BLACKS AND RELIGION?

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 361

Quote:

As for the second point, there's much to be pessimistic about.

Pessimism solves none of the problems that we could be solving. I saps the will and the intent to attempt change.

Quote:

Cracker America is not going to change, though indeed there have been tremendous social changes in the past 40 years.

Cracker America? This is a slang term used to define whites the same way a white person would have said 'coon' in the 60's to define blacks. To criticize one race for not being able to change their views on ethnicity while refering to them with a kind of racial epithet is extremey hypocritical.

This is the kind of pessimism I'm talking about. There has been enormous change, and I don't see it ending. I don't see why you do.

Newbie First Class Joined: Oct 01, 2004 Posts: 26

My last word on this subject, as my penchant for having my time wasted is rapidly decelerating.

In order to engage in conversation, I need to have some notion that the people with whom I converse share a comparable reality with mine. Your post indicates our experiences of social reality are too disparate to make any further engagement on my part worthwhile. This is a polite way of saying I find your response quite silly and devoid of reality. And that's how I see almost all of the discussion on this thread. It's really quite sickening.

However, I would encourage others to expand their horizons and engage with Wright, Delany, and other people mentioned that I think are worth the effort. But if things here don't pick up soon, I will soon be gone.

Cygnus wrote:

Cracker America? This is a slang term used to define whites the same way a white person would have said 'coon' in the 60's to define blacks. To criticize one race for not being able to change their views on ethnicity while refering to them with a kind of racial epithet is extremey hypocritical.

This is the kind of pessimism I'm talking about. There has been enormous change, and I don't see it ending. I don't see why you do.

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 361

Quote:

In order to engage in conversation, I need to have some notion that the people with whom I converse share a comparable reality with mine.

In other words you only listen to people who are more likely to agree with you.

It seems you won't even retract your 'cracker America' comment, which smacks of distrust and racial division. I don't know what you mean by 'devoid of reality'; you havent given any reason why I should believe otherwise.

All you do is complain and criticize. If you were to give any reason why you believe what you believe, or explain your social situation and perspective, then some kind of meaningful discussion might be able to arise. The thing is, pessimism doesn't do anybody good. Is it reality centered? Yes. However it is more of a state of mind and how you percieve that reality.

Newbie First Class Joined: Apr 26, 2008 Posts: 44

Go to a Women of Faith rally. http://www.womenoffaith.com/default.asp My wife did with some friends. They have them all over, all the time. The one a couple of months ago at the HP Arena in San Jose, CA, had 16,000 happy clapping women who paid $60 each , plus who knows how much on all the "stuff" they sell there. (That's nearly a million dollar "gate".) It was a first class show. It has top flight production values. It is obviously rehearsed and choreographed like a Broadway show. Lights, JumboTron screens, music, comedy, laughter, tears, testimonials… the whole shebang. Everybody had a good time.

Go to an AAI conference. http://richarddawkins.net/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=12(Or any secular conference.) Even the “annual” ones. The "International" ones. (I attended my first 31 years ago.) You might count 250 people (usually much less) and 50 of them are from the "trade". What do you get. Long lectures (albeit some good ones) in a barren hotel conference room with a cheeseball sound system, no lighting and a videographer who probably just left a lawnmower repairman’s wedding. (No offense to all you lawnmower repairmen out there.) If you think I exaggerate, buy the video at the AAI link above and see a recent example for yourself.

So what’s my point? We, and I mean all free thinkers, have failed miserably at marketing.

Go to a “faith based” web site. They all love God and Jesus or some one or something. And yes they squabble over some incoherent stuff. But they are far more “united” than we. They can get masses of people to cooperate, shell out the big bucks, participate, and even volunteer.

They are united in their ignorance. And they are powerful.

Go to a “free thinking” website. The first thing one notices is the overall enhanced writing skills and vocabulary of the posters. And yes they squabble over some very relevant and coherent stuff. But they seem far more divided than the faithful. They have a hard time getting people together. They have a hard time getting money. Their web sites can’t (with only recent rare exceptions) even compare to the faithful.

