Sam Harris Interview for Waking Up Podcast,

Minute 34:00
https://youtu.be/PS5_uuInRRc?t=2032

"It does not matter to me what your religion is. It does not que off of objective reality. Otherwise it’d be called, “Science”.
A label is an intellectually lazy way of judging what another person thinks, without ever having to speak with them.
I have observed outspoken atheists and I am not like them. There must be another word for me.
Besides, I’m not even sure I fit in that category. I love Handel’s Messiah. I love the Cathedrals of Europe. None of that would have happened without religion." Neil deGrass Tyson

So correlate that with this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w&list=PL366C37FFC2760B08

Time: 10:05

"I want to put on the table, not why 85 percent of the National Academy (of Science) rejects God, I want to know why 15% don't.

Watch the whole video in context. I think you'll get a much clearer view of Tyson's view of religion and God.

It's not as supportive of your pantheist missionary work.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not as supportive of your pantheist
> missionary work.

It's not supportive of it at all.

Tyson *is* an atheist.
He just doesn't like the label.

As a popularizer of science for the (largely) theistic populace, it would be impolitic for Neil deGrasse Tyson to come right out and say: "I'm AM an atheist. So suck it!" Instead, he judiciously dances around the issue so as not to alienate a great portion of his audience.

Bingo. Exactly right!

Maybe he just believes in letting other people have their beliefs so long as they dont reject science and many theists dont. He is a much different type of atheist than Harris and Dawkins and probably more effective since he isnt a jerk about his views.He does express his opinion, but isnt as 'in your face' as the other two

Since one would have to seek out the views of Harris or Dawkins to know what they were, how are they "in your face?"

Are they going door-to-door proselytizing?
No.
Are they leaving pamphlets at your doorstep?
No.
Are they on the news every day, like political pundits?
No.

I think your premise needs reworking. It seems rather flawed.

Agreed. As an atheist, I've also never asked anyone to join in atheist prayer. I also have never asked a non-atheist to an atheist meeting.

I have had people try to push their religion on me by knocking on my door, preaching from the corner, telling me I'll go to hell if I do not believe in God.

Disagree. Richard Dawkins is an evangelist for atheism. His many books and many, many speeches and TV appearences put him in far more faces than any ordinary mormon missionary or even general authority. His clear goal is to demonstate the falsity of religion and to persuade non-believers to enbrace the term "atheist." If you don't believe me, try reading "The God Delusion," specifically, the section entitled "The Poverty of Agnosticism."

He wrote a book that people are free to read if they want. He appears on TV an youtube that people can watch, if they want. They are also free to not watch it.

He is not going door to door, preaching on corners, does not lead a congregation in weekly prayer sessions, etc..

Of course he doesn't. Why would he do those things? That's not what he's selling. It doesn't mean he's not selling anything or selling it just as hard.

By the way, Tommy Monson doesn't go door to door either.

Everyone sells something even, so what is your point? If you want to ding people for selling something, ding yourself.


Tommy Monson is head of a religion that recruits tens of thousands, then trains them how to sell religion, and sends them out to knock on doors.

Dawkins does not do this, so no, Dawkins does not sell just as hard.

Most churches dont go door to door. Other than a few Mormons and JWs I havent been bothered by mishies in 67 years.

Christianity has a long history of sending missionaries out to convert the heathens and savages.

I stand by what I said. Regardless of what some Christians did in the past or present, many denominations do not send out proselytizing missionaries now and I personally hve never been bothered by any other than the few I mentioned

It is not "in the past" and it is every christian church that sends out missionaries.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mission

"A Christian mission is an organized effort to spread Christianity.[1] "

It is also a commandment in the Bible:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/spreading_the_word

Some of that is very threatening.

Your ignorance is showing. have you ever heard of service missions? A protestant youth group that a friend's daughter belongs to went to Mexico to build houses for the poor. They provided physical help and didnt attempt to convert anyone. This is very common. Some churches ,but not all, do send missionaries, but there are many kinds of missions and many dont proselytize and most dont go door to door because it doesnt work.

I have supplied supporting documentation to back up my claims.

Service missions are not altruistic. They are to spread Christianity just by different means:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_missions

"With the Council's emphasis on individual conscience,[30] baptism is seen not only as the Ordinary means of salvation but as a vocation call for Christians to spread the good news of God's love to all peoples by their practice of true charity, that is universal and inclusive of all God's children.[31]"

They are to spread Christianity via service missions.

As another poster said, 'you are resistant to facts'. What you presented was your interpretation-not facts. Have it your way. I can see why you and Kolob dont think Dawkins is in your face. Might have something to something to do with both of you having the same agressive trait.

