Speakers include Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and more.
Seems like a pretty neat event. It may or may not have gotten together due to the recent popularity of atheist literature and atheism in the media, well it almost certainly got together due to that reason, but I'm hoping it's not just an excuse to make money. There are enough cool speakers and topics of discussion that I'm seriously considering going. I've just seen and read so much by Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris that I hope I don't pay to listen to re-hash of everything I already know.
quote:Originally posted by Strider: There are enough cool speakers and topics of discussion that I'm seriously considering going. I've just seen and read so much by Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris that I hope I don't pay to listen to re-hash of everything I already know.
It would be sad if it just turned out to be a bunch of preaching to the choir.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: There are enough cool speakers and topics of discussion that I'm seriously considering going. I've just seen and read so much by Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris that I hope I don't pay to listen to re-hash of everything I already know.
It would be sad if it just turned out to be a bunch of preaching to the choir.
Isn't that what most conventions boil down to?
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like to go to conventions where I can learn new stuff and buy exclusive swag. I don't know of a whole lot of atheist swag to be had, and "Hey guys, did you realize there's no God?" isn't really news Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I like to go to conventions where I can learn new stuff and buy exclusive swag. I don't know of a whole lot of atheist swag to be had, and "Hey guys, did you realize there's no God?" isn't really news
Well, apparently there's going to be an "Evolvefish" store, so there is swag to be had.
Get your very own Darwin fish key chain!
Want something flashier? Entertain your friends with your very own "Pope Benedict looking like Emperor Palpatine" t-shirt!
...or something like that.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
On BeyondBelief- I watched the 4 clips of the people talking.
i liked the one lady saying that reality (the formation and development) is the best story ever told- that it trumps any religious story. Then at the end she said "Amen tot that." I just thought that was funny.
And the last guy who claimed that he was called by the universe to be an astrophysicist. Thought that was interesting for a group that seems dead set against any religious ideas.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess it depends what you mean by "religious" -- they're a-theist, aka, they don't believe in a God. That doesn't mean some of them can't be "religious" or spiritual or believe in an underlying order or energy.
I really want to go to this convention!
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
I watched all of that a few months back. I thought most of the talks were awesome, as well as the round table discussions. The most interesting discussions I thought were the ones where they talked about how to get science out to the general populace. Not, why you should be an atheist, but why so many people aren't. Why so people believe the things they do, and how science and scientists can address that. I agree science needs PR.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Until scientists can show, mathematically, exactly how everything in the Universe works....people will speculate. End of story, until there's an end to people.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Until scientists can show, mathematically, exactly how everything in the Universe works....people will speculate. End of story, until there's an end to people.
posted
This summer I am going to a convention of people who don't believe in hobbits. We're going to have 3 days of workshops about how hobbits don't exist and are evil anyway. What fun!
Seriously, a non-theist Quaker friend of mine *did* go to a non-theist Quaker convention, and found that they had nothing really to talk about.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny how much you actually *can* find to talk about when you have some of the world's most reknowned biologists, scientists, and thinkers in a room together.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: This summer I am going to a convention of people who don't believe in hobbits. We're going to have 3 days of workshops about how hobbits don't exist and are evil anyway. What fun!
Seriously, a non-theist Quaker friend of mine *did* go to a non-theist Quaker convention, and found that they had nothing really to talk about.
Well, if the people who believe in Hobbits insisted that everyone must go barefoot, even if they don't believe in Hobbits, there might be something to talk about at a convention. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: I guess it depends what you mean by "religious" -- they're a-theist, aka, they don't believe in a God. That doesn't mean some of them can't be "religious" or spiritual or believe in an underlying order or energy.
Which is only atheistic if atheists keep letting certain types of theists define "God."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
it's almost unavoidable -- the prevailing theory of God is a specific kind of God, and atheists are reacting to that idea, not others.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, to be fair, some atheists are reacting to that concept of God, and other atheists are reacting to any concept of god or a creator.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: well, to be fair, some atheists are reacting to that concept of God, and other atheists are reacting to any concept of god or a creator.
Many of the atheists I know would be better described as a-supernaturalists which do not believe in idea for which they feel there is insufficient evidence, only one of which is the Christian God. Very few atheists, in my experience, could be described as exclusively rejecting the type of God which Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is an important distiction to make. Leonide, the prevailing theory doesn't have to be your personal theory - and it is a very personal choice.
