I'm interested in people's responses to the 7 reasons why Sam Harris, rejects the label of Atheist in "The Problem with Atheism",

...in summary.....

#1. My concern with the use of the term “atheism” is both philosophical and strategic. I’m speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn’t even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion. And, as I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “bullshit” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.

#2. The problem is that the concept of atheism imposes upon us a false burden of remaining fixated on people’s beliefs about God and remaining even-handed in our treatment of religion. But we shouldn’t be fixated, and we shouldn’t be even-handed. In fact, we should be quick to point out the differences among religions, for two reasons:

First, these differences make all religions look contingent, and therefore silly. Consider the unique features of Mormonism.

The second reason to be attentive to the differences among the world’s religions is that these differences are actually a matter of life and death.

#3. Atheism is too blunt an instrument to use at moments like this.

#4. Another problem with calling ourselves “atheists” is that every religious person thinks he has a knockdown argument against atheism.

#5. Why should we fall into this trap? Why should we stand obediently in the space provided, in the space carved out by the conceptual scheme of theistic religion? It’s as though, before the debate even begins, our opponents draw the chalk-outline of a dead man on the sidewalk, and we just walk up and lie down in it.

#6. Instead of doing this, consider what would happen if we simply used words like “reason” and “evidence.” What is the argument against reason?

#7. The last problem with atheism I’d like to talk about relates to the some of the experiences that lie at the core of many religious traditions, though perhaps not all, and which are testified to, with greater or lesser clarity in the world’s “spiritual” and “mystical” literature. Those of you who have read The End of Faith, know that I don’t entirely line up with Dan, Richard, and Christopher in my treatment of these things.My concern is that atheism can easily become the position of not being interested in certain possibilities in principle. I don’t know if our universe is, as JBS Haldane said, “not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose.” But I am sure that it is stranger than we, as “atheists,” tend to represent while advocating atheism. As “atheists” we give others, and even ourselves, the sense that we are well on our way toward purging the universe of mystery. As advocates of reason, we know that mystery is going to be with us for a very long time. Indeed, there are good reasons to believe that mystery is ineradicable from our circumstance, because however much we know, it seems like there will always be brute facts that we cannot account for but which we must rely upon to explain everything else. This may be a problem for epistemology but it is not a problem for human life and for human solidarity. It does not rob our lives of meaning. And it is not a barrier to human happiness.
We are faced, however, with the challenge of communicating this view to others. We are faced with the monumental task of persuading a myth-infatuated world that love and curiosity are sufficient, and that we need not console or frighten ourselves or our children with Iron Age fairy tales. I don’t think there is a more important intellectual struggle to win; it has to be fought from a hundred sides, all at once, and continuously; but it seems to me that there is no reason for us to fight in well-ordered ranks, like the red coats of Atheism.
Finally, I think it’s useful to envision what victory will look like. Again, the analogy with racism seems instructive to me. What will victory against racism look like, should that happy day ever dawn? It certainly won’t be a world in which a majority of people profess that they are “nonracist.” Most likely, it will be a world in which the very concept of separate races has lost its meaning.
We will have won this war of ideas against religion when atheism is scarcely intelligible as a concept. We will simply find ourselves in a world in which people cease to praise one another for pretending to know things they do not know. This is certainly a future worth fighting for. It may be the only future compatible with our long-term survival as a species. But the only path between now and then, that I can see, is for us to be rigorously honest in the present. It seems to me that intellectual honesty is now, and will always be, deeper and more durable, and more easily spread, than “atheism.”

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-problem-with-atheism

As I told Sam when he called me to discuss this:

HOLY CRAP, SAM, STOP CALLING ME!!

Elder OldDog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I told Sam when he called me to discuss this:
>
>
> HOLY CRAP, SAM, STOP CALLING ME!!


Oh so you're the one..... now he's calling me. Quit giving out

my phone number DAmnit !!!!!!!

Sam's not saying he isn't an atheist. He's mostly saying using the word atheism is an impediment to a constructive conversation with a religious person.

For example, reason number four:

"Another problem with calling ourselves “atheists” is that every religious person thinks he has a knockdown argument against atheism."

I think Sam's trying to avoid allowing people who equate atheists with rapists to easily dismiss arguments based on reason.

. . . if not fixated on those who have no belief in god?

Countless atheists, by the way, dismiss the notion of god and go about living their lives in the moment, with a sense of individual morality, human-centered love and personal responsibility to themselves, others and the planet that would rival that of any god believer. (And if god believers can't handle the term "atheist," that's their gawd damn problem).

What you are fixated on is the atheist lack of belief in god. And within that fixation, you are sub-fixated on Sam Harris because you think you can use his opinions to hammer the godless. There are all kinds of atheists; it appears you and Sam are now good buddies because he gives you excuses not to abandon your god belief.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2015 02:10AM by steve benson.

great tactic.
I doubt that believers are fixated on non believers. They're fixated on their beliefs and hate anybody who doesn't agree with their beliefs. The only thing Americans hate more than Muslims is Atheists.

