surreptitious57 wrote:

Aern Rakesh wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Aern Rakesh wrote:
Of course he's coming from a theoretical standpoint at the moment. But presumably he'll find that out as soon as
he starts talking to actual atheists and visiting meetings such as skeptics in the pub and various humanist groups?

No because like all ideological or philosophical positions it has to come from within. No one can make you an atheist. They can provide reasons as to why you should become one but only you yourself can actually do so. Now he could meet all the atheists on the planet but unless or until he accepts it for himself then it means absolutely nothing. He does not actually have to meet any atheists at all. He can if he wants and that might help bridge the gap between doubt and certainty but
the final decision is only one that he can take. No one else

I meant that presumably he'll find out as soon as he starts talking to atheists that

There are no obligatory texts to read, no doctrines to adhere to, no special hats or dietry requirements

Oh absolutely. Yes he was wrong to assume there might be. Atheism is a wonderfully lazy philosophy in
that sense because other than just accepting it one has to do precisely sod all to be one. Not that that
should be a reason for becoming one of course but just saying

Well I think the media is partly to blame in that many books have been held up as "atheist texts".

Aern Rakesh wrote:
We know most people on this forum only by their words

This is not true. As long as they are being honest one can deduce a lot about someones personality from their words. Because they convey emotion. It may be more limiting because one does not have body language to reference as well but one can still determine basic characteristics nonetheless. So unless one is completely robotic [ a physical impossibility where ground apes
are concerned ] ones personality will show through. It is only inevitable

Not very well phrased, that. Atheism is in no sense a philosophy, nor something to be accepted. It isn't a truth claim.

hackenslash wrote:Not very well phrased, that. Atheism is in no sense a philosophy, nor something to be accepted. It isn't a truth claim.

That is the biggest problem for theists.

hackenslash wrote:

Not very well phrased, that. Atheism is in no sense a philosophy, nor something to be accepted. It isn't a truth claim

Liberal use of philosophy here. Not in an academic sense but more a general lay term. I would certainly reference it myself
Such as : my philosophical position on the meaning of life is that there is no meaning [ which obviously denies the existence of God even though it was not specifically mentioned ] I agree about it not being a truth claim however [ although I tend to reference it as such even though I should not ]

Aern Rakesh wrote:

THWOTH wrote:

Sovereign wrote:

So, I'm making it official and embarking on a new journey. I will "try on" atheism for a year. For the next 12 months I will live as if there is no God. I will not pray, read the Bible for inspiration, refer to God as the cause of things or hope that God might intervene and change my own or someone else's circumstances. (I trust that if there really is a God that God will not be too flummoxed by my foolish experiment and allow others to suffer as a result).

I will read atheist "sacred texts" -- from Hobbes and Spinoza to Russell and Nietzsche to the trinity of New Atheists, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett. I will explore the various ways of being atheist, from naturalism (Voltaire, Dewey, et al) to the new 'religious atheists' (Alain de Botton and Ronald Dworkin). I will also attempt to speak to as many actual atheists as possible -- scholars, writers and ordinary unbelievers -- to learn how they have come to their non-faith and what it means to them. I will visit atheist gatherings and try it on.

Full article

His new blog

But atheism isn't an action or set of actions, it's just the word for those who disbelieve the claims and assertions of theists (and similar). There are no obligatory texts to read, no doctrines to adhere to, no special hats or dietry requirements. To live a year without God as an atheist would mean rationally disbelieving claims and assertions for super-nature and supernatural entities while disavowing the legitimacy of the religious authorities who rely on same. It doesn't look like that is taking place here.

Of course he's coming from a theoretical standpoint at the moment. But presumably he'll find that out as soon as he starts talking to actual atheists and visiting meetings such as skeptics in the pub and various humanist groups?

I don't know. The endeavour has the whiff of a stunt about, like the theists who come here sometimes and challenge atheists to convince them that they're wrong. Behaving exactly like a theist, for example, does not make one a theist unless one defines oneself by what one does. To be a theist one must accept certain things, and only then live one's life by those precepts - otherwise putting on the theist hat is just a sham. Likewise, simply behaving as-if one is an atheist does not challenge the convictions of a theist unless they are inclined to challenge their own beliefs themselves. Still, talking to real atheists about their atheism will certainly leave people in no doubt about the kind of hats atheists actually wear.

It has been suggested elsewhere that he is only doing all this for a stunt in order to extract money from atheists. And that consequently anyone who does give him any is assuming good intention. I come at this from left field however. As a general principle I am not interested in why you want money. So you cannot fool me into giving you any under false pretences. So I would help him out therefore. If it was subsequently shown that he was being deceptive then it would not matter. He gets to keep the money and I can feel good about helping a fellow human being [ I would never say this to anyone but I can write it ] So a win win for everyone. I hasten to add however that I would not give him money just so I could feel good because that is not morally acceptable. But the bottom line is this : someone needs help so one helps. So the fact that they might be a theist is completely beside the point. I help anyone within reason. What they believe in I could not care less. I might draw the line at paedophiles or terrorists but I would like to think I would turn no one away. Being human however I might. But hopefully the guilt I would feel would make me understand the error of my ways. Apologies for rambling off topic [ it happens some
times ] but it was a logical progression from the subject matter

surreptitious57 wrote:It has been suggested elsewhere that he is only doing all this for a stunt in order to extract money from atheists. And that consequently anyone who does give him any is assuming good intention. I come at this from left field however. As a general principle I am not interested in why you want money. So you cannot fool me into giving you any under false pretences. So I would help him out therefore. If it was subsequently shown that he was being deceptive then it would not matter. He gets to keep the money and I can feel good about helping a fellow human being [ I would never say this to anyone but I can write it ] So a win win for everyone. I hasten to add however that I would not give him money just so I could feel good because that is not morally acceptable. But the bottom line is this : someone needs help so one helps. So the fact that they might be a theist is completely beside the point. I help anyone within reason. What they believe in I could not care less. I might draw the line at paedophiles or terrorists but I would like to think I would turn no one away. Being human however I might. But hopefully the guilt I would feel would make me understand the error of my ways. Apologies for rambling off topic [ it happens some
times ] but it was a logical progression from the subject matter

I can understand that. My charity also doesn't come with conditions. I don't care who they are, as long as they're not using anything I give them to finance a habit that harms their families.

This reminds me of last night when we were waiting in the emergency room for my husband's treatment to be finished off. A man came in, completely out of his mind drunk, and smashed up in the face. Apparently he'd been drinking with some friends and picked a fight with a patron over a girl. I overheard this while I was outside getting some air. The fight went outside and then some other people got involved and he got his face rather badly damaged. Then his wife arrived, she didn't admonish him for being out drunk in the middle of the week while she sat at home with the kids. After the staff in the clinic had sobered him up, she laughed that he'd gone out "partying without her." These sort of people don't get sympathy from me if they can't see how wrong it is to get drunk to the extent of getting their faces cut up, when they have small kids. It was a little sordid. I saw him again at the doctor's this morning. His face was pretty badly damaged. I wonder if he learnt anything from the experience.

I don't care if people are religious or have made mistakes and are trying to get help for those problems, but people who abuse themselves and hurt their kids, nope I don't have any use for them.

Only 354 days left and he's making very, very slow progress. Maybe he's hoping to get to atheism in steps: Christianity Light, Christianity Low Fat, Christianity 1%, Holistic Christianity, Deism, Holistic Agnosticism, Agnosticism 1%, Agnosticism Low Fat, Agnosticism Light, Agnosticism, Atheism 1%, Atheism Low Fat, Atheism Light, Atheism.

Aern Rakesh wrote:

NamelessFaceless wrote:I don't want to start any trouble, but I think he's already cheating. He quoted a bible verse in his blog.

You should point that out to him: does he have a comments section? I suppose it is going to be quite hard for him to give up old habits.

I think I'm going to just let him get away with it since I don't agree with the rules he set for himself anyway. Atheists may live as if there is no god, but we don't live as if there are no Christians, or no bible. I've read the bible and will quote it if I feel like it, so I think he should be able to as well, as long as he's not using it for "guidance." I just hope he keeps an open mind about what he learns this year.

NamelessFaceless wrote:

Aern Rakesh wrote:

NamelessFaceless wrote:I don't want to start any trouble, but I think he's already cheating. He quoted a bible verse in his blog.

You should point that out to him: does he have a comments section? I suppose it is going to be quite hard for him to give up old habits.

I think I'm going to just let him get away with it since I don't agree with the rules he set for himself anyway. Atheists may live as if there is no god, but we don't live as if there are no Christians, or no bible. I've read the bible and will quote it if I feel like it, so I think he should be able to as well, as long as he's not using it for "guidance." I just hope he keeps an open mind about what he learns this year.

