like carbon capture in the tail pipe or the catalytic converter were mostly small scale and theoretical. The formation of NASA was similar. The Soviet's had only just successfully put a satellite in low earth orbit, but the program was made with 1 seemingly impossible task, to get a human being onto the moon.

There is good reason to put stock in science to solve our problems, or to achieve goals that are not presently possible or conceivable. Because Science and Scientists do it all the time.

In some minds, maybe this equates with the faith that actions will lead to heaven.

Maybe. But those scientific programs are asking questions and looking for answers to very specific problems, and any and all study results and evidence will be considered. It's not dogmatic. In the case of global climate change, Faith that God will come and save the planet, or bring a new one before we can annihilate ourselves by our own folly is dogmatic.

KingGorilla wrote:

There is good reason to put stock in science to solve our problems, or to achieve goals that are not presently possible or conceivable. Because Science and Scientists do it all the time.

In some minds, maybe this equates with the faith that actions will lead to heaven.

Many religious people are very much in love with the fallacy of false equivalence. They concede that their own world view is based on "faith," and then they presuppose that all other world views must equally be based on "faith." You see this all the time, and especially with creationists.

Being "dogmatic" about a world view informed by science and reason is also known as "behaving rationally." I'd gladly wear that label.

To a high degree, there is also a lot of having a single conversation with 2 languages or dialects as well. Or maybe just some experience bias.

James Randi has a story of taking a physics professor friend of his to see David Copperfield. Copperfield does his flying illusion. The physicist whispers to Randi that the illusion is terribly dangerous because Copperfield must be using magnets and a huge electro magnet under the stage. The illusion is really nothing of the sort. But if you live a life only of physics, and electrical physics at that, your mind is shaped to see that first and foremost.