<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Answering the Accommodationists (Again)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/07/answering-the-accommodationists-again.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/07/answering-the-accommodationists-again.html</link>
	<description>NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:47:09 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Scotlyn</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/07/answering-the-accommodationists-again.html#comment-48664</link>
		<dc:creator>Scotlyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 20:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1076#comment-48664</guid>
		<description>Hey Modus, like Wow, man. You said it...just wow... pass me another brownie and let&#039;s go watch the sunset... it&#039;s, it&#039;s, it&#039;s...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Modus, like Wow, man. You said it...just wow... pass me another brownie and let's go watch the sunset... it's, it's, it's...</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thumpalumpacus</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/07/answering-the-accommodationists-again.html#comment-48654</link>
		<dc:creator>Thumpalumpacus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:21:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1076#comment-48654</guid>
		<description>Hey, would ya quit bogarting the brownies?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, would ya quit bogarting the brownies?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Modusoperandi</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/07/answering-the-accommodationists-again.html#comment-48640</link>
		<dc:creator>Modusoperandi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:00:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1076#comment-48640</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;Scotlyn&lt;/b&gt; &lt;i&gt;&quot;Having said that, I actually agree with both yourself and Steve that it can be difficult to describe those &quot;soulful&quot; experiences and intuitions that we all have, without using religious language.&quot;&lt;/i&gt;
Attempting to describe the transcendent &quot;stuff&quot; with religious language only sounds, um, goodlike because of repetition and the cultural priming of &lt;i&gt;whateveryourlocalreligionis&lt;/i&gt;. Strip that away, and it inevitably starts sounding like stoner philosophy.
Yes. Stoner philosophy. That&#039;s what it ends up sounding like, man. This is because...because it&#039;s all right &lt;i&gt;there&lt;/i&gt;. It&#039;s &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; connected! Look at your &lt;i&gt;hand&lt;/i&gt;, man. It&#039;s all there. Right freakin&#039; there!
...that&#039;s not to say that stoner philosophy is bad, necessarily. It&#039;s just that language, via Man, isn&#039;t very good at describing things outside the normal experience of Man. Personally, I blame Man, man, for not regularly being outside of normal. We simply aren&#039;t all that good at concepts (and from that, language) of very big or very small or very many or...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Scotlyn</b> <i>"Having said that, I actually agree with both yourself and Steve that it can be difficult to describe those "soulful" experiences and intuitions that we all have, without using religious language."</i><br />
Attempting to describe the transcendent "stuff" with religious language only sounds, um, goodlike because of repetition and the cultural priming of <i>whateveryourlocalreligionis</i>. Strip that away, and it inevitably starts sounding like stoner philosophy.<br />
Yes. Stoner philosophy. That's what it ends up sounding like, man. This is because...because it's all right <i>there</i>. It's <i>all</i> connected! Look at your <i>hand</i>, man. It's all there. Right freakin' there!<br />
...that's not to say that stoner philosophy is bad, necessarily. It's just that language, via Man, isn't very good at describing things outside the normal experience of Man. Personally, I blame Man, man, for not regularly being outside of normal. We simply aren't all that good at concepts (and from that, language) of very big or very small or very many or...</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scotlyn</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/07/answering-the-accommodationists-again.html#comment-48637</link>
		<dc:creator>Scotlyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:07:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1076#comment-48637</guid>
		<description>Ok, Thumpalumpacus, I do accept your point.  But I would be somewhat nervous of reifying &quot;evolution,&quot; into &quot;Evolution,&quot; or &quot;Darwinism,&quot; or any class of an idea which in and of itself supplants a religious belief or leads to one.  (Your derivation of &quot;spiritual satisfaction&quot; from evolution appears to me to skirt that danger zone, but I&#039;ll agree to disagree with you about that).  Evolution is not a religious belief system, its a best-fit-for-now description of reality.  Creationists, however, would very much like us to act as if it is a competing religion.  

