“I don't follow you all the way on this, Orn; I think you're demanding something from Jacoby which this article isn't intended to produce - a reasoned apologia for her own definition of atheism.” – fran
Fran, I’m not demanding this at all although I’d really like to see it. I was merely replying directly to Cris’s assertions and request for ‘Thoughts?’…nothing more. “I see the article as an unfortunately necessary prelude to such an endeavour, something which probably couldn't be conveyed in such a context.” – fran While I agree that such an ‘endeavor’ would be ill advised in such a forum and in fact didn’t occur, if anything, this supports my own post’s position. On the other hand, I’m not so sure about the necessity of a prelude, especially in the chosen forum. “…In one sense, Jacoby is trying to do much the same thing; clear away misconceptions regarding the positions of many non-theists.” – fran Fran, IF this is her intention, why do it in a forum called “The Spiritual Atheist”? Of course, this may be her only option. I ask this rhetorical question because my best guess is that the answer is as we both surmise…she is preaching to the choir. Sadly, the associated comments show the obvious failure of such an intention (“clear away misconceptions…”) among *both* the faithful and the atheists. One can only hope she can do better. “One point I will grant you, she probably IS preaching to the choir. In my experience, most (Christian) theist apologists are not really interested in understanding the important nuances involved in most well-argued non-theistic positions. Sadly, most seem to have an agenda which has more to do with converting their opponents or stigmatising them as immoral, inhuman or evil.” – fran We are mostly in agreement when it comes to experiences of theist apologists here Fran. While most do appear to have an agenda, something few people can claim not to have; the apparent evangelical [“marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause”] aspect is something many non-believers seem to project too, no? All too often the wish to see a world without theology is presented. And, when it comes to calling the ‘enemy’ immoral, inhuman or evil…the same is all too often used by both sides. This sort of muddying the waters is what I’m advocating against. Given that a clear and lucid exposition about said myths is not only long overdue, but as we agree upon, is most likely to be read by the godless faithful alone, I find it disheartening to find such a sloppy and ill advised ‘prelude’ when any hope at ‘conversion’ would seem to require more lucidity and rigor. On Feb 7, 10:58 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't follow you all the way on this, Orn; I think you're demanding > something from Jacoby which this article isn't intended to produce - a > reasoned apologia for her own definition of atheism. I see the article > as an unfortunately necessary prelude to such an endeavour, something > which probably couldn't be conveyed in such a context. > > I remember as a young teenager in the early 70s coming across a pop- > Christian book entitled, "The God I don't believe in." [The author, > John Powell, a Jesuit former professor of theology, ironically died > recently while under investigation in a number of sex-abuse cases.] In > it, as far as I remember, he argued against various pictures of God, > as vengeful, stern, etc. - generally, fundamentalistic, "old- > fashioned" views of God (very much a happy, huggy, pop-psychology > view, typical of the immediate post-Vatican-II optimism among many > Catholics of the time [a reflection, at least in part, of the general > Zeitgeist], before the traditionalists started to reassert control and > began their programme of trying to put the toothpaste back in the > tube). In one sense, Jacoby is trying to do much the same thing; clear > away misconceptions regarding the positions of many non-theists. > > One point I will grant you, she probably IS preaching to the choir. In > my experience, most (Christian) theist apologists are not really > interested in understanding the important nuances involved in most > well-argued non-theistic positions. Sadly, most seem to have an agenda > which has more to do with converting their opponents or stigmatising > them as immoral, inhuman or evil. > > Francis > > On 7 Feb., 19:08, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > “I disagree, Orn; I have heard each of the points she mentions > > verbatim from > > members of this list. For that reason alone, I thought she wrote a > > robust, > > albeit reactionary, article on these points.” – CJ > > > What exactly do you disagree with Chris?...You agree that her piece > > was reactionary. I agree that it was ‘robust’ if one uses vigorous, > > rough, crude, boisterous, rich etc. as how the term is used. However, > > if you mean it to mean “ strong enough to withstand intellectual > > challenge”, this may be so IF one accepts anecdotal evidence as being > > ‘strong enough….’