--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <buttsplicer@> wrote: > > > > Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens all make arguments about the > > absurdity of the label atheist. The only place I have seen > > the word used was by religious people as a pejorative. This > > writer was clearly reacting against these writers. > > > > Harris makes an effective argument saying that it is much > > like the term racist. Racist is a clear term to identify a > > KKK member, but there is no term to identify those who > > fight racism. Because not believing in racial superiority > > is not a characteristic of any one group. > > The problem with 'atheist' is that it has gathered > about itself *subliminal* pejorative meanings. Like > the word 'cult.'
There's also a very significant difference, however: Very few people are willing to apply the term "cult" to the groups to which they belong, or to call themselves cultists; whereas many who actively disbelieve in God not only have no problem applying it to themselves, but apply it with pride, including two of the three writers (Dawkins and Hitchens) being criticized in the piece from which I quoted that Stu was commenting on. <snip> > 'Atheist' is a "loaded phrase," a word that is supposed > to *connote* bad things about the person it is applied > to. And you are correct, Stu, that that "loading" > came from the ranks of organized religion. Just as positive "loading" comes from the ranks of the atheists themselves. You might want to look, for example, at the site of the organization American Atheists. Click on "Local Groups" on the menu at the left for a list of several dozen affiliated groups across the country, many with "Atheist/s/ism" in the title. How many groups are there that proudly proclaim as their goal the advancement of cultism and use the term "Cult" in their titles? <snip> > > Free will does not necessarily follow from faith. > > And is antithetical to the dogma of many faiths, > including the "not the doer" dogma of the TMO. Stu's comment was a non sequitur to the view expressed in the quote, as is Barry's response here. Nobody claimed free will *necessarily* follows from faith, Eastern-type faiths in particular. The point in the quote was that the Western concept of free will originates from Judeo-Christianity. Free will is, of course, a basic tenet of both Judaism and Christianity. Westerners who promote the notion of free will as if it were *opposed* to faith are simply ignorant of its origins. <snip> > Then you have the "posting atheists," who mix it up > and who post about *different* things. You can't > really predict what they're going to post about or > who they'll support or who they'll rag on. The pre- > determinists even criticize *this* as inconsistency > on the part of the "posting atheists." Um, no, that isn't where the inconsistency lies. On the whole, > these posters are NOT true-blue TMers. > > Therefore, I suggest that, based on the semi-scientific > experiment that is Fairfield Life, TM tends to create > predeterminists (those who consider themselves "bound" > by God or by His Holy Euphemism the Laws Of Nature) to > keep doing the same old things over and over and over, > and that a "stepping back" from TM tends to produce > a-theists, those who do not consider themselves "bound" > by any deity or cosmic laws or sense of what they > "should" do or "shouldn't" do, and who can think for > themselves. The thing is, of course, that a belief in determinism carries no implications whatsoever for how one should behave, a point Barry has always been deeply confused about.
