Here's the explanation from the Atheist Revolution blog. It's hard to imagine this one becoming a widely observed holiday, isn't it?
One suggestion stands out:
Learn how to identify and correct at least one logical fallacy for the day.
Hmm, looks like we'll be shadowing 3rd district councilman Steve Price ... but at least the job will be done by just after breakfast. The many ones coming after that are someone else's responsibility.
Happy Hour, here we come.
One suggestion that stood out to me was number one:
ReplyDeletePlan ahead to to make time for friendly conversation with others about God and religion.
I'm ready when you are ;-)
I think the author promoting this better read the links on fallacies.
ReplyDeleteThey should also be ready and able to defend their faith in atheism and be prepared to answer questions like where they came from, why are they here, what is their purpose, and how having a phrase on money is in any way establishing religion when all the facts do not support this.
We are more religiously diverse now than we ever were before this phrase was put on money.
I, like ceece, also would be open to dialogue whenever you are ready
I descended from a lost tribe of supernatural space monkeys.
ReplyDeleteI'm here now because our Vespa broke down. We requested maintenance assistance once but our mechanic stopped off for a drink in New Mexico en route and we haven't heard from him since.
Because only two of us survived the flood, we long feared our species would cease to exist. The great lizard bounty hunters sent to look for us didn't fare so well and, after seeing their graves desecrated by those pesky scientists, we decided assimilation may be our best hope.
We were going to adopt, but the legislature stopped us cold. Luckily, we figured out how to produce offspring using human female hosts from remote locations. It's nowhere near as much fun as the old way but you do what you can.
That scare did reinforce for us, though, the importance of writing it all down for posterity. Unfortunately, our Spanish isn't so good.
I'm not allowed to reveal our true purpose but, because I've become cozier with humans than I probably should have, I'll warn you that all that prime directive mumbo jumbo is just that. Do you really think we'd hire a guy with a tin ear and a bad toupee as our spokesman?
My partner, John, kept insisting that we get someone like that gay wizard from the Harry Potter books. I thought the long white robes and sandals were a bit over the top. He just kept pounding his rolled-up papers and saying his market research showed that 62% of the Nielsen audience found the old queen trustworthy.
I still argued for more of a Bryant Gumble type for quite a while, not wanting to offend anyone with a specific ethnicity or sexuality, but you can't tell anyone of that generation anything without resorting to a bunch of theatrics.
It's worked out, though, so I can't complain. They put it on the money and everything.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletebe prepared to answer questions like where they came from, why are they here, what is their purpose
ReplyDeleteHaving an answer to such a question doesn't make the answer credible. It might, however, make the answerer feel better.
Of course, we have to unpack the questions themselves and the assumptions implicit in them...but that discussion is much too long for blogging.
[Bluegill - you made my point by satire as I was typing]
Very nice, you should go into fiction writing.
ReplyDeleteIt unfortunately answers none of the tough questions that continues to be the problem in those with their faith in atheism
For Brandon, what is credible to you? There is ample credible evidence, historical reliable data, manuscripts, archeological evidence, as well as the miracle of creation itself.
You just choose to not accept any of it because of your epistemological bias and you still have no answers for the questions, or do you?
Very nice you should bring up epistemological bias. A. You don't know mine (but you assume you do) and B. You might want to examine the history of your own.
ReplyDeleteThere is ample credible evidence, historical reliable data, manuscripts, archeological evidence, as well as the miracle of creation itself.
Easy to type, difficult to justify outside the confines of an Answers in Genesis seminar. On those and various other points, I'll simply defer to what we've already discussed ad nauseam on your blog.
you still have no answers for the questions, or do you?
Again, the fact that you have answers does not make them credible - see part 2 of my initial response. The questions speak louder than the answers.
Again, you never answered the question of what makes something credible.
ReplyDeleteYou continually avoid answering the question and redirecting attention elsewhere.
You also falsely make assumptions that are unsubstantiated about there not being evidence outside of "answers in genesis". There are ample other examples that atheism has no explanation for.
This just avoids the issue once again about refuting credible reseach, studies and data that support theistic worldviews.
Tell everyone where you stand, how you define credible, and what your epistemological bias is.
They know where I stand
Uh-oh - the I think someone's been to the creation museum.
ReplyDeleteDrives you nuts that I don't play your game, doesn't it HB? I don't play it because I know the playbook too well (trust me on this point...I used to be you). But..you already know that's my position because we've blogged about it before. I referred to my prior posts because I don't have the time or desire to rehash old arguments.