Having said that, I actually agree with both yourself and Steve that it can be difficult to describe those &quot;soulful&quot; experiences and intuitions that we all have, without using religious language.  We&#039;ll have to keep inventing some.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok, Thumpalumpacus, I do accept your point.  But I would be somewhat nervous of reifying "evolution," into "Evolution," or "Darwinism," or any class of an idea which in and of itself supplants a religious belief or leads to one.  (Your derivation of "spiritual satisfaction" from evolution appears to me to skirt that danger zone, but I'll agree to disagree with you about that).  Evolution is not a religious belief system, its a best-fit-for-now description of reality.  Creationists, however, would very much like us to act as if it is a competing religion.  </p>
<p>Having said that, I actually agree with both yourself and Steve that it can be difficult to describe those "soulful" experiences and intuitions that we all have, without using religious language.  We'll have to keep inventing some.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thumpalumpacus</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/07/answering-the-accommodationists-again.html#comment-48636</link>
		<dc:creator>Thumpalumpacus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:17:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1076#comment-48636</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;I would not call this spiritual, because you have not introduced any supernatural element into this feeling of connectedness.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I don&#039;t regard spirituality as requiring the supernatural; in my mind all it requires is a spirit -- or soul, if you prefer -- which I regard as an emergent property of our prodigiously complex brains.  Thus, this connectedness is indeed spiritually satisfying, to me.

I love the Dysonian idea of the Universe pondering itself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I would not call this spiritual, because you have not introduced any supernatural element into this feeling of connectedness.</p></blockquote>
<p>I don't regard spirituality as requiring the supernatural; in my mind all it requires is a spirit -- or soul, if you prefer -- which I regard as an emergent property of our prodigiously complex brains.  Thus, this connectedness is indeed spiritually satisfying, to me.</p>
<p>I love the Dysonian idea of the Universe pondering itself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Bowen</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/07/answering-the-accommodationists-again.html#comment-48624</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Bowen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:24:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1076#comment-48624</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;All this brings us in danger of reifying &quot;Evolution,&quot; and reading therein that which we wish to find. In that case, yes, we will have circled back to that place in our minds from which all religions spring.&lt;/blockquote&gt; Yes, difficult one this. We all know what it means to &lt;i&gt;feel&lt;/i&gt; spiritual, and sometimes describing this aspect of ourselves without resorting to &quot;religious&quot; language is all but impossible. This I guess is because religion has seconded all such internal experience to its cause and left the infidel with nowhere to turn.

p.s where has the preview gone in I.E, it works fine on Safari.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>All this brings us in danger of reifying "Evolution," and reading therein that which we wish to find. In that case, yes, we will have circled back to that place in our minds from which all religions spring.</p></blockquote>
<p> Yes, difficult one this. We all know what it means to <i>feel</i> spiritual, and sometimes describing this aspect of ourselves without resorting to "religious" language is all but impossible. This I guess is because religion has seconded all such internal experience to its cause and left the infidel with nowhere to turn.</p>
<p>p.s where has the preview gone in I.E, it works fine on Safari.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scotlyn</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/07/answering-the-accommodationists-again.html#comment-48615</link>
		<dc:creator>Scotlyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:48:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1076#comment-48615</guid>
		<description>Thumpalumpacus &lt;blockquote&gt;Actually, I do derive some spirituality from evolution&lt;/blockquote&gt; 
Would it be a total misreading of your comment to suggest that what you derive is, as you say, a satisfying feeling of connectedness, and that you derive it from your specific understanding and interpretation of evolution?  I would not call this spiritual, because you have not introduced any supernatural element into this feeling of connectedness.  Such a feeling of connectedness, to me, is extremely natural.  You have found your place in the &lt;i&gt;natural&lt;/i&gt; order of things.  

However, I note again that John Nernoff (#42) would seem to derive many other less possitive feelings from his specific understanding and interpretation of evolution. One could say, he derives some &quot;diabolity,&quot; from it.  