In the last blog post I read he did say that he was reading all the comments posted on his blog...And NamelessFaceless, I think you should post the above on his blog (apart from the first sentence). It's the kind of thing that I think he would appreciate.

Friendly Atheist has come in for heavy criticism from Black Sceptics over at Free Thought Blogs for helping him because he
is a white theist and so is privileged. If he was a black theist he would not be able to leave his church and do that. Obviously not being black myself I am blind to that perspective. I am not suggesting it is invalid just that it is outside of my experience
I posted a reply saying what I did in my previous post. I am anticipating some flak but it bothers me not. It is always useful to see something from an alternative perspective even if one does not actually agree with it. I think that I shall go to his blog and offer him some moral support. I have no money so sympathy will have to suffice instead. He has it seems been genuinely moved by the responses of the atheist community. Which is more than can be said for his own. I think he is actually genuine but even if he is not it is still good that atheists offered to help. It was after all the right thing to do

I left a comment on his blog too. Really just a virtual hug, but letting him know he had support.

NamelessFaceless wrote:I left a comment on his blog too. Really just a virtual hug, but letting him know he had support.

There are lots of supportive posts over there, so I think he has a good chance of having some genuine encounters with atheists...over there.

Aern Rakesh wrote:

NamelessFaceless wrote:I left a comment on his blog too. Really just a virtual hug, but letting him know he had support.

There are lots of supportive posts over there, so I think he has a good chance of having some genuine encounters with atheists...over there.

You know what. Even if everyone who participates in this forum were baby-eating Satan worshipers, this doesn't mean that a God exists.

So WTF should his treatment by this forum or anyone else, have any bearing on his evaluation of the claim that a god exists?

If he wants to live a year as an atheist, then he should spend that year evaluating this one claim.

scott1328 wrote:

Aern Rakesh wrote:

NamelessFaceless wrote:I left a comment on his blog too. Really just a virtual hug, but letting him know he had support.

There are lots of supportive posts over there, so I think he has a good chance of having some genuine encounters with atheists...over there.

You know what. Even if everyone who participates in this forum were baby-eating Satan worshipers, this doesn't mean that a God exists.

So WTF should his treatment by this forum or anyone else, have any bearing on his evaluation of the claim that a god exists?

If he wants to live a year as an atheist, then he should spend that year evaluating this one claim.

Who says he isn't going to do that?

Well, all the people on this particular thread who think it's nothing but a publicity stunt, and that he's nothing but a fuckwit, and...need I go on?

Have I said anywhere that if he came here and started preaching he shouldn't have to deal with the consequences? I can count at least two times that I said that in reply to one of Hack's posts.

surreptitious57 wrote:Friendly Atheist has come in for heavy criticism from Black Sceptics over at Free Thought Blogs for helping him because he
is a white theist and so is privileged. If he was a black theist he would not be able to leave his church and do that. Obviously not being black myself I am blind to that perspective. I am not suggesting it is invalid just that it is outside of my experience
I posted a reply saying what I did in my previous post. I am anticipating some flak but it bothers me not. It is always useful to see something from an alternative perspective even if one does not actually agree with it. I think that I shall go to his blog and offer him some moral support. I have no money so sympathy will have to suffice instead. He has it seems been genuinely moved by the responses of the atheist community. Which is more than can be said for his own. I think he is actually genuine but even if he is not it is still good that atheists offered to help. It was after all the right thing to do

Well that's in part because the black community holds up pastors as rock stars and as close to God as you can get. So if a black pastor were to try this, he'd lose ALL his family and friends. At least this guy still has support from his family and some of his Christian friends. The mentality about pastors and the roles they play in the black community is very different than in the white community. You burn all bridges just by saying something outside of the "party" line.

Aern Rakesh wrote:

scott1328 wrote:So WTF should his treatment by this forum or anyone else, have any bearing on his evaluation of the claim that a god exists?

If he wants to live a year as an atheist, then he should spend that year evaluating this one claim.

Who says he isn't going to do that?

And he suggests in his blog that he is going to do that. Alluding to some Christian aquaintences who may have been less than enthusiastic about his experiment, he writes:

Ryan Bell wrote:I didn’t realize, even four days ago, how difficult it would be for some people to embrace me while I was embracing this journey of open inquiry into the question of God’s existence.

I'd quibble about some of the rules he has set, and so on, but if he's sincere then his willingness to spend a year reading arguments against his established position and questioning his beliefs is worthy of at least a metaphorical pat on the back.