I have posted supporting documentation to back up my claims.

You have nothing to back up your claims.

Sorry, I do not see your unsupported claims as facts.

You claim to be a teacher, so which student would get the higher grade,

The student that wrote a essay and supported his claims using external sources, you know, foot notes, bibliography, direct reference in the text,

Or the student that wrote an essay but included no supporting external sources?

It's like Mormon missionaries offering to mow your lawn. It may be a service act, but they are hoping to get a foot in the door to convert you.

Bye bye.

Bye, you may want to research whey a bibliography is important on things like essays, research papers, etc!

Universal and inclusive charity, helping anyone in need, loving your neighbor as yourself--this is proselyting for Christianity? Yes, I think it is--and it's not repellant! But Buddhists and atheists do this, too, so being "Christian" in this sense (the only sense that counts) has nothing to do with outer religious professing but with love for humanity.

I was talking about organized religions using missions in an organized attempt to use service to convert, which is pretty much what my quote said.

Many secular service organizations help out without the intent to convert anyone.

Name one. Then I will tell you you are wrong and cite to irrelevant wikepedia articles to "prove" my baseless claim. After that, I will try to scold you about prober authorities for high school essays.

Sound familiar?

lol. He is totally missing the fact that Christianity is very diverse and none of the things he cited apply to all Christians.That is the whole point.

Take it up with the sources I drew from.

Doctors with out boarder, for one.

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/about-us

"We are Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). We help people worldwide where the need is greatest, delivering emergency medical aid to people affected by conflict, epidemics, disasters, or exclusion from health care."

I, for one, can provide evidence for what I claim, you?

Amnesty International is another:

http://www.amnesty.eu/en/about-amnesty-international/faq/

"Amnesty International has no political affiliation, endorses no political party, accepts no funds from governments or any political party. Amnesty International is independent of any government, political persuasion or religious creed. It does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the protection of the human rights involved in each case, regardless of the ideology of the government, opposition forces or the beliefs of the individual. Its independence is recognised through its observer status with the United Nations and regional inter-governmental organisations. Amnesty International does not grade countries according to their human rights record; instead of attempting comparisons it concentrates on trying to end specific violations of human rights."

I've named 2.

Got any sources at all?

Did you formerly post as MJ?

Did MJ academically sound methods like providing evidence to back up his claims as well?

No, but he ranted a lot and never gave up.

Address the topic of the tread and stop trying to make this about someone else.

\

Good try at a hyjack, You got me sucked in.

Who died and made you moderator? I asked you a question which you can choose to answer or not as you wish. I asked because you have a very similar posting style. People ask questions all the time and there is no rule against it.

For someone that said "bye" already, you sure do not give up, and you rant alot.

Aloysius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By the way, Tommy Monson doesn't go door to door
> either.

Yes, but he does send thousands of his mindless minions to do just that. I was one of them.

Incidentally, Dawkins isn't "selling" atheism.
He's "selling" rational thought. And the acceptance of facts discovered using the scientific method.
It just so happens that when you think rationally and accept facts, you figure out how irrational and unfactual "god" belief is.

I stand by my initial statement: he's not in anybody's face. You have to seek out his views. People who don't seek them out have largely never heard of him.

Dawkins sells books, and the content of books when he speaks. He doesn't sell the belief that IF you don't believe and practice what is in the books, THEN something presumably negative will happen to you. He just thinks you're stupid.

Religion sells books, and the content of books when the leaders speak. And religion sells the belief that IF you don't believe and practice what is in the books, THEN something presumably negative will happen to you. They think you're evil.

Dawkins = Read my books and hear my lectures and let's agree on XYZ, and if you don't, you're an idiot.

Religion = Read my books and hear my lectures and let's agree on XYZ, and give me a portion of your income and time on a regular basis, and if you don't, you will suffer for eternity.....and never see your family again.

That's the difference I see between the two.

Probably.

But can you imagine saying "I'm going to worship God and join a religion because Dawkins is an in-your-face asshole"?

Not me personally. But I have many people say, essentially, that.

Yeah, right.

You obviously have a problem with facts, so I'm not going to waste my time with you.

I have no problems with facts, but you have not presented any. You have made claims that I have disputed, but no facts.

Sorry saying something like "many people say, essentially, that." is simply not a fact. It is not what they actually said. It is vague innuendo that simply does not have enough evidence to claim it as fact.

But nice try at gas lighting with the "You obviously have a problem with facts" attack.

Thank you. Aloyisius



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2017 10:56PM by bona dea.

wrong place



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2017 11:00PM by bona dea.

If you are implying I havent read Dawkins and Harris, you are very wrong and I really dont appreciate the insinuation.
This was meant for Kolob.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2017 11:39PM by bona dea.