All this brings us in danger of reifying &quot;Evolution,&quot; and reading therein that which we wish to find.  In that case, yes, we will have circled back to that place in our minds from which all religions spring.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thumpalumpacus<br />
<blockquote>Actually, I do derive some spirituality from evolution</p></blockquote>
<p>Would it be a total misreading of your comment to suggest that what you derive is, as you say, a satisfying feeling of connectedness, and that you derive it from your specific understanding and interpretation of evolution?  I would not call this spiritual, because you have not introduced any supernatural element into this feeling of connectedness.  Such a feeling of connectedness, to me, is extremely natural.  You have found your place in the <i>natural</i> order of things.  </p>
<p>However, I note again that John Nernoff (#42) would seem to derive many other less possitive feelings from his specific understanding and interpretation of evolution. One could say, he derives some "diabolity," from it.  </p>
<p>All this brings us in danger of reifying "Evolution," and reading therein that which we wish to find.  In that case, yes, we will have circled back to that place in our minds from which all religions spring.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thumpalumpacus</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/07/answering-the-accommodationists-again.html#comment-48592</link>
		<dc:creator>Thumpalumpacus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:31:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1076#comment-48592</guid>
		<description>Actually, I do derive  some spirituality from evolution.  I feel more connected to the planet and its inhabitants -- all of them --  knowing that we&#039;re all kin at the end of the day.  Studying evolution has broadened my family, and given me a place in things.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, I do derive  some spirituality from evolution.  I feel more connected to the planet and its inhabitants -- all of them --  knowing that we're all kin at the end of the day.  Studying evolution has broadened my family, and given me a place in things.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scotlyn</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/07/answering-the-accommodationists-again.html#comment-48588</link>
		<dc:creator>Scotlyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:03:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1076#comment-48588</guid>
		<description>Virginia - &lt;blockquote&gt;I think evolution should be supplemented with a kind of liberating spirituality -- that liberates and enlighten minds to free people from the mythical sin/salvation/heaven/hell thing -&lt;/blockquote&gt; In fact there are lots of &quot;liberating spiritualities&quot; out there - if you want to look at the New Age showcase of &quot;spiritualities&quot; crystals, Buddhism, Native American shamanism - etc.  Take your pick - all very spiritual, all very comforting and a lot freer of sin/salvation/heaven/hell than Christianity.  

But these could never &quot;supplement&quot; evolution.  Evolution is simply an explanation (consistent with all known relevant facts), of what actually happened.  It is not something that gives comfort (as you may appreciate from John Nernoff&#039;s comment at #42) or enlightens anyone or even liberates their minds. It simply explains an aspect of reality as it is, and as it was.  It is what it is, and it has nothing to do with spirituality of any kind.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Virginia -<br />
<blockquote>I think evolution should be supplemented with a kind of liberating spirituality -- that liberates and enlighten minds to free people from the mythical sin/salvation/heaven/hell thing -</p></blockquote>
<p> In fact there are lots of "liberating spiritualities" out there - if you want to look at the New Age showcase of "spiritualities" crystals, Buddhism, Native American shamanism - etc.  Take your pick - all very spiritual, all very comforting and a lot freer of sin/salvation/heaven/hell than Christianity.  </p>
<p>But these could never "supplement" evolution.  Evolution is simply an explanation (consistent with all known relevant facts), of what actually happened.  It is not something that gives comfort (as you may appreciate from John Nernoff's comment at #42) or enlightens anyone or even liberates their minds. It simply explains an aspect of reality as it is, and as it was.  It is what it is, and it has nothing to do with spirituality of any kind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Virginia</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/07/answering-the-accommodationists-again.html#comment-48582</link>
		<dc:creator>Virginia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:59:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1076#comment-48582</guid>
		<description>The Accomodation idea may sound good, but the tenet of Christian belief is Salvation, and Salvation is vital to the believers who wanted a life after death so that they can never part with their loved ones. Salvation rest on the fact that there is sin to all mankind and that sin was from Adam, which was part of the 6-day creation.

