Newspaper's "Religion" section runs article on atheism

[Resume]

I presume the newspaper changed his original "god" to "(G)od". Using the diminutive for the Judeo-Christian cosmic entity is annoying. It is clear he is talking about God and not "a god" even if God is fictional. I wish he would say what he means. A good style guide could help Penn Jillette.

Once there was a thread dedicated to this annoyance of yours. As I recall, you'd still be annoyed.

 

[VanillaCone]

Well, I hope he's not gonna dream on thinking his ten principles will be applied with much fervour.


Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/re...s-his-10-principles-2242081.php#ixzz1cDu7gaLe

I dunno. It's mostly common sense, with a few personal peeves and housekeeping items thrown into the mix.

It seems pretty Ten Commandments-esque to me. And look at how well those did!

 

[angrysoba]

Once there was a thread dedicated to this annoyance of yours. As I recall, you'd still be annoyed.

Yeah, I don't doubt it. Is its use supposed to be some kind of "consciousness raiser" or is it an outward sign - a pose - of being an atheist? It's just a little too culty for me so I stick to correct usage.

 

[Resume]

Yeah, I don't doubt it. Is its use supposed to be some kind of "consciousness raiser" or is it an outward sign - a pose - of being an atheist? It's just a little too culty for me so I stick to correct usage.

As long as you understand what you forward as "correct" is merely arbitrary.

Of course this assumes a basic understanding of connotation and denotation, the value of a word as descriptor, or as figurative.

 

[angrysoba]

As long as you understand what you forward as "correct" is merely arbitrary.

Yes, most (if not all) conventions of the English language (and other languages) are arbitrary.

sO wHAT;

 

[Resume]

Yes, most (if not all) conventions of the English language (and other languages) are arbitrary.

sO wHAT;

I edited after your response. Apologies. Though I believe my edit explains as stands.

 

[angrysoba]

I edited after your response. Apologies. Though I believe my edit explains as stands.

No problem. And I think my objection to a wilfull breaking of convention stands. Sometimes, as I implied, breaking convention can be useful or "consciousness raising" and in fact may show the original conventional to be prejudicial. I think the use of "Ms." is preferable to "Mrs" and "Miss" because it shouldn't be necessary for women to reveal their marital status unless they wanted to.

Other breaks from convention are just silly and don't make useful contributions to the language. "Herstory" in place of "History", for example, and "god" instead of "God".

However, we're now drifting from the original thread and, as you say there was a thread about this already, I shouldn't hijack this one with the same topic.

 

[godless dave]

It seems pretty Ten Commandments-esque to me. And look at how well those did!

I'm pretty sure he wrote them to parallel the Ten Commandments.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm pretty sure he wrote them to parallel the Ten Commandments.

Yes, according to the link Glenn Beck challenged him to come up with an atheist Ten Commandments.

Glenn Beck????

Penn Jillette should have just told Beck that that's not how atheism works and asked him what the basis of Beck's belief actually is then laughed at him.

 

[VanillaCone]

Yes, according to the link Glenn Beck challenged him to come up with an atheist Ten Commandments.

Glenn Beck????

Penn Jillette should have just told Beck that that's not how atheism works and asked him what the basis of Beck's belief actually is then laughed at him.

I agree with you 100 percent. Check and mate for Beck. I can't believe Penn Jillette of all people allowed himself to be set up by that con-artist!

 

[Trent Wray]

Yes, according to the link Glenn Beck challenged him to come up with an atheist Ten Commandments.

Glenn Beck????

Penn Jillette should have just told Beck that that's not how atheism works and asked him what the basis of Beck's belief actually is then laughed at him.

Well, I think it's a mixed bag.

On the one hand, isolating Jillette's response you could easily say that Jillette just misrepresented atheism as a religion .... and even saying "well, Jillette makes his living by making a scene ..." well, so do a lot of religious people

To the average uninformed reader, Jillette merely represented a religion without a supernatural deity. If he were standing next to ... say .... Glenn Beck ..... he's selling the fat free version of what Beck is selling is all.

On the other hand, Jillette could respond not only with the atheist 10 commandments, but he could bring up the FSM or invisible unicorns or whatever other nonsense he'd like to bring up, because the "challenge" by Beck is a challenge based on trying to outdo what Jillette views as a fictitious based set of beliefs anyway. So to the unbelieving reader, what does it matter if Jillette "protects the standard of atheism" or not ? It's all based on bull anyway. Even having to claim that there are no Sky Fairies is absurd .... so on the other hand Jillette didn't misrepresent or sellout anything. After all, atheism isn't a religion. It's the abscence of stuff, not the opposition to stuff that actually exists.