They are divided by their intelligence. And they are weak.

Yesterday the inventor of the frozen French fry and self-made billionaire J.R. Simplot died. In 1999, when asked about religion, he said of himself, “I’m a fact man and if it don’t add up, I don’t buy it; I don’t believe in hocus pocus.”

There are lists of atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, humanists, and the like that include some of the richest people in the world like Mr. Simplot. I worked in a business where ALL my customers were multi-millionaires and I can recall only two of the twenty-odd who were even church attendees, let alone fundamentalist Christians.

So I ask. Why can’t WE put on a good show? The money exists. The people exist. The talent exists. But all of it is isolated and untapped. We sit, huddled in these forums, barely gratified because just a few years ago we didn’t even have these small islands of sanity and we were basically alone. And some of us got angry. And some of us gave up. And some of us converted, or clamed up, or surrendered or just plain kept our mouths shut. (It is after all ultimately a matter of survival.) And none of us are really making much of a difference in the broad scheme of things to this day. Our president and four of the early candidates are all faithful and if they are not, they are faith pandering. They have no choice. Because we have failed.

The message. The money. The marketing.

Why not talk about those items? And I don’t mean putting on a T-shirt with a scarlet A on it or sticking sarcastic bumper stickers and Darwin turtles on the back of our cars. Post-modern. Post-schmodern. Walk through a mall. Ask someone what post modern is. You might as well watch a puppy listen to a high pitched whistle.

Don’t get me wrong. I am “down” with you all. I have read and understood much of what you mentioned here and I keep reading. (See my prior post.) But as my wife said to me today after reading my response to Ralph, “What good is all this reading and discussion and argument doing?”

Nothing has really changed in “our” world in the past 30 years except a couple of authors have finally sold some books and could hire “real” website people to spruce things up a bit. If Richard Dawkins gave my wife just $100,000 of the few million he has made with Delusion she could put on a “conference” that would shame EVERY conference any of us have attended these past three decades! (That was her profession.) Whether or not any of you would attend is anybodies guess but she would make sure you had a fun time, at the very least.

Now before you all start thinking I am joining the ranks of the whiners, please know that I believe there have to be solutions and I also believe that I could contribute in a small way to those solutions and am working to do so. I merely think the issues I raise here are ultimately the critical ones and really need more focused and creative attention by all of us.

The message. The money. The marketing.

And to stay on topic I do think the popular black culture could have a huge roll in those solutions. In my opinion the timing and opportunity are ripe. After all, if the popular black culture could convince millions of white bread teenagers to expose their underwear and trip over their pants legs all day, they could make secular humanism popular too. And I am NOT being sarcastic. The best thing that could happen to secular humanism is if JayZ and Eminem put on the next "conference".

But I may have gone on too long and the family just returned, so it is off to my night-time husbandly duties. I sure will look forward to your feedback, (if any) and will tell you my “black” idea if I survive the lynching.

Good times.

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 3:16 am

Ralphellectual wrote:

I'm a big fan of Delany's SF. I've seen him a number of times: I think the last time was when Octavia Butler was still alive. Your perception is correct: I've seen no indication of any interest in religion. Delany is one of the greatest intellects alive.

I've never met him, but I talked to him on the phone once, contributed to his official list of Dhalgren corrections.

I get the impression he thinks of religion as just another social habit like any other social clothing that we call "culture".

Two great literary tragedies here. Voyage: Orestes, the lost novel. The Splendor and Misery of Bodies, of Cities...which I'm pretty sure we'll never see.

He has new (non-SF) fiction out, a sort of reverse semi-autobiography so I hear, that I haven't read yet.

Just Arrived Joined: May 28, 2008 Posts: 8

I have visited this site a few times in the past and popped in today. When I saw the activity on the Blacks and Religion posting I started to read it and an hour later I am finally done. I decided to join the Infidel Guy so I could comment. It is the first group I have joined.