So the scenario is simple, as long as human dreaded the reality of impermenance and life is not always blissful and sometimes full of misfortune, not to mention the unknown (dreaded unknown) of death.

I think evolution should be supplemented with a kind of liberating spirituality -- that liberates and enlighten minds to free people from the mythical sin/salvation/heaven/hell thing - or else we are not doing enough to draw them away from this mind-eating religiosity</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Accomodation idea may sound good, but the tenet of Christian belief is Salvation, and Salvation is vital to the believers who wanted a life after death so that they can never part with their loved ones. Salvation rest on the fact that there is sin to all mankind and that sin was from Adam, which was part of the 6-day creation.</p>
<p>So the scenario is simple, as long as human dreaded the reality of impermenance and life is not always blissful and sometimes full of misfortune, not to mention the unknown (dreaded unknown) of death.</p>
<p>I think evolution should be supplemented with a kind of liberating spirituality -- that liberates and enlighten minds to free people from the mythical sin/salvation/heaven/hell thing - or else we are not doing enough to draw them away from this mind-eating religiosity</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Nernoff</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/07/answering-the-accommodationists-again.html#comment-48578</link>
		<dc:creator>John Nernoff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 04:14:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1076#comment-48578</guid>
		<description>There is one aspect of the accomodationist position that is seldom mentioned. &quot;God&quot; is supposed to be benevolent, good, a really nice guy. After all he is the one who is going to provide salvation -- a heaven where believers can reside in eternal bliss. He&#039;d better damn well be good.

Evolution brings a rude end to these dreams. Evolution requires the constant manufacture of innumerably more progeny than can be environmentally supported. All these extra lives will die prematurely, often with wracking pain, untold suffering, torture, being hunted down, torn apart whilst alive, chomped on, swallowed whole, being played with as a toy before the gruesome death. If this is &quot;God&#039;s&quot; plan (a blandishment proffered by the Vatican) then it totally and devastatingly wrecks any notion that &quot;God&quot; is good.

Evolution is just incompatible with practically any religion (except Satanism and other of the demonic ilk).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is one aspect of the accomodationist position that is seldom mentioned. "God" is supposed to be benevolent, good, a really nice guy. After all he is the one who is going to provide salvation -- a heaven where believers can reside in eternal bliss. He'd better damn well be good.</p>
<p>Evolution brings a rude end to these dreams. Evolution requires the constant manufacture of innumerably more progeny than can be environmentally supported. All these extra lives will die prematurely, often with wracking pain, untold suffering, torture, being hunted down, torn apart whilst alive, chomped on, swallowed whole, being played with as a toy before the gruesome death. If this is "God's" plan (a blandishment proffered by the Vatican) then it totally and devastatingly wrecks any notion that "God" is good.</p>
<p>Evolution is just incompatible with practically any religion (except Satanism and other of the demonic ilk).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Making accommodations &#171; Atheist Etiquette</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/07/answering-the-accommodationists-again.html#comment-48565</link>
		<dc:creator>Making accommodations &#171; Atheist Etiquette</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:26:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1076#comment-48565</guid>
		<description>[...] Answering the Accommodationists isn&#8217;t really etiquette-oriented (it&#8217;s mainly a discussion of how far the promoters of evolution education should go in reaching out to religious types who might want to ban it). But it does tie in to the subject of this blog, which involves deciding just how far to accommodate oneself to the reality of a world where most people are religious, and even some of the nicest ones have a deep-seated prejudice against atheists. Here&#8217;s a particularly relevant passage: [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Answering the Accommodationists isn&#8217;t really etiquette-oriented (it&#8217;s mainly a discussion of how far the promoters of evolution education should go in reaching out to religious types who might want to ban it). But it does tie in to the subject of this blog, which involves deciding just how far to accommodate oneself to the reality of a world where most people are religious, and even some of the nicest ones have a deep-seated prejudice against atheists. Here&#8217;s a particularly relevant passage: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