And yet ....

Maybe Jillette forgot what he was supposed to say and do

So what WAS Jillette supposed to say and do again ? What are the rules of atheism ? When challenged to compare it to a religion, you're supposed to deny that's how atheism works .... ask the believer what the basis for their belief is .... and then laugh at them ? Or do those game rules only apply to people like Beck ? Is there a different set of "atheist bot" rules in play for other types of people ?

I suppose it depends on what "type" of atheist you are. Hard, soft, skeptically based, etc.

 

[VanillaCone]

And yet ....

Maybe Jillette forgot what he was supposed to say and do

So what WAS Jillette supposed to say and do again ? What are the rules of atheism ? When challenged to compare it to a religion, you're supposed to deny that's how atheism works .... ask the believer what the basis for their belief is .... and then laugh at them ? Or do those game rules only apply to people like Beck ? Is there a different set of "atheist bot" rules in play for other types of people ?

I suppose it depends on what "type" of atheist you are. Hard, soft, skeptically based, etc.

I agree that there is no official Atheist Code of Conduct, nor should there be. Nor should anyone go on television suggesting that one exists.

However, I do think there is a standard for responsible conduct when someone belongs to a particular group and is acting as one of that group's ambassadors to the rest of the world. And the standard is, don't misrepresent what the group is about. That goes double when it's a marginalized and negatively stigmatized group. I think I understand Jillette's motivation - to dispel the myth that atheists are black-hearted, misanthropic nihilists or whatever. And I applaud his intentions. But the way he did it, in my opinion, provides ammunition to those who want to paint atheism as some sort of wacky cult.

ETA: "Misrepresent" might be too strong a word. But I do think Jillette should have made it clearer that atheism is not an ethos or philosophy.

 

[Trent Wray]

I agree that there is no official Atheist Code of Conduct, nor should there be. Nor should anyone go on television suggesting that one exists.

However, I do think there is a standard for responsible conduct when someone belongs to a particular group and is acting as one of that group's ambassadors to the rest of the world. And the standard is, don't misrepresent what the group is about. That goes double when it's a marginalized and negatively stigmatized group. I think I understand Jillette's motivation - to dispel the myth that atheists are black-hearted, misanthropic nihilists or whatever. And I applaud his intentions. But the way he did it, in my opinion, provides ammunition to those who want to paint atheism as some sort of wacky cult.

ETA: "Misrepresent" might be too strong a word. But I do think Jillette should have made it clearer that atheism is not an ethos or philosophy.

And see .... I understand exactly what you're saying here. But it's still grouping together people ... a grouping together of people based on nonsense. So don't call it a cult, nor a religion, but it's still saying that atheists have ambassadors and this and that.

I don't want to say that whether Jillette was "right or wrong" is black and white, because I don't think it is .... but getting right to the point, there are no gods. The world isn't built on the back of turtles all the way down. Smurfs aren't real. So when you have a group of people take all that seriously .... it's getting close to insane. Advocates for the Atlas Turtles, or Equal Rights for Smurfs or something. Likewise .... what benefit is there to forming groups who are against taking that seriously ? Amabassadors Against the Existence of Atlas Turtles .... I mean come on. You now have two sides taking something seriously that doesn't even exist.

Atheists shouldn't even have to say they are atheists .... so in one sense, even giving credibility to having to differentiate people who don't believe in smurfs verses people who do ... outside of pure entertainment or artistic value ... is starting to go to the same levels as religious people.

In my own, personal, POV ... I think the power of "atheism" is in that it takes your eyes off the human being for a moment, and asks you to look directly at gods. When you see none .... you look back to the human being ... and poof ... if it "worked" ... then all you see is a person. Beyond that .... whatever that person is, does, comes out of their mouth .... is human. No special privileges because of invisible monsters or fairies.

It very much equalizes the experience of being alive amongst people, because it helps to remove an illusion that keeps you from experiencing being alive with other people in a specific way. It obviously doesn't do it in every area .... but it's beauty is in the idea that two people standing next to each other are just that ... two people standing next to each other. Screaming out to the sky doesn't solve any problems, make two people love each other, give two people a reason to raise a knife to each other. Again ... if it's "done right" .... it can give a person a moment of clarity and they drop that knife they had raised in the name of the Great Fairy, or they stop begging invisible ghosts to solve an issue they have with you directly, etc and so forth. I might be romanticizing it a bit .... but to me, that's what I find "atheism" to be. It points to illusions, which when you see they aren't there ... you are left looking at the atheist. And when you are left looking at the atheist, you ask yourself, "why do we have this label anyway ? I'm just looking at a human being." And something amazing vanishes. Gods, theists, atheists, .... poof. No reason for any of it.