The notion that you have to believe in the God that soe people define or no God at all is a false notion. Heaven's, if I were stuck with that choice, I'd be an atheist, too.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Atheists do tend to me most vocal in their opposition to the Christian-style God because that is the one people seem to be politically motivated by. Gods are only worth arguing about if their followers beliefs require applying the rules of their God to those who don't follow the same God. To my knowledge, Buddhists and Wiccans have never insisted on having their religious customs mandated or endorsed by the government.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
And it's really not very fair to measure Wiccans with that yardstick until it would even be possible for them to attempt such a thing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And it's really not very fair to measure Wiccans with that yardstick until it would even be possible for them to attempt such a thing.
Sure. To the extent that atheists are political, it's in response to perceived threat rather than a holy edict. Wiccans are not a threat because they are not very politically active. That could change if their numbers were to dramatically increase.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, believe it or not, Ericka (my fiancée) and I might be going to this thing. I casually mentioned yesterday that I wouldn’t mind going to such an event, and she surprised the heck out of me by responding, “Well, why don’t we?” I’d thought for sure that she would be bored out of her mind, but she actually seems as interested in it as I am.
So anyway, we now have tentative plans to attend, assuming our vacation times are approved, of course. I’m pretty excited, particularly in hearing Sam Harris speak. I nearly always find what he has to say incredibly intriguing, even when I completely disagree with him. I’m sure it’ll be awesome to see Dawkins and Dennett in person, too. Plus, neither of us has been to D.C., so that ought to be fun.
----
On a related note, I think I really upset a friend today, and I’m not really sure what I could have done differently, other than to have just not said anything at all. I’d sent him a text message asking if he’d like to come with us to the conference if we go. His response was just as surprising to me as Ericka’s was, if not more so. We went back and forth a few times until the conversation started getting a bit uncomfortable, and eventually it just ended. Here’s what was said, more or less verbatim (and yes I actually text full sentences, punctuation and all):
Me: We’re seriously thinking about going. Wanna come? We could visit D.C., too, while we’re there.
Him: I’m against organized religion.
Me: Huh? It’s not anything like that. It’s just some speakers lecturing and discussing issues like how religious or otherwise dogmatic beliefs are affecting the world, how religious beliefs can impact ethics and morality, religion vs. science, etc. True, there will be some passionate atheists there, but I swear, it’s not a cult gathering. There’ll be many different views expressed. You might be surprised how many things atheists can disagree on.
Him: Just like religion. Interesting…
Me: How’s that exactly?
Him: Speaking about religion over science. Discussing different points of view. You’d be surprised how many things Christians disagree on.
Me: Obviously any group of people can disagree on things. What’s your point? Mine is simply that this conference is not an “organized religion” and that an atheism-based conference is not itself in the least dogmatic. I’m not saying it’s all about science vs. religion. The real issue as far as I’m concerned is faith and dogmatism vs. logic and reason.
Him: Sorry, I didn’t leave one church to join another.
Me: What does that even mean? You know I’m not a member of the Atheist Alliance or some other organization. Neither are at least some of the speakers, I’m sure. I’m going to listen to different perspectives, maybe hear something I hadn’t thought of before. What I ultimately believe in will be entirely my decision based on logic, reason, and experience – not on what someone else tells me just because it sounds convincing.
Him: Stop defending something that no one is attacking. I’m just saying I have no desire to be a part of that. Almost like preaching the Gospel. Haha.
Me: I’m not trying to convince you to go. If you don’t want to, that’s fine, but if it’s because of some incorrect preconceived notion, then I feel I should inform you otherwise. I’d expect the same from you. Let’s talk about this. I still don’t understand why you’re so convinced that a group of people critically discussing the nature and effects of certain beliefs is similar in some negative way to organized religion. Anyway, you’re welcome to at least meet up with us in D.C. if you’d like. If we go, that is.
Him: I don’t see that there is anything to discuss. Furthermore, the fact that you feel so strongly about this kind of creeps me out.
Me: Why? What exactly do you think I feel so strongly about? We’ve had plenty of deep conversations about religion and the existence of God. You’ve never been creeped out before.
He never responded. I called him later and got no answer, so I left a message saying if he was really bothered, then I’m sorry and let’s just drop it.