. > > > Returning to our original claims, perhaps you are suggesting that she > > supported her beliefs somehow somewhere. Perhaps you are suggesting > > that her style was not an appeal to the/her people. Perhaps you don’t > > find her words to be memes that many atheists project upon the world. > > Perhaps you see some sort of analytical rigor in her work. I don’t see > > it in any of these ways. Thus, I find it extraordinarily lacking when > > it comes doing “a good job of dispelling some of the …[myths] > > regarding the faithless.” Of course, perhaps for some, doing ‘a good > > job’ means preaching to the choir? Difficult to tell. > > > On Feb 7, 8:47 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I disagree, Orn; I have heard each of the points she mentions verbatim > > > from > > > members of this list. For that reason alone, I thought she wrote a robust, > > > albeit reactionary, article on these points. > > > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 7:17 PM, ornamentalmind > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > “I thought this was a very interesting and informative read, which did > > > > a good > > > > job of dispelling some of the pervasive untruths and misperceptions > > > > regarding the faithless. Thoughts?” – CJ > > > > > I started a detailed deconstruction and analysis of her piece and, > > > > after almost an hour gave up due to the extraordinarily large quantity > > > > of confused, opinionated and totally unsupported beliefs she was > > > > presenting. At first I had hoped to have some true meat to deal with… > > > > and perhaps even a lucid and accurate list. Sadly, I find it > > > > extraordinarily lacking. Yes, without presenting my specific > > > > criticisms I too can be charged with similar proclamations by opinion. > > > > However, hopefully, if carefully examined, most can see how this > > > > appears to be more of a reactionary piece…appealing to the people > > > > using common memes rather than anything of either literary or > > > > analytical rigor. It certainly does nothing at all like doing “a good > > > > job of dispelling some of the…[myths] regarding the faithless.” Would > > > > that it be otherwise! We atheists could use some unassailable clarity > > > > and logic when it comes to such issues. Sadly, Ms. Jacoby exhibits > > > > neither. > > > > > On Feb 6, 3:06 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 1COM, thanks! That worked. :-) > > > > > > On Feb 6, 9:26 am, 1CellOfMany <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I just clicked on the link in the first post of this discussion > > > > > > (Feb. > > > > > > 3rd) and it took me to the article, which is dated Feb.2nd 2010. > > > > > > Try > > > > > > this link: > > > >http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/spirited_atheist/2010/02/a... > > > > > > > On Feb 6, 4:04 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Sadly, I got to the link long after the day whatever the article > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > had been printed...and can't find the original. > > > > > > > > On Feb 5, 11:10 pm, 1CellOfMany <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I agree that the article is well written and that her views may > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > representative of many atheists. However, I have encountered a > > > > > > > > plethora of atheists who speak as if they believe the majority > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > people who believe in God are fundamentalist creationists or > > > > > > > > rabid > > > > > > > > jihad'i terrorists; who talk down to the believers in the > > > > > > > > audience > > > > and > > > > > > > > tell them what fools they are, then, when accused of trying to > > > > > > > > "convert" us to their belief say, "I don't care what you > > > > > > > > believe." > > > > I > > > > > > > > am tired of being lumped in with the foolish people who try to > > > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > their literal interpretations of Genesis incorporated into > > > > > > > > science > > > > > > > > curricula. (I believe in evolution and that science is as > > > > > > > > important > > > > as > > > > > > > > religion to the advancement of civilization, thank you.) I think > > > > they > > > > > > > > give religion a bad reputation, just as the more aggressive and > > > > self- > > > > > > > > righteous atheists give atheism a bad rep. I have no problem > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > sharing ideas in a logical and open-minded fashion, but if you > > > > > > > > disagree, support your argument with facts and logic, not with > > > > > > > > diatribe and polemic. [Sorry, this rant was brought on by some > > > > > > > > threads inhttp://www.philosophyforum.com] <[ :-)= Rich > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2:29 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > >http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/spirited_atheist/2010/02/a... > > > > > > > > > > I thought this was a very interesting and informative read, > > > > > > > > > which > > > > did a good > > > > > > > > > job of dispelling some of the pervasive untruths and > > > > misperceptions > > > > > > > > > regarding the faithless. Thoughts?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Groups > > > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > > > .com> > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-Hidequoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