I suppose it begs the question ... ultimately, what is the point of atheism ? Should it even have one ?

Atheism is redundancy from the Department of Redundancy in a college that shouldn't even exist. But that college is filled with people. Jillette is therefore no different than any believer. Human beings doing what human beings do and say. When you start to give atheism a "cause", imo, you are joining the ranks from other causes based on, and orbiting, the same illusions used to justify the causes in the first place. It would be like African Americans claiming they had equal rights to other human beings, not because they were human beings ... but because the Cain and Abel stories were fictitious. It's giving credence to nonsense, and drawing away from the main issue. But then again, "you can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into" I suppose. Moral or mental or ethnic superiority, racism, etc ... will find something to cling to in order to justify and rationalize it I suppose. Whether it's belief in fairies or the lack of belief in fairies.

 

[Antiquehunter]

From what I understand of Penn, gathered from listening to him speak & asking him questions - the LAST thing he wants to see is any sort of 'organized' movement. I would be very surprised if he intended this '10 principles' nonsense to become something that was representative for all atheists.

 

[VanillaCone]

And see .... I understand exactly what you're saying here. But it's still grouping together people ... a grouping together of people based on nonsense. So don't call it a cult, nor a religion, but it's still saying that atheists have ambassadors and this and that.

I don't want to say that whether Jillette was "right or wrong" is black and white, because I don't think it is .... but getting right to the point, there are no gods. The world isn't built on the back of turtles all the way down. Smurfs aren't real. So when you have a group of people take all that seriously .... it's getting close to insane. Advocates for the Atlas Turtles, or Equal Rights for Smurfs or something. Likewise .... what benefit is there to forming groups who are against taking that seriously ? Amabassadors Against the Existence of Atlas Turtles .... I mean come on. You now have two sides taking something seriously that doesn't even exist.

Atheists shouldn't even have to say they are atheists .... so in one sense, even giving credibility to having to differentiate people who don't believe in smurfs verses people who do ... outside of pure entertainment or artistic value ... is starting to go to the same levels as religious people.

In my own, personal, POV ... I think the power of "atheism" is in that it takes your eyes off the human being for a moment, and asks you to look directly at gods. When you see none .... you look back to the human being ... and poof ... if it "worked" ... then all you see is a person. Beyond that .... whatever that person is, does, comes out of their mouth .... is human. No special privileges because of invisible monsters or fairies.

It very much equalizes the experience of being alive amongst people, because it helps to remove an illusion that keeps you from experiencing being alive with other people in a specific way. It obviously doesn't do it in every area .... but it's beauty is in the idea that two people standing next to each other are just that ... two people standing next to each other. Screaming out to the sky doesn't solve any problems, make two people love each other, give two people a reason to raise a knife to each other. Again ... if it's "done right" .... it can give a person a moment of clarity and they drop that knife they had raised in the name of the Great Fairy, or they stop begging invisible ghosts to solve an issue they have with you directly, etc and so forth. I might be romanticizing it a bit .... but to me, that's what I find "atheism" to be. It points to illusions, which when you see they aren't there ... you are left looking at the atheist. And when you are left looking at the atheist, you ask yourself, "why do we have this label anyway ? I'm just looking at a human being." And something amazing vanishes. Gods, theists, atheists, .... poof. No reason for any of it.

I suppose it begs the question ... ultimately, what is the point of atheism ? Should it even have one ?

Atheism is redundancy from the Department of Redundancy in a college that shouldn't even exist. But that college is filled with people. Jillette is therefore no different than any believer. Human beings doing what human beings do and say. When you start to give atheism a "cause", imo, you are joining the ranks from other causes based on, and orbiting, the same illusions used to justify the causes in the first place. It would be like African Americans claiming they had equal rights to other human beings, not because they were human beings ... but because the Cain and Abel stories were fictitious. It's giving credence to nonsense, and drawing away from the main issue. But then again, "you can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into" I suppose. Moral or mental or ethnic superiority, racism, etc ... will find something to cling to in order to justify and rationalize it I suppose. Whether it's belief in fairies or the lack of belief in fairies.

I agree enthusiastically with everything you've said. And you've said it brilliantly. Atheists are no more bound to a common cause than are people who avoid lima beans, or who think watching football on TV is a waste of time.

I think what bothered me about Penn's list of principles was that it made atheism come across as having espoused a particular worldview or religion-like set of values. Anyhow there's no need for me to explain further -- it's clear that you already understand where I'm coming from.

And I still think Penn Jillette is awesome.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From what I understand of Penn, gathered from listening to him speak & asking him questions - the LAST thing he wants to see is any sort of 'organized' movement. I would be very surprised if he intended this '10 principles' nonsense to become something that was representative for all atheists.

Just because someone calls them Commandments doesn't mean they have the same significance as the dogmatic Christian dozen.
From the OP link, quoting Penn:

“I wanted to see how many of the ideas that many people think are handed down from (G)od really make sense to someone who says, ‘I don't know.'”

That's quite different from some of the presumptions I'm reading here.

 

[paiute]

The San Antonio Express-News published this article in the Saturday, October 29, "Religion and Spirituality" section: "Faith is just another illusion to magician." Featuring Penn Jillette, it discusses how magicians are often led to skepticism and atheism by studying their craft.

I just checked the story and the sidebar. No comments. So either I have to register to see comments (site does not make this claim), or they are disabling comments. Hard to believe there are no reponses, given the geography.

From the article itself: “I think there is a deeper and more real link between magic and spirituality than between magic and atheism,” said Eugene Burger, a teacher of magic who also holds a divinity degree. “I think for most people who have moved from magic to atheism it is based on a false generalization — that because some things are tricks, all things are tricks.”

So the God of the gaps is now the God of the unexplained parlor trick?

 

[Trent Wray]

I agree enthusiastically with everything you've said. And you've said it brilliantly. Atheists are no more bound to a common cause than are people who avoid lima beans, or who think watching football on TV is a waste of time.

I think what bothered me about Penn's list of principles was that it made atheism come across as having espoused a particular worldview or religion-like set of values. Anyhow there's no need for me to explain further -- it's clear that you already understand where I'm coming from.

And I still think Penn Jillette is awesome.

I just remembered something lol

About 15 years ago or so, I went to one of their shows in Vegas, and after the show you could go up and talk with them and what not (both Penn and Teller). While I was talking with them, I pulled a quarter out of my pocket and did the old French Drop for Jillette ... he guessed the wrong hand lol Such a simple trick, done in front of pros by me, a total amateur ... with such a low probability for guessing wrong and I pulled it off I love the whole idea of that

But yeah, those dudes still rock imo

I just checked the story and the sidebar. No comments. So either I have to register to see comments (site does not make this claim), or they are disabling comments. Hard to believe there are no reponses, given the geography.

From the article itself: “I think there is a deeper and more real link between magic and spirituality than between magic and atheism,” said Eugene Burger, a teacher of magic who also holds a divinity degree. “I think for most people who have moved from magic to atheism it is based on a false generalization — that because some things are tricks, all things are tricks.”

So the God of the gaps is now the God of the unexplained parlor trick?

The God of the gaps and Occam's Razor are in a "don't ask don't tell" sort of arrangement.

 

[VanillaCone]

I just remembered something lol

About 15 years ago or so, I went to one of their shows in Vegas, and after the show you could go up and talk with them and what not (both Penn and Teller). While I was talking with them, I pulled a quarter out of my pocket and did the old French Drop for Jillette ... he guessed the wrong hand lol Such a simple trick, done in front of pros by me, a total amateur ... with such a low probability for guessing wrong and I pulled it off I love the whole idea of that

But yeah, those dudes still rock imo

Wow, that's pretty impressive! I used to live in Las Vegas, and I saw Penn on a couple of occasions at restaurants and such. I think he sometimes goes to my favorite eatery there, called the Pepper Mill. Anyway he seems like a really decent and down-to-earth guy.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I just checked the story and the sidebar. No comments. So either I have to register to see comments (site does not make this claim), or they are disabling comments. Hard to believe there are no reponses, given the geography.

From the article itself: “I think there is a deeper and more real link between magic and spirituality than between magic and atheism,” said Eugene Burger, a teacher of magic who also holds a divinity degree. “I think for most people who have moved from magic to atheism it is based on a false generalization — that because some things are tricks, all things are tricks.”

So the God of the gaps is now the God of the unexplained parlor trick?