Dangers of atheism -Sam Harris

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: rexsblues

yea he's one of the few skeptics working with muslim to reform islam. he, and most of us know, islam is probably never going away completely, our best shot is to secularize it, modernize, then maybe, hopefully, ridicule it into banality. just like christianity.

Modernize and secularize...sounds nice
I'm a bit pessimistic about that...but I welcome anyone to try it

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Op, I can't watch videos, I read every comment....

WTF is this thread about?

What are the dangers of atheism?

I am not religious, am I endangered because of it in some way?

Isn't it just a phylosophical argument, that one should explore religion even if not? " called" just to experience it?

Because I have, I have studied many religions, I am just not compelled by any to believe, anymore than I am compelled to believe mother goose or the tooth fairy or the Nordic legends.

I mean come on, give something to work with here!

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

I'm a new fan of the guy. His views and stances seem to perfectly sit with me.

Are you an unapologetic misogynist too?

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
Very interesting video.

I have never considered myself an Atheist as I find theism, or the study of religion, to be fascinating. I would more consider myself a Gnostic yet this seems to be confused with Agnostic which has a meaning that is different from what it appears. I like to define the etymology of words and when it comes to religion or politics the word’s meanings evolve over time to be something very different from their original intention.

Never trust anyone claiming to have proof either for or against God as the very definition of the unseen seer or unmoved mover is that no proof will ever be found, for or against. That is why it’s called faith. You can prove the physical world through science and you can believe in the spiritual through faith. The two are not contradictory but rather complimentary in my opinion.

Many, but not all, come to atheism or non-theism or areligion from a path that included early inculcation into a "faith" and/or many attempts to find the "way" that was right for them, particularly in the last 30 years or so of the new age/occult/pagan revolutions.

Many have already considered the propositions of "spirituality, et. al." and found them utterly lacking ... which produced the status "no belief."

I'm glad you enjoyed Mr. Harris. He is more palatable than some, although, we are all human and have failings. I resist looking to anyone else to form my thinking, so I tend to avoid "gurus" of any stripe.

Interesting thread.

a reply to: Klassified

just watched the link...thanks.

This guy is a treasure.

originally posted by: Sargeras
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Op, I can't watch videos, I read every comment....

WTF is this thread about?

What are the dangers of atheism?

I am not religious, am I endangered because of it in some way?

Isn't it just a phylosophical argument, that one should explore religion even if not? " called" just to experience it?

Because I have, I have studied many religions, I am just not compelled by any to believe, anymore than I am compelled to believe mother goose or the tooth fairy or the Nordic legends.

I mean come on, give something to work with here!

hey...no fear...nothing will happen to you...other than...you will burn in hell.

I'm kidding.

Atheism has historically been used as pejorative and term of condemnation by the ruling religious classes, like how people were condemned for being a witch. Socrates was condemned to death for atheism; Christians were thrown to the lions for atheism; Giordano Bruno burnt to death for atheism; and so on. It is no wonder that the formerly religious are the people who love the term the most, as it is something of religious origin with which to fill the God-shaped hole in their lives. "I am no longer a Christian, therefor I must be an atheist", is what their religion has taught them. Of course, nothing outside of religious nomenclature would teach them that Atheist is what they are.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

I'm a new fan of the guy. His views and stances seem to perfectly sit with me.

Are you an unapologetic misogynist too?

is this it ?

“I think it may have to do with my personal slant as an author, being very critical of bad ideas. This can sound very angry to people..People just don’t like to have their ideas criticized. There’s something about that critical posture that is to some degree instrinsically male and more attractive to guys than to women,” he said. “The atheist variable just has this – it doesn’t obviously have this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men.”

well..it may sound misogynist to you...but it just...just might be true. My own experiences tend to agree with him. I have yet to see a woman to be a vehement atheist. My experiences so far have shown me...that women usually dont engage in such debates as they often provoke high tensions and even aggression in participants.

But I dont see that as misogyny...the fact...we are not the same, emotionally and physically and mentally. That's not to state that one is superior to the other...but simply an acknowledgment of the differences that make us fit together.

Women have their strenghts same as we do. We are better suited to attack or to criticize...they are better at the opposite. To nurture and to avoid confrontation. We complement each other in so many ways.

Thanks for the link.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

... and for those of us who have come to the rational conclusion that there is no God or gods after careful and long-term consideration (who, by the by, feel no "hole" of any shape)?

Or, were you merely speaking generically or philosophically without real reference to real people?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Or, were you merely speaking generically or philosophically without real reference to real people?

Are you formerly religious and do you call yourself an atheist?

originally posted by: Klassified
I usually agree with Sam on most things, but having watched this video previously, I don't this time. What he says makes some sense in an ideal world, where people look at things like this from a rational perspective. But the debate between theists and atheists is seldom rational for very long. If you don't believe in god, you are an atheist. Like it or not.

You might this video of interest as well...

I disagree. Harris is one of my favorite modern philosophers. He has had a lot of good debate with reasonable theists. (Apologists). He is one of the only people to thoroughly beat William Lane Craig. The problem is often the new Atheists debated moronic superstitious Christians rather than philosophers. There are plenty of Christian philosophers who use reason.

originally posted by: Devino
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
Very interesting video.

I have never considered myself an Atheist as I find theism, or the study of religion, to be fascinating. I would more consider myself a Gnostic yet this seems to be confused with Agnostic which has a meaning that is different from what it appears. I like to define the etymology of words and when it comes to religion or politics the word’s meanings evolve over time to be something very different from their original intention.

Never trust anyone claiming to have proof either for or against God as the very definition of the unseen seer or unmoved mover is that no proof will ever be found, for or against. That is why it’s called faith. You can prove the physical world through science and you can believe in the spiritual through faith. The two are not contradictory but rather complimentary in my opinion.

Nice post Devino.

I know there isnt proof one way or the other...it really is up to faith. If you dabble in such things anyway. The problem with faith, from my perspective, it simply does not reward you for it...not in this life anyway. You are supposed to be dead to enjoy it. But there are spiritual practices that dont revolve around a faith, and are testable. He speaks about it in both videos you posted.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

Or, were you merely speaking generically or philosophically without real reference to real people?

Are you formerly religious and do you call yourself an atheist?

Can you answer my question?

Only seems polite.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Or, were you merely speaking generically or philosophically without real reference to real people?

Given that I used general terms, yes I was speaking generally about people who call themselves atheist.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm glad you enjoyed Mr. Harris. He is more palatable than some, although, we are all human and have failings. I resist looking to anyone else to form my thinking, so I tend to avoid "gurus" of any stripe.

good point on "formin your thinking". But It's not about that...he could not force it on me if it wasnt right down my alley. He simply spoke it coherently enough and it makes sense. But who knows what truly makes sense...in the end...that is also subjective.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

An erudite speaker but quite early on in the video, Mr Harris says that non-atheists believe in an "imaginary god". He states it as if it were fact, rather than as if it were a belief.

He is clearly 'playing to an audience'.

Every major philosopher has made argument upon Christian themes and ideas. Thinkers well into our future will continue to do the same. It is not all sewn-up and solved as Mr Harris would portray.

In this video, Mr Harris denigrates millennia of minds greater than his, regardless of which side of the belief argument they stand on.

He firstly derides faith (purportedly on the grounds of reason), referring to "psychopathology, and deliberate fraud, and religious delusion" and then starts talking about mysticism and spirituality as if it is compliant with his 'objective reasoning'. He doesn't have the intellectual honesty to to evaluate the motivations behind his own opinion.

I didn't bother with the second part of this speech, as I have very moderate Christian beliefs and don't wish to be insulted baselessly and repeatedly.

I am not without doubt but am satisfied within myself that the majority of evidences (mostly subjective and personal) for the existence of a Christian God, outweigh those against.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Ah. Thank you. See, doesn't that work out well?

I am formerly religious. Atheism is as good as a one-word statement as any of my current understanding ...

I submit that your generic/philosophical summation of all people who refer to themselves as atheists is needlessly trite, overly pedantic, and ultimately ... merely your opinion.

You don't speak for other people, or for their experiences, except, of course, in terms of your own conceptions.

We've discussed your distaste for the word "atheist" before ... surely we don't have to work though all that again.

Thanks for answering my question; I hope I answered yours adequately.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Atheism has historically been used as pejorative and term of condemnation by the ruling religious classes, like how people were condemned for being a witch. Socrates was condemned to death for atheism; Christians were thrown to the lions for atheism; Giordano Bruno burnt to death for atheism; and so on. It is no wonder that the formerly religious are the people who love the term the most, as it is something of religious origin with which to fill the God-shaped hole in their lives. "I am no longer a Christian, therefor I must be an atheist", is what their religion has taught them. Of course, nothing outside of religious nomenclature would teach them that Atheist is what they are.

excellent point. Having said that...I'm now beggining to see I have also been caught in that net...though I was never really religios from childhood...I kinda adopted the label to myself. But to be perfectly honest...nobody forced it upon me. I took it myself.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Sure.

If we were truly avoiding the subjective, I doubt we'd use language at all.