I didn't mean to insinuate anything and I certainly didn't mean to offend you. I appologize.

So sorry. I tried twice to put this under Hie to Kolob's post where it was meant to be. He did insinuate that I havent read the two. After trying twice and failing, I gave up. I agree with you and am sorry you felt attacked.

:)

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are implying I havent read Dawkins and
> Harris, you are very wrong and I really dont
> appreciate the insinuation.
> This was meant for Kolob.

I didn't imply any such thing.
I pointed out that your "in your face" comment was inaccurate and a bit silly.
Clearly YOU have sought out their views by reading their works. Don't blame THEM for YOUR actions. Which is what you did.

He won't say that he is an Atheist for the same reason Carl Sagan would not say he is an Atheist.

Bad P.R.

"An Atheist would have to know far more about the Cosmos than me." Said the guy who literally wrote the book on the subject.
"Yes I believe in God, if by the word, 'God' you mean the embodiment of the immutable laws that govern the Cosmos." Sagan

He believed in 'god' just not the same God as Judeo Christians. More like the pantheist god of Einstein, Spinoza and far more ancient religions than Western religions.
To insist he and others like him are Atheist, despite their clear statements to the contrary, is like insisting somebody is gay, just because of the way they look/speak/behave when they dont identify as such.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2017 01:29PM by koriwhore.

I read it as: He would believe in God, if you redefine God to be a set of unthinking "laws" that describe nature.

He believes in God, only if you define the word as something that is not really "god".

Who's to say his definition of 'god' is less legit than your definition of God?

God the Broccoli in my refrigerator.

Who's to say my definition of 'god' is less legit than his definition of God?

Using your logic, the word God is meaningless because ANYTHING can be God.

Is their a Polit Bureau for the English language that determines the one and only, official, fixed definition of the word, "god"?
Personally I think it is just short for "good" as in, thank goodness = thank god.
I'm pretty sure Einstein, Sagan and Spinoza's definition of the word, "god" works for me just fine for me when I use the word or read it on my money.
If you want to make it meaningless by applying it to brocholli, that's your choice, but it just makes you seem really confused and detached from reality. It has zero bearing on what is meanigful to me and guys like Einstein, Sagan and Tyson.
Even Dawkins claims belief in tbe god of Einstein/Spinoza.
I like their definition a lot better than the Judeo Christian definition, although their definition is also the basis of the Judeo Christian definition, which haz since been lost in translation from the origjnal Greek, Logos.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2017 01:54PM by koriwhore.

Who are YOU to say their definition is correct and others are not?

The burden of proof is on you.

Let's try something different, please summertime what I say here:

"Body tree horse taco banjo."

Hint, who is to say that my definition of those words is any more valid than yours?

And why should what you like define a word?

It is not up to me to prove his definition as wrong, it is up to him to prove his definition RIGHT.

Nice try at shifting the burden of proof. If logical fallacies are you can use to make your point, you have no point.

I understand that there could be times when it is appropriate to define somebody contrary to that person's own self-definition. For instances, if Mr. Tyson said, "I am not a human because I don't agree with the violence and intolerance I see humans display," he would still be a human. But it seems disrespectful to insist that Darwin, Einstein, Sagan and Tyson were/are atheists when they took exception to the label. If a Mormon says, "I'm a Christian," I will not say otherwise. Likewise, if people who don't believe in God -- but don't foreclose the possibility that someday, however unlikely, evidence may be found supporting the existence of a God -- don't want to be labeled atheists, I'm cool with that. Even Richard Dawkins made a point in one interview to clarify that he was an atheist as to the God of Abraham. That type of open-minded disbelief appeals to me, whereas snarkily insisting on typing the proper noun "God" with a small "g," or misspelling it "Gawd," or calling a Jesus who likely didn't exist "Jebus" suggests an animosity to the concept of divinity that just doesn't resonate with me.

I have great animosity to the concept of divinity whether you approve or not.
god ... gawd ... it's all fake bullshit and to promoting it is dishonest.

And no, you are not holier than thou even though you wish to be.

You receive nothing but eternal snark.

A person is human because they meet the definition of human. It does not matter what they do or say, if they meet the definition of what a human is, they are human.

A person is an atheist because they meet the definition of atheist. It does not matter what they do or say, if they meet the definition of what an atheist is, they are atheist.

I have more respect for the person that says "Yes, I am an atheist, and I don't care if you think it has a negative connotation", than I am with someone that tries to dodge the label.

I would have a lot less respect for someone that says "I am not human because I do not like what I see humans do" than I would for a person that says "I am a human that is appalled by what I see some other humans do to others"