I’m just really confused because in nearly every other situation, he has a logical answer for everything. No matter what I throw at him, he always has a reason for every belief and every decision. He’s always been so sure of himself. Many a discussion between us has ended with me going “Huh…well…I guess you’re right.”
It’s not even like I pressed him too hard. We’ve always been brutally honest with each other, he typically much more than I. But this time was different. Not that I’m worried about our friendship or anything. We’ve been friends for ten years, and we’ve gotten through some pretty bad fights before, certainly much worse than this. It’s just…odd.
Eh. Sorry for the rant. I’m just a little perturbed by the whole situation. Advice or comments anyone?
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No advice...i just had a conversation somewhat similar with my dad, when I told him I might be attending.
He basically said he looked on my desire to go as a failing on his part to raise me right.
...
I really wish I had some advice for you...i guess we can commiserate together.
edit: also, if you are planning on going, register this week -- the coordinators told Strider and I that they were almost sold out.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: To my knowledge, Buddhists and Wiccans have never insisted on having their religious customs mandated or endorsed by the government.
Not that I disagree with your first point, but AFAIK Tibetan Buddhists did insist on having their religious customs mandated by the government, if only due to the fact that their Dalai Lama was the head of the government in Tibet for more than two centuries link I recall that at least a few of their polices were rather draconian.
I also recall that a number of Chinese imperial policies were influenced by Buddhism whenever it was in favour, although I imagine that the results were relatively harmless (I could be wrong).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: No advice...i just had a conversation somewhat similar with my dad, when I told him I might be attending.
He basically said he looked on my desire to go as a failing on his part to raise me right.
...
I really wish I had some advice for you...i guess we can commiserate together.
edit: also, if you are planning on going, register this week -- the coordinators told Strider and I that they were almost sold out.
Thanks Leonide. I just registered, so we're officially going. Have you or Strider decided yet? Maybe we'll see you there. Unless of course that's too wierd for you. We don't really know each other after all. Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
rollainm, I know some people like that too. That seem to think that because you decide to be an atheist you must become a loner, or completely separate your atheist beliefs from your day to day life. The fact is that other people's beliefs affect our lives in countless ways. And as a member of society I believe it's important to discuss how to deal with these issues, with other like minded people. And on the other side of it, it's beneficial to discuss how *our* beliefs affect *our* day to day lives. For instance, though I have no children of my own, and don't plan on any in the near future, the panel discussion on secular parenting is of particular interest to me.
If you were going to a scientific convention or a sci-fi convention, or any other convention, would your friend react the same way?
Anyway, if you do end up going, Leonide and I will definitely be there, so we'll have to touch base before the convention to try to meet up.
edit - missed your post. no, i don't think it's weird, it's what makes Hatrack cool!
posted
I think that much of the problem with organized religion is that it is organized. You get organization and you get people who are "in charge" of organizing. You get power.
Along with power, you get the desire to control. You need to decide on membership - who is in and who isn't. You get the need for conformity. People who are "in" need to believe the same things. You need a creed. A mission statement.
I think your friend has a point.
Getting together to hear people speak, etc. is cool and fun and could be worthwhile, but don't ignore the dangers.
And there is a very good possibility that it is purely reactionary. "The Christians are organized so we should organize to defend ourselves." Which may be (somewhat) true. But, again, it has it's own dangers and worse, it is letting other people set the definitions.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the good news is my friend wasn’t ignoring me. He was busy, got sidetracked, and forgot to answer me. The bad news is we’re still no closer to an understanding – well, maybe a little. Here’s part two of our text message exchange:
Him: I think it’s funny how you don’t see the similarities.
Me: The only similarities I see are irrelevant.
Him: Interesting.
Me: Like-minded people get together all the time to discuss similarities, differences, agendas, etc. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that, just like there’s nothing wrong with a science or electronics convention. The problem with organized religion isn’t churches or their agendas. Many religiously affiliated organizations do many great things. Some do not. The only problem is the dogmatic way in which beliefs are formed.
Me: And again, I’m not trying to convince you to go. If you’re not interested, that’s one thing. But I feel you’re negative comparison to religion is unjustified.
Him: I never said whether it was bad or not. I just can’t help but feel that a group of anti-religious people gathered together are inherently similar to most religions and therefore doesn’t really interest me.
Me: I understand not being interested. What I don’t get is how this convention is similar to organized religion in a way that you feel is a negative.
Him: I don’t recall ever saying it was negative, only similar.