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/21/the_numbers_are_in_america_still_distrusts_atheists_and_muslims_partner

And guys like Richard Dawkins are not doing the lame "New Atheist" group think cause any favors by calling for a "New Atheist" jihad against believers.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/03/-atheists-richard-dawkins-reason-rally/1#.VL--mUfF_ZE

What's so new about "New Atheism"?
Oh, the guy who started it with is book, "The End of Faith" says Atheism is lame idea and that it's a really bad idea to label yourself as an Atheist, for a whole litany of reasons atheists can't respond to intelligently, yet they all insist upon maintaining their egoic group think.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2015 09:59AM by koriwhore.

. . . so you twist his words in ways that make you feel good and that provide reinforcement of your personal god belief. It's a tactic akin to the one used by those who distort Einstein's views in order to remake him as a god believer in their own image.

It also reminds me of your tactic of selectively ignoring Carl Sagan's pro-atheist sentiments, as well as the observations of those who knew him intimately--all on a website where you went to cherry-pick Sagan in order to suit your own promotional purposes.

--Here's how you engaged in convenient quoting in your quest to create your made-in-koriwhore image of Sagan:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1483673,1483673#msg-1483673


--And here's how you got caught doing it:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1484702,1485130#msg-1485130
_____


And now you expect folks to accept your take on Harris?

Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze.



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2015 06:52PM by steve benson.

To me, it reads like a semantic discussion. I think what Harris longs for, is a society where religion plays no role, where it's an irrelevant historical artifact, where talking about religion is considered rude.

Harris should move to Europe.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2015 01:57AM by rt.

A quick search of the internet shows that a lot of Atheist disagree with him as well. They proudly use the label.

I do not obsess with theism because I am an Atheist, I fight back against theists that force their beliefs on me.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2015 02:11AM by MJ.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm interested in people's responses to the 7
> reasons why Sam Harris, rejects the label of
> Atheist in "The Problem with Atheism",
>
> ...in summary.....
>
> #1. My concern with the use of the term
> “atheism” is both philosophical and strategic.
> I’m speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps
> paradoxical position because, while I am now one
> of the public voices of atheism, I never thought
> of myself as an atheist before being inducted to
> speak as one. I didn’t even use the term in The
> End of Faith, which remains my most substantial
> criticism of religion. And, as I argued briefly in
> Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that
> “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in
> the same way that we don’t need a word for
> someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not
> call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are
> words like “reason” and “evidence” and
> “common sense” and “bullshit” to put
> astrologers in their place, and so it could be
> with religion.

He admits he is one of the "public voices of atheism".

>
> #2. The problem is that the concept of atheism
> imposes upon us a false burden of remaining
> fixated on people’s beliefs about God and
> remaining even-handed in our treatment of
> religion. But we shouldn’t be fixated, and we
> shouldn’t be even-handed. In fact, we should be
> quick to point out the differences among
> religions, for two reasons:

Wrong, it poses no such burden on me. I am only "fixated" on the theists that want to force their mumbo-jumbo on me. If they keep their silly superstitions to themselves, I wouldn't give a shit about them. I am not fixated on theists because I am an atheist.

Snipped the discussion of their differences because it is inconsequential to me an my atheism.

> #3. Atheism is too blunt an instrument to use at
> moments like this.

"Moments like this" leaves open the idea that it is not too blunt an instrument at other times. But it is silly to think that "lack of belief in God" (the one definition that applies to all atheist) is too blunt of an interment for use with theists. If my lack of belief is too blunt an in instrument that is a problem for the theist, not the atheists. If the term Atheism is too blunt an instrument for the theists, that is a problem for the theists.

>
> #4. Another problem with calling ourselves
> “atheists” is that every religious person
> thinks he has a knockdown argument against
> atheism.
>

I will not define myself by what theists think. Maybe Harris will cower to the Theists in such a way, but I will not.

> #5. Why should we fall into this trap? Why should
> we stand obediently in the space provided, in the
> space carved out by the conceptual scheme of
> theistic religion? It’s as though, before the
> debate even begins, our opponents draw the
> chalk-outline of a dead man on the sidewalk, and
> we just walk up and lie down in it.

The only trap Harris is falling into is defining himself based on what the theists think or say. In other words, he is obsessing over what religion things of him and redefining himself based on that obsession. Not using the word atheist because of what religious think is based on the obsession he claims he is avoiding.

>
> #6. Instead of doing this, consider what would
> happen if we simply used words like “reason”
> and “evidence.” What is the argument against
> reason?

