Comments on: Reaching Out http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:09:54 +0000 By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-24767 Alex Weaver Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:40:30 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-24767 <blockquote>I'm not saying this, but God is. He gave us his love letter to us to prove it.</blockquote> Why does so much of his "love letter" read like a bad horror novel?

I'm not saying this, but God is. He gave us his love letter to us to prove it.

Why does so much of his "love letter" read like a bad horror novel?

]]> By: NM http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-24364 NM Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:53:56 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-24364 The reason atheists cannot get together is because one doesn't get together out of a "not". That's a silly reason. However, I do encourage everyone to get involved in their communities, local, national or international in whatever way works for them (blogging, for instance) and point out when necessary that we don't find belief in the supernatural a necessary component of our lives. I also do not think atheists have to be fulfilled: why can't we be as miserable,or mixed up or as average as everybody else? We really are just EVERYBODY ELSE, just minus the Sky Pixie The reason atheists cannot get together is because one doesn't get together out of a "not". That's a silly reason. However, I do encourage everyone to get involved in their communities, local, national or international in whatever way works for them (blogging, for instance) and point out when necessary that we don't find belief in the supernatural a necessary component of our lives. I also do not think atheists have to be fulfilled: why can't we be as miserable,or mixed up or as average as everybody else? We really are just EVERYBODY ELSE, just minus the Sky Pixie

]]> By: norman ravitch http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-24122 norman ravitch Wed, 23 May 2007 16:37:38 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-24122 Atheists may see the need for gathering together -- like an alternative for kids who socialize in church groups where they get a lot of nonsense which lasts their whole lives -- but actually non-belief is so obvious, so right, so little in need of defense that atheists getting together is just a parody of religions. I attended a Unitarian church for three Sundays and was totally turned off by the attempt of non-believers or little-belivers to turn themselves into a church with ritual of sorts, hymns about light and truth and fire, etc. It was absurd. Atheists may see the need for gathering together -- like an alternative for kids who socialize in church groups where they get a lot of nonsense which lasts their whole lives -- but actually non-belief is so obvious, so right, so little in need of defense that atheists getting together is just a parody of religions.

I attended a Unitarian church for three Sundays and was totally turned off by the attempt of non-believers or little-belivers to turn themselves into a church with ritual of sorts, hymns about light and truth and fire, etc. It was absurd.

]]> By: Naomi http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-24057 Naomi Mon, 21 May 2007 04:53:40 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-24057 LogicalCon: Bless you! I just had an epiphany! I seriously object to the idea that they "own" those words, although they do, since they invented them to describe specific circumstances. But getting around this issue will be a struggle. For instance, in eighth-grade, I learned the word "uxorious" and its meaning. Nobody uses that word when they want to say "hen-pecked" - they just say hen-pecked (or the coarse "p*ssy-whipped"). Do we begin to say: "a usually sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature of meaning of something"? Or: "an intuitive grasp of reality through [an event]"? Or: "an illuminating discovery"? Or: a revealing scene or moment"? No, epiphany does just fine. Like uxorious, it's a one-word symbol for a more complex meme. But, unlike uxorious, it's in common usage already, is a vital part of our language and is euphonious. PS: I've already removed "god-bless-you, sneezer". I just don't say anything at all. However, "do you need a tissue" is an improvement. Unless you've read Stephen King's <i>The Stand</i>... LogicalCon: Bless you! I just had an epiphany!

I seriously object to the idea that they "own" those words, although they do, since they invented them to describe specific circumstances. But getting around this issue will be a struggle.

For instance, in eighth-grade, I learned the word "uxorious" and its meaning. Nobody uses that word when they want to say "hen-pecked" - they just say hen-pecked (or the coarse "p*ssy-whipped"). Do we begin to say: "a usually sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature of meaning of something"? Or: "an intuitive grasp of reality through [an event]"? Or: "an illuminating discovery"? Or: a revealing scene or moment"?

No, epiphany does just fine. Like uxorious, it's a one-word symbol for a more complex meme. But, unlike uxorious, it's in common usage already, is a vital part of our language and is euphonious.

PS: I've already removed "god-bless-you, sneezer". I just don't say anything at all. However, "do you need a tissue" is an improvement. Unless you've read Stephen King's The Stand...

]]> By: Lynet http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-24027 Lynet Sat, 19 May 2007 12:01:43 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-24027 I'm almost certain that there is just no way we could put anything like a 'Bible' together that even a slim majority of us could agree on for even a short period of time. Many of us would be suspicious of the idea in the first place. I'm almost certain that there is just no way we could put anything like a 'Bible' together that even a slim majority of us could agree on for even a short period of time. Many of us would be suspicious of the idea in the first place.