Me: Your comparison to religion was your given reason for thinking it’s not a good idea, so yes, you are essentially saying they are similar in a negative way.
Him: I simply think they are similar…whether they are good or bad. A group of like-minded people, discussing how they are right…while others are wrong and trying to persuade other people to believe as they do just sounds very similar to religion…period.
Me: Ah. Now we’re getting somewhere. So you don’t like the possibility of groupthink or the idea of one group bashing another without them being present to properly defend themselves?
Him: You’re reading way too much into it. I told you my objections…plain and simple. It has nothing to do with whether or not people are there to defend themselves and whatnot.
Me: Tell you what. Call me later tonight or tomorrow.
Him: Why?
Me: Easier to discuss and less time consuming. You say you’ve stated your objections clearly, but you seem to me to be repeating the same vague response without explaining specifically what you mean.
Him: You irk me.
Me: So’s you’re face.
Him: I’m serious…there is no reason we should still be discussing this.
Me: Fine. Forget about it ok? I’m not angry, upset, or obsessed about it, and I’m certainly not trying to irk you.
Him: Yet you’re still talking about it. Seems rather important to you.
Me: I just tried to end it!
He didn’t respond after that.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he's got issues. There is no subject about which I'd tell a friend "there is no reason we should still be discussing this" if that friend was trying to engage me on the topic.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
He doesn't have any more "issues" than you or me. He is very stubborn, though. It's quite possible he actually realized the distinction I was making at some point but kept up the debate so he wouldn't have to admit he was wrong. If that's the case, he'll admit it to me eventually. What I think is he's simply never given this much thought. He was so caught up in what he thought I was saying and/or his preconceived notions on the subject that he wasn't actually listening to me.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that much of the problem with organized religion is that it is organized. You get organization and you get people who are "in charge" of organizing. You get power.
Along with power, you get the desire to control. You need to decide on membership - who is in and who isn't. You get the need for conformity. People who are "in" need to believe the same things. You need a creed. A mission statement.
I think your friend has a point.
Getting together to hear people speak, etc. is cool and fun and could be worthwhile, but don't ignore the dangers.
And there is a very good possibility that it is purely reactionary. "The Christians are organized so we should organize to defend ourselves." Which may be (somewhat) true. But, again, it has it's own dangers and worse, it is letting other people set the definitions.
kmmboots, I think I basically addressed your points in my last exchange with my friend. Let me know if you disagree or have further comment.
Here's the thing. You say you think he has a point. You do, but I'm not sure he does, or at least he doesn't know what it is any more than I do. Perhaps he does have justified reasons for his statements. I made the best attempt I could to get him to clearly express those reasons, but for whatever reason I failed.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that your friend was trying unsuccessful to say what I have said here. Anti-dogma dogma is still dogma. It is also reactionary. Defining oneself by what one is not give too much power to the other side of the argument. Stop letting the worst of religion define the terms of the discussion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why must you label it anti-dogma dogma? I disagree with this terminology. I do try my best to practice "anti-dogmatism," but that effort is not based on any authority; it's not "anti-dogma dogma."
Also, I think many atheists, especially those on this forum, would disagree that WE are the ones defining ourselves by what we are not. I honestly try to avoid the term whenever possible, not just because of the stereotypes attached to it, but because it should not be necessary in the first place.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying it necessarily is. I'm saying it is a danger, and one I have seen to often these days. I think you should go to the convention, learn stuff, have a good time. Just be aware.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems that you keep pestering your friend to explain his exact reasons for his distaste, even going to the extent of urging him to call back later and explain in greater detail. That seems to me... *irksome*.
If anything, he's polite enough to explain his distaste to you, and you seem to me rude enough not to accept that explanation but rather call it "vague". Yeah, his reasons for his distaste are vague perhaps. So what? That doesn't make them any less real.
I have lots of vague reasons for my own distastes, why should I bother explaining them to anyone else, and why should anyone else bother pressuring me for them?
If his main reason for getting out of a religion was his distaste towards self-congratulatory groups, then he not wanting to join *any* other self-congratulatory group seems perfectly reasonable to me, even if it doesn't sound so to you.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
going to a convention does not necessitate joining a group. it necessitates being interested in the topics discussed.