ReplyDeleteAnd...when did I say anything about atheism? I know setting me up as a straw man atheist makes for good evangelical theater, but please don't assume that everyone who isn't a creation science evangelical Republican is an atheist. I know John Manzo doesn't.
Roger. I'd be delighted to have a FRIENDLY conversation about my thoughts.
ReplyDeleteMost people get their impression, these days, of religious people from the 'religious right,' which, while a perspective, is one that many on the religious left find to be amazingly irrational and simplistic. Much of what passes for classic Christianity these days are people's opinions 'back up' by random Scripture quotes. When I encounter this kind of stuff it makes my blood boil.
Many religious people are very rational, very well educated people who view the world and life in this world with great complexity, and have very rational explanations as to why they are people of faith. You'd note, as you probably have noted, that many of your political views and world views are shared by those on the religious left.
I'd love to have lunch. Here's MY promise. I won't preach. I promise. I think you know me well enough to know that I would not do that to you or set you up like that. You tell me your thing, I'll tell you my thing, and then you can say you've done the 'friendly conversation.'
There's no game Brandon. Todays post is on atheism.
ReplyDeleteYou are noncomittal and have never given an answer to some of these fundamental questions.
Just say you choose not to answer, but than again that doesn't lend itself to a two way dialogue and only points to the fact that you choose to repeatedly slap down other's arguments without explaining your own.
Maybe you're planning a run in politics. This type of behavior is common in that arena.
By the way, I've never been to the museum, but would be happy to make a road trip with any of you bloggers
I'd love to have lunch. Here's MY promise. I won't preach. I promise. I think you know me well enough to know that I would not do that to you or set you up like that. You tell me your thing, I'll tell you my thing, and then you can say you've done the 'friendly conversation.'
ReplyDeleteJohn...I would like to take you up on that offer at some point in time.
Just say you choose not to answer, but than again that doesn't lend itself to a two way dialogue and only points to the fact that you choose to repeatedly slap down other's arguments without explaining your own.
ReplyDeleteOuch! That's hitting below the belt. First, you're not interested in a two-way dialogue. Second, please cite "repeated" examples, with excerpts, of me "slapping down" "other's"
arguments without explaining my argument. Again - straw man - and not a very charitable one at that.
Maybe you're planning a run in politics. This type of behavior is common in that arena.
Double ouch! I've considered running for local office at some point in the distant future, if my wife approves, but I'm not currently planning a run. Thanks for asking.
Arrogant appeals to religion and trying desperately to label people so you can make a straw man out of them is also the type of behavior common in politics. If I do ever run, I promise not to pander to religious biases in order to get votes, and I further promise not disgrace my beliefs by wearing them on my sleeve.
Finally, thanks for that, John.
Kerberos
ReplyDeleteCall me next week at St. Marks. 945-2569. We can arrange it. I'm always open to conversation!
HB,
ReplyDeleteWhile not directed at me, why should I have to explain my non belief? Just because it is important for you to understand why you are here, it does not necessarily follow that everyone else feels the same way.
"We is, because we is"
Sorry, I can't discuss this topic on as high a level as many of you. I thought "epistemological" was a procedure that an OBGYN sometimes had to perform!(grin)
IAM - that was sort of my point in typing that:
ReplyDeletewe have to unpack the questions themselves and the assumptions implicit in them
It takes a certain belief structure just to ask those questions and expect a simple answer(as well as to outright deny them). This is why the atheist/theist debate, in and of itself, is flawed from the start. If you assume that the reality of human existence is encapsulated in that duality, and that everyone must neatly fit into those camps, then you have a lot of thinking and reading to do, in my opinion.
That's also why HB and I, again in my opinion, talked past each other when we used to debate this stuff, and why I don't want to do it again. He wants a label to make sense of where everyone is coming from and I'm trying to undermine the assumptions built into the discussion.
Boy am I glad I've grown past this one!
ReplyDeleteFrom my youthful naivet'e arose a debate such as this that led to my life of drucken debauchery.
As close as I can come to agreement to anyone on either side of this issue is that we as cognizant, thinking individuals must choose the path we are most comfortable with, accept the responsibility for that decision, and hope for the best.
After over a half century in this incarnation, I've yet to find absolute proof of anything outside the laws of physical nature (you touch a hot stove and you're gonna get burnt)!
Therfore my theology has become, pick your poison, roll the dice, and take your chances!
Oh, and try to find some peace, harmony, and joy along the way.
The blog today referred us to a site specifically asking non-Christian thinkers to:
ReplyDelete1. Plan ahead to to make time for friendly conversation with others about God and religion.
