<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: I guess I&#8217;m an old-fashioned atheist&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/</link>
	<description>Things I'll talk about with anyone</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:32:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lecture Review: Hemant Mehta &#187; David Ernst Chats with the World</title>
		<link>http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/comment-page-1/#comment-31826</link>
		<dc:creator>Lecture Review: Hemant Mehta &#187; David Ernst Chats with the World</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 04:34:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/#comment-31826</guid>
		<description>[...] the atheist image&#8221;.  Wow, not only a talk about atheism, but about one aspect of atheism I really care about.  I was interested enough to look up the event and only then did I realize that it was the author [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the atheist image&#8221;.  Wow, not only a talk about atheism, but about one aspect of atheism I really care about.  I was interested enough to look up the event and only then did I realize that it was the author [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SimÃ³n</title>
		<link>http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/comment-page-1/#comment-7384</link>
		<dc:creator>SimÃ³n</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2007 17:54:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/#comment-7384</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I am a Unitarian Universalist, which means to me precisely what you&#039;ve said about the freedom to discuss and evolve is more important than what particular belief you&#039;ve decided to have at this moment.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I come from a Christian background, though I have come to see that every tradition has something of truth and beauty to offer, including atheism. I&#039;ve also come to see that that which bothers me in the area of belief is dogma, which to me is the refusal to allow your spirit to evolve, but not so much dogma as those who active try to &quot;infect&quot; others with their particular brand of it.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;And again, I see that coming out of most traditions (some more than others), and atheism actually seems to be one tradition is most visibly dogmatic to me.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Just some thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am a Unitarian Universalist, which means to me precisely what you&#8217;ve said about the freedom to discuss and evolve is more important than what particular belief you&#8217;ve decided to have at this moment.</p>
<p>I come from a Christian background, though I have come to see that every tradition has something of truth and beauty to offer, including atheism. I&#8217;ve also come to see that that which bothers me in the area of belief is dogma, which to me is the refusal to allow your spirit to evolve, but not so much dogma as those who active try to &#8220;infect&#8221; others with their particular brand of it.</p>
<p>And again, I see that coming out of most traditions (some more than others), and atheism actually seems to be one tradition is most visibly dogmatic to me.</p>
<p>Just some thoughts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Ernst chats with the World &#187; A few more atheism thoughts (inspired by Dan)</title>
		<link>http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/comment-page-1/#comment-6537</link>
		<dc:creator>David Ernst chats with the World &#187; A few more atheism thoughts (inspired by Dan)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:16:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/#comment-6537</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s too much to say that I was thrilled by how many comments I got on my post last month about atheism. I replied to some of your comments in the comments section, so if you haven&#8217;t done so, some of you might want to check that out. But, after I&#8217;d done that, Dan submitted his comments. Dan&#8217;s comments got me thinking, as they often do. I decided that rather than post another comment back there (which likely few people would see) I&#8217;d post my response here (giving me more justification for being verbose). [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s too much to say that I was thrilled by how many comments I got on my post last month about atheism. I replied to some of your comments in the comments section, so if you haven&#8217;t done so, some of you might want to check that out. But, after I&#8217;d done that, Dan submitted his comments. Dan&#8217;s comments got me thinking, as they often do. I decided that rather than post another comment back there (which likely few people would see) I&#8217;d post my response here (giving me more justification for being verbose). [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan</title>