I found the entire discussion very entertaining, especially the hilarious dialog between Mr. Ralph and Mr. Evenbleed. I suspect they are twins separated at birth. I also have really enjoyed Mr. Lackeys posts. Like Mr. Evenbleed I will have to buy some books starting with Mr. Lackeys. His subject matter is very topical.

What I wanted to comment on, besides thanking you all, was Mr. Evenbleeds last long posting. I have often thought the same things. I have been to three humanist conferences and have wondered how they could ever have real impact in todays world.

Because the humanist movement seems to be largely confined to colleges and universities, I think the ideas Mr. Evenbleed expresses will find a non-receptive audience. Even many of the posts in here seem to be from academics who are often times socialistic in their political and economic views. The idea of "big shows" and profit making may not go over too well. Even though I think Mr. Evenbleed may have a point.

I look forward to reading more. Thank you again.

Newbie First Class Joined: Apr 26, 2008 Posts: 44

A sneeze interrupts the silence.

Bless you achoo.

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 3:26 am

i AM still here, just formulating a response.

My only quibble is with marketing. Don't we have enough marketing? I am advertised therefore I am...elsewise I am not. I see what you're getting at, possibly start with popularization and worry about the rest later. But...

A lot of marketing is successful, I think, precisely because of its fascile nature. We've seen how advertising works. Marketing takes everything of conceivable value, grinds it up, and spits out the shallowest utopian myths. Use this toilet paper or that deoderant and you will instantly ascend to nirvanna. It's ideal for mass-manipulation by appeal to our unconscious hedonistic/animalistic tendencies but not much else.

More simply, it mimics religion!

This is a problem. How do you use a fascile method to popularize the non-fascile?

-----

Also, we are starting to talk about 2 different things that it might be better to separate: blacks and religion, and publicizing rationalism/freethought/scepticism.

Newbie Joined: May 18, 2008 Posts: 22

An interesting character. Self-taught journalist and historian, member of Parliament, follower of Bradlaugh. He wrote +100 books in the 'free-thought' arena and most known as an early Jesus mythicist. Here's the wiki on him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mackinnon_Robertson

Some of his books have come back into print and Amazon lists a number of available books:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/002-3172024-8656057?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=john+mackinnon+robertson

He is the author of one of the most famous atheist quotable quotes of all time which appeared in his essay "Godism" (1896), which may be reprinted elsewhere but I know it's reprinted here:
An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism

(gotta love Prometheus books)

"You deny the existence of nine-hundred-ninety-nine alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours."[/quote]

kmisho, Thanks so much for passing along this information. This guy sounds really fascinating. And it appears that there have been a couple of studies written about him in the last few years.

It occurs to me, in part because of Everbleed's insightful message about the need to organize our forces in order to get the good freethinking word out there, that there is a need for a book, written for a broad audience, that would clearly articulate the important contributions all these writers have made. In addition to Bradlaugh and MacKinnon, I would include Leslie Stephen, Joseph McCabe, Nella Larsen, James Weldon Johnson, G.E. Moore, John McTaggart, G.J. Holyoake, H.L. Mencken, Clarence Darrow, Virginia Woolf, and, one of my favorites, R.B. Cunninghame Graham. Since this forum is about blacks and religion, I want to specifically mention the significance of Graham. He was a friend of Joseph Conrad's, and he was a famous freethinking socialist in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He wrote an unbelievable essay titled, "'Bloody Niggers,'" which explains how imperial nations used the God-concept to justify its atrocities towards non-whites. This, in my estimation, is one of the first works to clearly document how the God-concept was used to justify the biological and intellectual inferiority of non-whites, and it is not as well known as it should be.

In any event, there is an important book waiting to be written, a book that could appeal to many and that could explain why the freethinking-humanist-atheist-skeptic-agnostic movement is of vital importance to the political life of our culture. Again, thanks so much kmisho for passing along MacKinnon's name.

Yours, michael

Just Arrived Joined: May 28, 2008 Posts: 8

Thank you Everbleed. Sorry I misspelled your name in my post.