2. Be cashless for just one day and do not exchange actual US currency stamped with "In God We Trust." Ask yourself whether "God" should be included in economic gains and losses and stamped on economic tokens. Discuss your views with friends, family, church members or experts in the field.
3. Study the websites here and take note of how you respond both emotionally and intellectually to 'godless' thinkers.
4. Visit howstuffworks.com and read about a scientific topic you might think is related to religion and keep track of what you learn.
5. Visit the Scientific American website and read the latest news.
6. Learn how to identify and correct at least one logical fallacy for the day.
Friendly discussion usually includes asking questions, getting responses, questioning the responses for logical fallacies, and asking further clarifying questions and so on.
I’ve continually asked some questions and continually have responses like:
Having an answer to such a question doesn't make the answer credible. It might, however, make the answerer feel better.
Of course, we have to unpack the questions themselves and the assumptions implicit in them...but that discussion is much too long for blogging.
Brandon, from his first posting, makes it clear he doesn’t want to answer any questions related to his beliefs or thoughts. That’s fine, but then allow others to do so if they choose. If the discussion is too long for blogging, I am happy to discuss your viewpoint and very willing for others to challenge mine.
To IAM:
Your comments:
While not directed at me, why should I have to explain my non belief? Just because it is important for you to understand why you are here, it does not necessarily follow that everyone else feels the same way.
"We is, because we is"
Again, no one has to explain their non-belief, but the author of this website, as stated above, wanted this day to do just that. If you choose to not comment or discuss, that is fine, but why be intolerant if others want to ask questions and try to figure out why people believe what they believe.
The statistics are very clear; 1 out of every 1 person will die. What they believe happens after death and what the meaning of life is certainly will effect how they live their life and will effect how they interact with others (for better or worse). I believe there is more to it than “we is, because we is”
To Highwayman, your comment:
After over a half century in this incarnation, I've yet to find absolute proof of anything outside the laws of physical nature (you touch a hot stove and you're gonna get burnt)!
Are you incarnated and how do you know? What implications does incarnation have? Does it guide your behaviors to try and do better so that your next incarnation takes you to a higher status and then, what is the ultimate incarnation status or goal that is to be reached? These are legitimate questions related to your incarnation that I would love to hear an answer to them.
The response to your other statement is that science is only designed to prove things in the natural world. It cannot and will never be able to prove the supernatural yet we all know there are things that we cannot explain in a supernatural realm through natural laws.(ie. Love, hate, kindness, thought, morals, etc.)
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Yes it takes effort and time to think about these things and discuss them. This blog has repeatedly touted being intellectually above the average blogger and encouraging more stimulating discourse that actually requires thinking.
HB,
ReplyDeleteI answered and you dismissed it as fiction. You're welcome to explain how you reached that conclusion and how my answers are any more or less believable or provable than yours may be.
HB,
ReplyDeleteWithin this specific topic, my comments were not relevant, I will agree. Our blog "history" probably crept into my mind. With your B & W personality, I feel that you tend to put everything and everyone into one of only two boxes. I don't fit in one box very well. Most people and ideas don't.
Even with that said, I don't understand how I was being intolerant.
Ok - I admit that I am not dealing with you in good faith. I purposely don't state my beliefs to you in these discussions in order to make a point about the nature of the argument (see explanation of same above). My thoughts on life, the universe, and everything are personal to me and continually mature as I do, but I'm not shy about discussing them.
ReplyDeleteSo, HB, if you are sincerely interested in my "beliefs" I offer you this: send me an e-mail with any questions about beliefs you want and I will do my best to answer as completely as I can. smithb99 at insightbb.com
For Bluegill, I gave you credit for the fiction, but if you believe in supernatural space monkeys, I and I am sure many others would like to hear more about why and how you came to those conclusions. I never got the impression you believed in a supernatural realm.
ReplyDeleteScience, intellect and rational logic certainly weren't the reasons for this belief.
To IAM:
I am trying to see other points of view, but no one is ever willing to share their beliefs on some very fundamental questions. They would rather continue to stereotype me as B & W.
The email to Brandon is on the way and I appreciate that opportunity
You, yourself, told me that you are a B & W kind of guy. Your words, many times, back that up. Believe it or not, that is not meant in an unkind way.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it shouldn't, but this section bothers me.
"The statistics are very clear; 1 out of every 1 person will die. What they believe happens after death and what the meaning of life is certainly will effect how they live their life and will effect how they interact with others (for better or worse). I believe there is more to it than “we is, because we is”
This stikes me as saying "my way" leads to worse not better.