		<link>http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/comment-page-1/#comment-6312</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:08:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/#comment-6312</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Hey David,&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Nicely spoken.  It is a topic I ponder fairly regularly.  I put off spiritual housekeeping, but my marriage to a religiously observant person forced me to do some work.  I think I fall somewhere between agnostic and atheist and obviously have more housekeeping to do to figure out what I think.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Several things stand out for me.  First, this is great if there weren&#039;t a political aspect to the religious/atheist conflict.  As long as political decisions are being based on the moral value set defined by a specific interpretation of religion, the debate is not just philosophical or even one of trying to convert.  It affects people&#039;s lives legally.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;On another front, why is there need to convert people to atheism?  If people want to believe whatever they want, fine.  If a set of dogma becomes too unbelievable or the message of the existence of a god fails to resonate, then a person may develop his or her own atheist understanding of the world.  In the mean time, what good would it do to confront people who have other beliefs?  I think it would only act to strengthen those beliefs in opposition.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;There has to be some balance between letting people use religious convictions to make federal laws and trying to convert them all to an atheist world-view.  Perhaps the seeds of this are in the Constitution and other founding documents.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;As always, I enjoy reading your blog.  Keep it up.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey David,</p>
<p>Nicely spoken.  It is a topic I ponder fairly regularly.  I put off spiritual housekeeping, but my marriage to a religiously observant person forced me to do some work.  I think I fall somewhere between agnostic and atheist and obviously have more housekeeping to do to figure out what I think.</p>
<p>Several things stand out for me.  First, this is great if there weren&#8217;t a political aspect to the religious/atheist conflict.  As long as political decisions are being based on the moral value set defined by a specific interpretation of religion, the debate is not just philosophical or even one of trying to convert.  It affects people&#8217;s lives legally.</p>
<p>On another front, why is there need to convert people to atheism?  If people want to believe whatever they want, fine.  If a set of dogma becomes too unbelievable or the message of the existence of a god fails to resonate, then a person may develop his or her own atheist understanding of the world.  In the mean time, what good would it do to confront people who have other beliefs?  I think it would only act to strengthen those beliefs in opposition.</p>
<p>There has to be some balance between letting people use religious convictions to make federal laws and trying to convert them all to an atheist world-view.  Perhaps the seeds of this are in the Constitution and other founding documents.</p>
<p>As always, I enjoy reading your blog.  Keep it up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Beth</title>
		<link>http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/comment-page-1/#comment-6291</link>
		<dc:creator>Beth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:14:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/#comment-6291</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Mmmm, yes, David, nicely put.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mmmm, yes, David, nicely put.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/comment-page-1/#comment-6202</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2007 04:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/#comment-6202</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;ok, the vote on &quot;materialist&quot; is 0-2-2... You&#039;ve convinced me, people outside of philosophy class think of something else when they hear the word.  I still think &quot;atheist&quot; sounds needlessly confrontational, though.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I also like Josh&#039;s comments about not wanting to deny a sense of wonder.  &quot;Materialist&quot; does tend to suggest some sort of &quot;it&#039;s easy, just measure it!&quot; kind of attitude, and this is definitely not my belief.  I love the complexity of the universe, I don&#039;t think it&#039;s simple at all.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;As for the political issues that Beth and Kynthia touch upon... I think I&#039;m more and more convinced that strong freedom of religion is more important than convincing anyone of my particular faith.  I want there to be information about core atheist beliefs available (and there is plenty), but I really don&#039;t feel like I have to convince anyone of them.  The only thing that gets my blood boiling is when someone starts talking about forcing their religion on others, be it through fascism, terrorism, etc.  If all religious people accepted the notion that non-believers were only risking their own souls and are not, say, causing the US to lose troops in Iraq because of tolerance for gay marriage... we&#039;d be much better off.  Indeed, I&#039;d venture that we wouldn&#039;t be in Iraq anyway.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ok, the vote on &#8220;materialist&#8221; is 0-2-2&#8230; You&#8217;ve convinced me, people outside of philosophy class think of something else when they hear the word.  I still think &#8220;atheist&#8221; sounds needlessly confrontational, though.</p>