]]> By: BANGAMBIKI http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-24016 BANGAMBIKI Sat, 19 May 2007 10:20:38 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-24016 I propose eminent atheists meet up and produce an Atheist Bible,encompassing all we know about atheism,arguments against religion,atheist morality,etc.We atheists may unite around that.The book should not be canonical,but open to criticism and adaptation whenever necessary.We can use that to defend our ideas.It can comfort especially those atheists who are not sophisticated.For what we have today are scattered books and ideas which I don't think help much unite atheism and eventually foster a strong movement capable of making a difference.We hate atheism as a religion but if atheist don't organize themselves one way or another they will always suffer despite the fact that they are reasonable I propose eminent atheists meet up and produce an Atheist Bible,encompassing all we know about atheism,arguments against religion,atheist morality,etc.We atheists may unite around that.The book should not be canonical,but open to criticism and adaptation whenever necessary.We can use that to defend our ideas.It can comfort especially those atheists who are not sophisticated.For what we have today are scattered books and ideas which I don't think help much unite atheism and eventually foster a strong movement capable of making a difference.We hate atheism as a religion but if atheist don't organize themselves one way or another they will always suffer despite the fact that they are reasonable

]]> By: Vicki B. http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-23890 Vicki B. Tue, 15 May 2007 03:08:12 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-23890 I think a simple comment to the effect that ethnic slurs fail to present a welcoming and inclusive worldview would be both on topic and an effective response. I think a simple comment to the effect that ethnic slurs fail to present a welcoming and inclusive worldview would be both on topic and an effective response.

]]> By: Polly http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-23883 Polly Mon, 14 May 2007 16:58:35 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-23883 Oh for goodness sake! I didn't want to give AJS the satisfaction of a reaction, but I'll add my voice for your review V.B.. I think what he's suggesting is pathetically juvenile and incredibly offensive. It attempts to degrade theists and is self-degrading to anyone who uses those religious labels in that manner. Why? Because to pick on others for their beliefs makes one an ignorant bastard. I found his comment, "Stop feeling so sorry for yourself or you'll have the jews demanding royalty payments" to be borderline anti-semitic. Though I seriously doubt that's his intention, others wouldn't necessarily make the needed distinction. And, he's putting this out there as a culture-wide shift in syntax, so how other people think does matter. The whole point of the <i>original</i> post is to discuss what's GOOD about atheism not to tear down theism. Just because <u>one</u>, lone, anonymous commenter took that as an opportunity to espouse an idea that is completely contrary to the spirit of that message, doesn't mean we should have to shift the discussion in the name of equal time. Oh for goodness sake! I didn't want to give AJS the satisfaction of a reaction, but I'll add my voice for your review V.B..
I think what he's suggesting is pathetically juvenile and incredibly offensive. It attempts to degrade theists and is self-degrading to anyone who uses those religious labels in that manner. Why? Because to pick on others for their beliefs makes one an ignorant bastard.
I found his comment, "Stop feeling so sorry for yourself or you'll have the jews demanding royalty payments" to be borderline anti-semitic. Though I seriously doubt that's his intention, others wouldn't necessarily make the needed distinction. And, he's putting this out there as a culture-wide shift in syntax, so how other people think does matter.
The whole point of the original post is to discuss what's GOOD about atheism not to tear down theism. Just because one, lone, anonymous commenter took that as an opportunity to espouse an idea that is completely contrary to the spirit of that message, doesn't mean we should have to shift the discussion in the name of equal time.

]]> By: Vicki Baker http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-23882 Vicki Baker Mon, 14 May 2007 15:58:08 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-23882 Hmmm, still not exactly a rush of commenters eager to disassociate themselves from the implication that Jews are money-grubbers who make capital out of their tales of oppression... Hmmm, still not exactly a rush of commenters eager to disassociate themselves from the implication that Jews are money-grubbers who make capital out of their tales of oppression...

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-23874 Alex Weaver Mon, 14 May 2007 00:59:07 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/reaching-out.html#comment-23874 As for AJS' comments, they're insensitive and childish. I wouldn't call them "bigoted" since he's describing a framing technique rather than an actual attitude, and particularly since the technique described is very much "fighting fire with fire." Nevertheless, I agree that his approach is unlikely to be productive. By the way, are you actually under the impression that who is is, what he said, how, and to who, is in any way comparable to televangelists like Robertson? O.o As for AJS' comments, they're insensitive and childish. I wouldn't call them "bigoted" since he's describing a framing technique rather than an actual attitude, and particularly since the technique described is very much "fighting fire with fire." Nevertheless, I agree that his approach is unlikely to be productive.

By the way, are you actually under the impression that who is is, what he said, how, and to who, is in any way comparable to televangelists like Robertson? O.o

]]>