Newbie First Class Joined: Oct 01, 2004 Posts: 26

kmisho wrote:

This is a problem. How do you use a fascile method to popularize the non-fascile?

Actually, you can't . . . not by itself, anyway. Your response to an idiotic line of thinking is more polite than mine.

It also brings to mind a larger issue: in other areas of life, atheists are not a whit more rational or less delusional than anyone else.

Another question for publicity: in spite of the considerable overlap and near-identity of world-view, "atheism" and "humanism" still are distinguishable poles of attraction. I don't believe in shying away from the former term, but the latter promises more in terms of human values (whether or not humanists deliver). I see no real difference in terms of the literature produced and read, but different types of people tend to be attracted to "atheist" or "humanist" organizations, though many belong to any and all. I'm not sure how much currency the term "freethought" has in the USA or whether it implies a particular political or ethical direction.

Which leads to:

kmisho wrote:

Also, we are starting to talk about 2 different things that it might be better to separate: blacks and religion, and publicizing rationalism/freethought/scepticism

I will address this issue at length another time. First question is: would "humanism" garner an additional appeal to black audiences that "atheism" alone would not? Note again that I'm not scared away from "atheism" as a stigmatized label--it's a question of what value system atheists want to promote in addition to atheism, which implies very little in itself.

Though I have had considerable contact with both "atheists" and "humanists", in situations where the constituencies largely overlap, I have not experienced a sufficient number of people brought together under the aegis of "humanism" to ascertain whether they contain a smaller percentage of misfits, misanthropes, reactionaries, and ignorant rednecks than I've found congregating as "atheists".

As for marketing, and black atheism, together or separately, one might well query The Infidel Guy himself. He must have come to some conclusions given the magnitude of his enterprise and experiences.

kmisho wrote:

. . . My only quibble is with marketing. Don't we have enough marketing? I am advertised therefore I am...elsewise I am not. I see what you're getting at, possibly start with popularization and worry about the rest later. But...

A lot of marketing is successful, I think, precisely because of its fascile nature. We've seen how advertising works. Marketing takes everything of conceivable value, grinds it up, and spits out the shallowest utopian myths. Use this toilet paper or that deoderant and you will instantly ascend to nirvanna. It's ideal for mass-manipulation by appeal to our unconscious hedonistic/animalistic tendencies but not much else.

More simply, it mimics religion!

..................

Newbie First Class Joined: Apr 26, 2008 Posts: 44

Congratulations everybody.

A record!

100 replies on this thread.

The best on record for TIG General Discussions. (At least the current listings which start Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:35 am.)

Chatty little group aren't we?

Newbie First Class Joined: Apr 26, 2008 Posts: 44

A quick note before I run off to work.

Kmisho.... I will be back on topic with a vengeance in my next post. Although we may end up doing a "spin-off" at some point, I believe we will be "on topic" for a bit longer. I will respond to your "marketing" comments as well as your prior brief comment on meme's.

mlackey... Thank you. Your recommendations are excellent. Your comments are appreciated. Your compliment warming. Your book is supposed to be here today or Monday. I am hoping it arrives today so I can have it over the weekend. I agree with your statement of the need for a "book". I would add a movie and soundtrack as well.

achoo... No problem. Happens all the time. I'll call you Sneezy and you can call me Dopey.

I look forward to some time this evening to compose my next post and address the topics raised, even Ralph's.

