davis_square | Boston Area Coalition of Reason Kick Off Event (Nov 2)

Current Mood: amused

Entry tags:

Boston Area Coalition of Reason Kick Off Event (Nov 2)

Good without God? Millions of Americans are.
boston.unitedcor.org/

Kickoff Event

When: Monday Nov.2, 7:30-9:30 PM
Where: Harvard Science Center Hall D. Free and Open to the Public

I thought this could be of interest. One of the member organizations is the Tufts Free Thought Society. www.facebook.com/group.php

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I am indeed very likely incredibly similar to the people in the Coalition of Reason. No trolling, just constructive criticism for my fellow science types. My goal is to use curiosity about how the universe works (science) as a way to be a better person, and create a better world, and that includes understanding the science of communication and emotions and inspiration so that we can communicate all the great things about science...

You seem to be echoing the criticism being aimed at the "New Atheist" like Dawkins, Hitchens, and PZ. But the thing is their outspoken and occasionally antagonistic communications have produced results. Atheists groups are growing. Ads like this are being seen all around the world. Atheists are getting more media time and talking much more openly. Hitchens, who took his book tour deep into the Bible belt, had long lines of people at book signings. Many were heard saying that they previously thought they were the only atheists in town. Theses are great results!

That doesn't mean there isn't a place for curiosity. Carl Sagan is great. Dawkins' "Unweaving the Rainbow" is one of my favorite books. There is a place for curiosity but there is also a place for antagonism. Don't try to silence the atheists you think are too negative; instead organize your own free thinker's group with your own message of curiosity. We can have both; we don't all have to follow the same script.

Though one really ironic thing here is one of the early humanists to criticize the new atheist was Greg Epstein (http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/04/01/greg-epstein-vs-atheist-fundamentalism.htm). His new book is titled "Good without God (http://www.amazon.com/Good-Without-God-Billion-Nonreligious/dp/0061670111). We don't believe in god, we believe we can be good, we know we can be good without god. That is the truth. Speaking the truth is a good thing.

Edited 2009-10-28 20:55 (UTC)

Sure, negativity can work. Negating the people who don't think the way you do is always a way to create change in the world. But that's sort of, well, not good. Negative being the opposite of positive. Which is, as the title says up there, the opposite what they are trying to say here. It's giving a mixed message, at least on the subconscious level (and on the conscious level for us language geeks). When you define yourself as being against something, you not only make yourself out to seem negative (not good), you also strengthen the beliefs of those who appreciate that something you are attacking. Sometimes you get lucky and things work out, but it's a bad (negative) strategy that sucks up huge amounts of resources.

The better way to go is to simply promote the specific thing that they DO believe in (curiosity about how the universe works, testing theories, revising knowledge based on new information, whatever it is that they most believe in...) as being good.

There is tangible evidence that the New Atheist approach works. There is also tangible evidence whining about how you don't like their approach doesn't work. Instead of telling New Atheists what they should do with their resources just do it with yours!

It is both unrealistic and undesirable to have all atheists following the same script. We wouldn't be free thinkers if we had a hive mind. We can have Neil Degrasse Tyson and PZ Myers!

If your goal is to win the hearts and minds of the masses, then go with the positive approach with information that inspires.

If your goal is to find other people who think like you, then simply say whatever you want to say, positive or negative, and let the like-minded fellows find you.

As for me, I offer ideas and suggestions and perspectives that I believe will be helpful, because my own goal is to simply give people a chance to think about something they might never have thought about before. To pique their curiosity, and encourage them to think for themselves, rather than winning them over or making them think like me.

Dawkins isn't negative. Blunt and very sure of himself, but not negative.

Hahahahahahaha!

Funny.

Yeah, it really isn't. I think he goes out of his way NOT to be insulting to religious people in The God Delusion, which is not so easy considering what the book is titled.

That's understandable. It's not worth me going into the linguistics again here. It sounds like you're not interested in understanding other people's perspectives in this case. It's ok.

I think that applies more readily to you, since you're putting up futile arguments to every poster here that's disagreeing with you.

I'm happy to hear more about other theories of linguistics and human behavior if anyone is offering.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Boston Area Coalition of Reason Kick Off Event (Nov 2)

no subject

no subject

Are you curious?

Re: Are you curious?

As I've said, it's all about what your goal is.

Re: Are you curious?

Re: Are you curious?

Re: Are you curious?

Yeah, it really is.

Re: Yeah, it really is.

No arguments. I'm just offering information about human motivation.