Gee, like we have never tried that. "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religions people" House

>
> #7. The last problem with atheism I’d like to
> talk about relates to the some of the experiences
> that lie at the core of many religious traditions,
> though perhaps not all, and which are testified
> to, with greater or lesser clarity in the
> world’s “spiritual” and “mystical”
> literature. Those of you who have read The End of
> Faith, know that I don’t entirely line up with
> Dan, Richard, and Christopher in my treatment of
> these things.My concern is that atheism can easily
> become the position of not being interested in
> certain possibilities in principle. I don’t know
> if our universe is, as JBS Haldane said, “not
> only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than
> we can suppose.” But I am sure that it is
> stranger than we, as “atheists,” tend to
> represent while advocating atheism. As
> “atheists” we give others, and even ourselves,
> the sense that we are well on our way toward
> purging the universe of mystery. As advocates of
> reason, we know that mystery is going to be with
> us for a very long time. Indeed, there are good
> reasons to believe that mystery is ineradicable
> from our circumstance, because however much we
> know, it seems like there will always be brute
> facts that we cannot account for but which we must
> rely upon to explain everything else. This may be
> a problem for epistemology but it is not a problem
> for human life and for human solidarity. It does
> not rob our lives of meaning. And it is not a
> barrier to human happiness.
> We are faced, however, with the challenge of
> communicating this view to others. We are faced
> with the monumental task of persuading a
> myth-infatuated world that love and curiosity are
> sufficient, and that we need not console or
> frighten ourselves or our children with Iron Age
> fairy tales. I don’t think there is a more
> important intellectual struggle to win; it has to
> be fought from a hundred sides, all at once, and
> continuously; but it seems to me that there is no
> reason for us to fight in well-ordered ranks, like
> the red coats of Atheism.
> Finally, I think it’s useful to envision what
> victory will look like. Again, the analogy with
> racism seems instructive to me. What will victory
> against racism look like, should that happy day
> ever dawn? It certainly won’t be a world in
> which a majority of people profess that they are
> “nonracist.” Most likely, it will be a world
> in which the very concept of separate races has
> lost its meaning.
> We will have won this war of ideas against
> religion when atheism is scarcely intelligible as
> a concept. We will simply find ourselves in a
> world in which people cease to praise one another
> for pretending to know things they do not know.
> This is certainly a future worth fighting for. It
> may be the only future compatible with our
> long-term survival as a species. But the only path
> between now and then, that I can see, is for us to
> be rigorously honest in the present. It seems to
> me that intellectual honesty is now, and will
> always be, deeper and more durable, and more
> easily spread, than “atheism.”

Again, he is defining himself by the religious and the religious view and thinking. I will never understand why an atheist would want to do that.

Fortunately, many Atheist do not buy into this sort of pandering to the religious and proudly call themselves atheists.

Ultimately Harris' idea that not using the word "atheist" is flawed. The religious will still apply the label and everything that Harris hopes to avoid in the discussions with the religious will no be avoided. Harris is Atheist in their eyes regardless of if he chooses to use the label or not. The theists will use the label anyway.

Same thing happens to gays, the haters will use the F-g word regardless of what we gays call our self.


But hey, worship Harris all you want. Your obsession with the word atheist is actually what Harris is trying to avoid.

Ultimately the problem with Harris is that he still lets religion Dictate how he behaves.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2015 02:41AM by MJ.

Kori, you did this exact same topic about 2 weeks ago, speaking of fixations. And you are still cherry picking and putting words in Sam Harris' mouth.

And I'm still not sure why you have such a problem with atheists.

which includes many of the same reasons Harris rejects that title, despite all the Atheists telling me I was an idiot and a coward for rejecting the Atheist label, like Harris and perfering something far more affirmative, like Pantheist, like most of my intellectual heroes.
I still have yet to see an atheist respond intelligently to his reasons, or mine.

We atheists haven't responded "intelligently" (incidentally, who's the judge?) because most of us don't care. We've moved beyond this tired old debate and are now getting on with our lives.

Also, the US is the only developed country that I know where 'Atheist' is considered 'bad' (because of Americans' excessive religiosity). Where I live, we're in a majority.

Sorry if this reply isn't "intelligent" enough for you, but that's all you're getting. Life's too short...

Tom in Paris



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2015 09:54AM by Soft Machine.

There are other ways to express it. A woman once told me in response to a query, "I'm not religious."

You can still believe in God and not be religious.

Why cower from the theists giving them such power as to be able to dictate what you call yourself?

Not bothered.

I've mentioned this before, but....

I think people get confused by the word atheist, because it ends in 'ist', like activist, scientist, terrorist, etc. The suffix 'ist' usually indicates a profession or a follower. But in the word atheist, it indicates someone who is *not* a particular type, i.e. not a theist.

Next they'll claim agnosticism is a belief, because it's an 'ism.'

I don't believe in any "god" things.
That makes me an atheist.
Sam is essentially saying many of the same things that Einstein was -- that being called an atheist is a "problem" in a religious society. Sure, it can be. But I'm still an atheist.
So is Sam. So was Einstein.