And part of the nature of friendship is discussing things together. If one of my friends reacted the same way I would probably want to talk about it to understand why they didn't want to go and why they thought it was like "leaving one church for another". Hopefully an interesting discussion would ensue. If one of my friends just didn't want to talk about it A)that kind of person probably wouldn't be my friend and B) I'd question their unwillingness to discuss their ideas/beliefs. Because that would usually indicate to me that they hadn't thought it out very well, they knew they were wrong and wanted to shut down discussion, or that it had some sort of strong negative emotional association and was painful to talk about. Only the last of which I would accept as a valid reason to not discuss something(doubtful that anyone could feel this way about an atheist convention). Though even then, that's not a healthy way to go about things in the long term.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He was invited, he said no, he gave reasons, and his interrogator wouldn't let up? Even after he tried to end the conversation? To the point that the questioner insisted on continuing the conversation because the reasons were inadequate? That was way more rude than I've EVER heard any missionaries being.
If someone left organized religion because of the organized thing and perceived self-righteousness of the members, no wonder the idea of the convention wasn't appealing: all the unpleasantness with no divine blessing or promise of heaven to make it even palatable.
quote:Because that would usually indicate to me that they hadn't thought it out very well, they knew they were wrong and wanted to shut down discussion, or that it had some sort of strong negative emotional association and was painful to talk about.
You know the glorious thing about our personal beliefs? Even if those were the reasons (and you left out "he thought it sounded about as fun as cleaning out a cage with his face but were too polite to say so"), those are perfectly legitimate reasons for that person and are not subject to review by self-appointed thought police.
[ July 04, 2007, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:and you left out "he thought it sounded about as fun as cleaning out a cage with his face but were too polite to say so"
no, that would be a reason not to *go* to the convention, not a reason to not explain why you didn't want to go.
If someone said, "no, that doesn't sound fun" or "no, sorry, i have no interest in that" that's a perfectly valid reason and i wouldn't argue it. if someone's reason for not going was, "i didn't leave one church to join another", that would be begging for a conversation. to then refuse to engage in that conversation is i guess your personal choice, but seems like a cop out to me.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aris and Javert, I would suggest you reread the exchange before so harshly judging my character and intentions (or my friend's for that matter). And to be honest, I don't think even then you will have enough information to make such judgments. You have no idea how he and I converse. You have no idea that we were joking with each other just this morning as if nothing happened because NOTHING HAPPENED. No one's feelings were hurt. No one's holding any grudges. You have no idea that we're more like brothers than friends and that we'd both rather point out when the other is wrong than be "polite" and let them continue to be wrong. You seem to have missed the fact that he reengaged me, and then further prodded me after I attempted to end it. You also seem to have missed the fact that both conversations are a compilation of text messages and are therefore going to sound more direct and less polite. They also took place over several hours while we were at work, further adding to the impersonal tone. If you get a chance, go back and take a look at a text message exchange between you and a friend. I think you'll see what I mean.
Also,
quote:You know the glorious thing about our personal beliefs? Even if those were the reasons (and you left out "he thought it sounded about as fun as cleaning out a cage with his face but were too polite to say so"), those are perfectly legitimate reasons for that person and are not subject to review by self-appointed thought police.
Do you not see the irony here?
---
Strider, Thanks. Very well put.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
<i>not a reason to not explain why you didn't want to go.</i>
The guy explained quite perfectly why he didn't want to go. Because he "didn't leave one church to join another"
Then when challenged on it, he went on to explain why this comparison seemed appropriate to him. An explanation that seems quite fair to me, and obviously must have seemed fair to the person giving it, even if you, Strider or rollainm disagree with it.
And rollainm would *still* not accept that and kept pressuring his "friend".
That sounds to me just plain obnoxious. As if rollainm had said: "Oh, no, I'm not saying you ought to go, I'm just saying that I'll keep challenging your reasons for not coming until I get you to see they are stupid, vague and meaningless. Because I'm not actually bothering to listen to you, just want you to get to share my own worldview."
Rollainm's minor points were also pretty flawed. His friend made a comparison between church and this convention. Just as his friend said, the comparison doesn't necessarily have to be negative even if it's the reason for his own lack of interest.
To give an example, if I one day declare I have no taste for meat (having overfed myself on chicken the previous day), a person suggesting I have roast pig might get the answer "sorry, that's still too meaty for me", even if there's nothing particularly bad about meat products in themselves. Even if it's just a matter of *taste*.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
@ Mighty Cow![[Smile]](smile.gif)