<p>I also like Josh&#8217;s comments about not wanting to deny a sense of wonder.  &#8220;Materialist&#8221; does tend to suggest some sort of &#8220;it&#8217;s easy, just measure it!&#8221; kind of attitude, and this is definitely not my belief.  I love the complexity of the universe, I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s simple at all.</p>
<p>As for the political issues that Beth and Kynthia touch upon&#8230; I think I&#8217;m more and more convinced that strong freedom of religion is more important than convincing anyone of my particular faith.  I want there to be information about core atheist beliefs available (and there is plenty), but I really don&#8217;t feel like I have to convince anyone of them.  The only thing that gets my blood boiling is when someone starts talking about forcing their religion on others, be it through fascism, terrorism, etc.  If all religious people accepted the notion that non-believers were only risking their own souls and are not, say, causing the US to lose troops in Iraq because of tolerance for gay marriage&#8230; we&#8217;d be much better off.  Indeed, I&#8217;d venture that we wouldn&#8217;t be in Iraq anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: josh</title>
		<link>http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/comment-page-1/#comment-6200</link>
		<dc:creator>josh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:49:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/#comment-6200</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Excellent post, David.  Good question and an interesting topic.  I spent a large part of my teens and early twenties as an angry athiest in the Dawkins camp, but for the last two decades or so I&#039;ve felt more comfortable describing myself as a seeker.  Looking for truth, beauty, and joy, and open to finding traces of it, or paths to it, through many different approaches.  Some of these include religions; stained glass and good gospel music certainly offers traces of something.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;FWIW, I don&#039;t like the term &quot;materialist.&quot;  First, it sounds too much like materialistic; although this is the civic religion of our united states, it&#039;s not a belief system I care to sound like I follow.  Second, it seems to limit legitimate discussion to those things that can be quantified and measured, and that strikes me as too limiting.  If you assume all we know is what we can measure then you deny those things that exist but cannot be measured.  We have so much to learn about humanity and the universe, surely the huge gaps in our knowledge can be filled by hypothesis, speculation, and metaphysical exploration.  Think of atomic physics 100 years ago--they suspected something was there, but they surely couldn&#039;t measure it as material.  Doesn&#039;t mean it wasn&#039;t there, even if there&#039;s nothing to what I&#039;m trying to type here.  This is why I don&#039;t have a blog, but I do enjoy reading yours.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent post, David.  Good question and an interesting topic.  I spent a large part of my teens and early twenties as an angry athiest in the Dawkins camp, but for the last two decades or so I&#8217;ve felt more comfortable describing myself as a seeker.  Looking for truth, beauty, and joy, and open to finding traces of it, or paths to it, through many different approaches.  Some of these include religions; stained glass and good gospel music certainly offers traces of something.</p>
<p>FWIW, I don&#8217;t like the term &#8220;materialist.&#8221;  First, it sounds too much like materialistic; although this is the civic religion of our united states, it&#8217;s not a belief system I care to sound like I follow.  Second, it seems to limit legitimate discussion to those things that can be quantified and measured, and that strikes me as too limiting.  If you assume all we know is what we can measure then you deny those things that exist but cannot be measured.  We have so much to learn about humanity and the universe, surely the huge gaps in our knowledge can be filled by hypothesis, speculation, and metaphysical exploration.  Think of atomic physics 100 years ago&#8211;they suspected something was there, but they surely couldn&#8217;t measure it as material.  Doesn&#8217;t mean it wasn&#8217;t there, even if there&#8217;s nothing to what I&#8217;m trying to type here.  This is why I don&#8217;t have a blog, but I do enjoy reading yours.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Beth</title>
		<link>http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/comment-page-1/#comment-6199</link>
		<dc:creator>Beth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 02:09:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/#comment-6199</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I can&#039;t help but think about the broader implications of religiousness--outside of just individuals arguing.  Religious beliefs are intertwined with some very dire issues in the world today, including what we set as laws and why (abortion, gay marriage, science/social education) and who controls who and why (jihads, Hitler, etc.).  So while it seems weird to have an atheist movement, which is by nature a &lt;em&gt;reactive&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;negative&lt;/em&gt; (against) movement, I can&#039;t help but feel that we need to do something to resolve religious conflicts.  We wouldn&#039;t solve all the world&#039;s problems by eliminating religion, but at least we&#039;d strip away some of the preconceptions that give people excuses to make some of the judgments that we do.  I guess if each religion could exist without negatively affecting anyone outside of it, then great.  But could that ever happen?  So I guess I&#039;m not surprised that some folks are taking to the soapbox, and I don&#039;t think it&#039;s just a matter of wanting to call people stupid--it&#039;s a matter of trying to turn the tide on some behaviors that are destructive.  Which mostly (but not exclusively) have to do with extremists/fundamentalists--as usual.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t help but think about the broader implications of religiousness&#8211;outside of just individuals arguing.  Religious beliefs are intertwined with some very dire issues in the world today, including what we set as laws and why (abortion, gay marriage, science/social education) and who controls who and why (jihads, Hitler, etc.).  So while it seems weird to have an atheist movement, which is by nature a <em>reactive</em> and <em>negative</em> (against) movement, I can&#8217;t help but feel that we need to do something to resolve religious conflicts.  We wouldn&#8217;t solve all the world&#8217;s problems by eliminating religion, but at least we&#8217;d strip away some of the preconceptions that give people excuses to make some of the judgments that we do.  I guess if each religion could exist without negatively affecting anyone outside of it, then great.  But could that ever happen?  So I guess I&#8217;m not surprised that some folks are taking to the soapbox, and I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s just a matter of wanting to call people stupid&#8211;it&#8217;s a matter of trying to turn the tide on some behaviors that are destructive.  Which mostly (but not exclusively) have to do with extremists/fundamentalists&#8211;as usual.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: donna ernst</title>
		<link>http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/comment-page-1/#comment-6196</link>
		<dc:creator>donna ernst</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:24:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/#comment-6196</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;George Ernst says, &quot;That&#039;s what&#039;s so nice about agnostics. This is not a big deal one way or the other, I don&#039;t 
want to join any of your groups, I am just happy having you in the background.&quot; David, I&#039;ll join you with &quot;Let there be 
Peace on Earth, and let it begin with me.&quot;  Donna&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>George Ernst says, &#8220;That&#8217;s what&#8217;s so nice about agnostics. This is not a big deal one way or the other, I don&#8217;t<br />
want to join any of your groups, I am just happy having you in the background.&#8221; David, I&#8217;ll join you with &#8220;Let there be<br />
Peace on Earth, and let it begin with me.&#8221;  Donna</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kynthia</title>
		<link>http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/comment-page-1/#comment-5969</link>
		<dc:creator>Kynthia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2007 22:03:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davidernst.net/blog/2007/01/01/91/#comment-5969</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;i&#039;ve been thinking about something similar to this quite a bit lately.  i think that we are in rather desperate need of a social movement that has the guts to make a distinction between morality and religion and just say &quot;look. we all believe that some things are good. let&#039;s start there.&quot; i don&#039;t know how exactly such a movement would get started, or in which sector it would be based, but i think there is a hunger for it, and danger without it.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;i wouldn&#039;t call it materialism, though.  that name is already taken.  and i think it would be a waste of precious energy to fend off the mudslinging about how you want to found a religion based on ipods and designer jeans.
;)&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i&#8217;ve been thinking about something similar to this quite a bit lately.  i think that we are in rather desperate need of a social movement that has the guts to make a distinction between morality and religion and just say &#8220;look. we all believe that some things are good. let&#8217;s start there.&#8221; i don&#8217;t know how exactly such a movement would get started, or in which sector it would be based, but i think there is a hunger for it, and danger without it.</p>
<p>i wouldn&#8217;t call it materialism, though.  that name is already taken.  and i think it would be a waste of precious energy to fend off the mudslinging about how you want to found a religion based on ipods and designer jeans.<br />
;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