Newbie Joined: May 18, 2008 Posts: 22

Everbleed, I like your idea about doing a video. Here's an idea that has been running through my mind for a long time now. There are many varieties of atheism--Marxist atheists who focus on the role the God-concept plays in pacifying the masses, rationalist atheists who focus on the value of science and reason in the formation of a rationalist society, postmodernist atheists who argue that humans rather than God originate language and meaning, feminist atheists who examine how the God-concept has functioned to institute patriarchal models of dominance, postcolonial atheists who examine the role religion has played in justifying imperialism, black atheists who expose the way "God and the word of God have been used to perpetuate the wicked idea of human inferiority" (J. Saunders Redding), and others. The problem with all these splinter groups is that we end up attacking each other. For years now I have been trying to argue that most of us atheists share more similarities than differences. In fact, my own battle with Free Inquiry and Center for Inquiry has revolved around this very issue. I used to be a strong supporter of Free Inquiry, even though I have reservations about what I consider their excessive focus on science and reason. As a postmodern humanist, I strongly support science and reason, but I also believe that theories about ideology and the unconscious undermine strict rationalist approaches to the world. One could say that postmodern humanists are ironic rationalists. They reverence reason, but they recognize its serious limitations and understand that it is oftentimes compromised by the realities of the unconscious and ideology. Despite my reservations about the Enlightenment rationalist approach to the world, I strongly support most of the objectives and views of Enlightenment rationalists. Unfortunately, Free Inquiry writers do not approve of my brand of atheism/humanism, so they have attacked me. What we need is to bring all of the various groups of atheists together into a productive, unifying dialogue, one that will underscore our common vision of as well as our shared commitment to civil liberties, social justice, and economic equality. Instead of attacking each other for our 20% disagreements, we should clarify our 80% agreements. A video examining the varieties of atheism, and what we share in common, would be an excellent way to clarify the life- and world-affirming vision of atheists in their diverse complexity.

By the way, I think Bill Maher is doing a movie this summer on religion. We should pay attention to the response to this film, as it may give us some ideas about how to put together a film that could reach an open-minded and receptive public.

Talk to you later,
michael

Newbie First Class Joined: Oct 01, 2004 Posts: 26

I have never heard of a "postmodern humanist" nor any of these varieties of atheists cited. Something tells me you are making this all up.

What is implied in the statement "theories about ideology and the unconscious undermine strict rationalist approaches to the world"? Do theories about ideology undermine rationalist philosophy, or does the reality of ideology undermine rationality in the real world? These are not the same claims.

I have also never heard of an "ironic rationalist". Sounds pretty stupid.

But this is hilarious:

"... our shared commitment to civil liberties, social justice, and economic equality."

Here I take it you are not being ironic. Which is all the funnier. I have never seen in all my adult life any of this shared commitment. "Social justice, and economic equality"? Do you even know where you are? Are you even remotely in touch with reality? And when you engage people in this group, do you even have a clue whom you're talking to?

mlackey wrote:

...There are many varieties of atheism--Marxist atheists who focus on the role the God-concept plays in pacifying the masses, rationalist atheists who focus on the value of science and reason in the formation of a rationalist society, postmodernist atheists who argue that humans rather than God originate language and meaning, feminist atheists who examine how the God-concept has functioned to institute patriarchal models of dominance, postcolonial atheists who examine the role religion has played in justifying imperialism, black atheists who expose the way "God and the word of God have been used to perpetuate the wicked idea of human inferiority" (J. Saunders Redding), and others.

The problem with all these splinter groups is that we end up attacking each other. For years now I have been trying to argue that most of us atheists share more similarities than differences.

In fact, my own battle with Free Inquiry and Center for Inquiry has revolved around this very issue. I used to be a strong supporter of Free Inquiry, even though I have reservations about what I consider their excessive focus on science and reason.

As a postmodern humanist, I strongly support science and reason, but I also believe that theories about ideology and the unconscious undermine strict rationalist approaches to the world. One could say that postmodern humanists are ironic rationalists. They reverence reason, but they recognize its serious limitations and understand that it is oftentimes compromised by the realities of the unconscious and ideology.

Despite my reservations about the Enlightenment rationalist approach to the world, I strongly support most of the objectives and views of Enlightenment rationalists. Unfortunately, Free Inquiry writers do not approve of my brand of atheism/humanism, so they have attacked me.

What we need is to bring all of the various groups of atheists together into a productive, unifying dialogue, one that will underscore our common vision of as well as our shared commitment to civil liberties, social justice, and economic equality. . . .


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore