Newspaper's "Religion" section runs article on atheism

[Elizabeth I]

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.

There is also a sidebar, "Penn lists his ten principles," in which Jillette talks about ten moral principles that can arise from rational, skeptical thought rather than being handed down by a mythical deity.

I am so impressed that a metropolitan daily would have the balls to publish an article that, if not pro-atheism, is at least factual and atheism-neutral, in their religion section (instead of the "Life" section) that I think they need encouragement. I have just e-mailed the following comment:

Quote:

Dear sirs: thank you for including a feature on skepticism and atheism in the "Religion and Spirituality" section ("Faith is just another illusion to magician," Saturday, October 29.) Belief in religion is a form of magical thinking that, unfortunately, opens many people's minds to other illogical beliefs.

I am sure you will be vilified for publishing this story, because religion has a protected status in our society, and even people who would rightly point out the ridiculousness of believing in witches will give religion a pass because it is so ingrained in the culture. Please take this as supporting, and appreciating, your attempt to offer another - I would say more rational - viewpoint.

Please encourage more rational stories by sending your support via e-mail to letters@express-news.net, copy to Public Editor Bob Richter, brichter@express-news.net. (Richter is going to have to fade most of the heat from the religionists.)

Thanks!

[epix]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

Please encourage more rational stories [...]
Thanks!

No thanks. Rational stories are very often unimaginative, boring tales chasing each other in a small closed box.

Quote:

Realism in the visual arts and literature refers to the general attempt to depict subjects "in accordance with secular, empirical rules", as they are considered to exist in third person objective reality, without embellishment or interpretation. As such, the approach inherently implies a belief that such reality is ontologically independent of man's conceptual schemes, linguistic practices and beliefs, and thus can be known (or knowable) to the artist, who can in turn represent this 'reality' faithfully.

Once again, no thanks.

[Gawdzilla]

Epix rejection of reality. This is not news.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by epix

No thanks. Rational stories are very often unimaginative, boring tales chasing each other in a small closed box.

You must not get out much.

[Ysidro]

Thanks Elizabeth. Interesting article and I fired off a letter.

[Ysidro]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Epix rejection of reality. This is not news.

Not only that, but he assumes "rational" equals the artistic definition of Realism (skipping over every other meaning of the term while he's at it.)

That's just plain weird.

[Lamuella]

So epix rejects stories in newspapers being reported in a rational manner?

My god, I finally understand why Fox News has viewers.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

So epix rejects stories in newspapers being reported in a rational manner?

My god, I finally understand why Fox News has viewers.

They get the ones that can't quite figure out the Cartoon Network.

[Trent Wray]

His ten principles are interesting.

I was actually thinking about this today ... because more and more I think I'm seeing that religious peeps simply suffer from a need to "grow up" and mature when it comes to morality, ethics, whatever.

You tell a toddler not to play with fire, because they have no respect for the fire. They don't understand it. They could harm themselves and others. But you don't keep fire away from them their entire life. At some point, you teach them to respect fire, use it properly .... it's use is amazing in it's scope, from practical application to pleasure.

But you don't keep that fire away from people their entire lives.

I think for the most part, religious peeps simply haven't gotten past the "don't use fire" idea and think that it applies ALWAYS, their entire life, no matter what. So they cling to Ten Commandments, and laws, and rules, and this and that. They try to stamp out every instance of others playing with fire, or form little communities where no one is allowed to play with fire. "You play with fire, you bad man." yada yada. Secretly, they might want to play with fire, but they won't let themselves because Big Daddy said don't play with fire when they were little, so they will never play with it, even though they want to .... so they will seek to destroy others who DO allow themselves to play with it. And on down the line it goes.

And then it gets more complicated ..... "well, if we disobey Big Daddy, then we lose our child like nature where we believe in all these things, how Pokemon are real monsters, and the boogeyman is just waiting to attack me in the shadows. And children are so beautiful, with their imagination and what they see as possible in the world. I don't wanna grow up and learn to handle fire properly ! I just wanna follow the rules and keep my childlike nature and imagination ...." .... never realizing that they can actually keep that wunderlust and imagination and yes, still grow up and accept that some of them want to play with fire and actually use it.

There is a point in time where the Ten Commandments and things like that are sometimes applicable .... and I think it's linked to "maturity". Anymore, when I see adults who won't let their children play with Harry Potter, or they're bustin out the hate on homosexuals, abortion, sex before marriage, etc ..... I just see a child who refuses to grow up and realize that the rules they were taught when they are 3 years old don't apply always when they're 30.

And when they talk about, "well without these rules .... society would go crazy ! We'd be killing everyone, and living in debauchery !" ... all they're saying is that, again, they need to be following rules from Big Daddy or they would end up killing others. They're essentially saying that they are lawless and don't care about themselves or others ... and the only reason they don't go apesh!t is because of some words they were taught and the fear instilled in them. Some of us don't need to be reminded always of rules in order to keep from killing, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. Some of us have grown up and learned to do these things naturally, because we didn't have to be forced to value life by always being reminded or intimidated to do so ....

[/rant]

[porch]

Originally Posted by Ysidro

Not only that, but he assumes "rational" equals the artistic definition of Realism (skipping over every other meaning of the term while he's at it.)

That's just plain weird.

Oh, but it gets even better; The gallery that he linked to is not one of of a Realist painter at all. While his images are described as 'realistic', it says right there, "Howard David Johnson embraces leading edge digital media in the creation of his depictions of fantasy, folklore, mythology, legend, religion, and heroic history." Pretty much the antithesis of Realism. A fail within a fail?

[Resume]

What will perhaps be most interesting will be the letters to the editor complaining.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by Resume

What will perhaps be most interesting will be the letters to the editor complaining.

The folks who shout loudest about "protecting the constitution" will be complaining about free speech.

[epix]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Epix rejection of reality. This is not news.

James Carpenter's "rejection" of reality.

Fundamental atheism and literal creationism have nothing to offer, apart from making the pilgrimage a safer trip.

[Gawdzilla]

Two more links I'll be ignoring.

[VanillaCone]

I think Penn Jillette is one of the finest Americans who've ever lived, but it bothers me a little that he has been going around lately talking about "atheist principles." I really think he should define them as HIS principles. They are fine principles indeed, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with the absence of a superstitious belief.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by VanillaCone

I think Penn Jillette is one of the finest Americans who've ever lived, but it bothers me a little that he has been going around lately talking about "atheist principles." I really think he should define them as HIS principles. They are fine principles indeed, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with the absence of a superstitious belief.

He makes his living making a scene. It pays his bills.

[VanillaCone]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

He makes his living making a scene. It pays his bills.

Usually I would say more power to him, but I don't think his suggesting that atheists share a common set of core principles is going to help anyone dispel widespread misconceptions about atheists or help Mr. Jillette sell more copies of his book. This business about atheist principles misrepresents what atheism actually is, which kinda surprises me coming from such an honest person. I mean honest when he isn't making his living as a professional liar.

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by epix

No thanks. Rational stories are very often unimaginative, boring tales chasing each other in a small closed box.

That makes sense when talking about fiction, but this is a newspaper we're talking about here. Reporters aren't artists.

[VanillaCone]

Originally Posted by godless dave

That makes sense when talking about fiction, but this is a newspaper we're talking about here. Reporters aren't artists.

The bad ones are.

[angrysoba]

Well, it sounds very interesting but Penn Jillette's list of principles are just wrong in so many ways. Firstly because it amounts to some claim that his rational thinking has led to "revealed" morality. At least, he doesn't explain how he derived these rules. Let's look at them:

Quote:

1. The highest ideals are human intelligence, creativity and love. Respect these above all.

Aside from sounding happy-clappy how does he know that these are the highest ideals? Why not athletic prowess? Do the Olympic ideals of higher, further, faster (or whatever they are) not fit in?

Quote:

2. Do not put things or even ideas above other human beings. (Let's scream at each other about Kindle versus iPad, solar versus nuclear, Republican versus Libertarian, Garth Brooks versus Sun Ra — but when your house is on fire, I'll be there to help.)

Well, this muddled sentence sounds as though there is no drawback to putting ideas or things above other humans: even if we put ideas above people, Penn Jillette will still be there to help. Presumably to get people out but not put the fire out because that would be risking life to protect property. And that would violate the principle.

Quote:

3. Say what you mean, even when talking to yourself. (What used to be an oath to (G)od is now quite simply respecting yourself.)

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.

Quote:

4. Put aside some time to rest and think. (If you're religious, that might be the Sabbath; if you're a Vegas magician, that'll be the day with the lowest grosses.)

I am not sure what he means by this. Does he mean take a day off when you are less likely to make lots of money? I can see that he doesn't live on low wages with hungry mouths to feed. It might be alright for some but not everyone has this luxury.

Quote:

5. Be there for your family. Love your parents, your partner, and your children. (Love is deeper than honor, and parents matter, but so do spouse and children.)

Parents and family might not always deserve love especially if they are/were abusive. It is all well and good if these principles are applied reciprocally but this doesn't always happen. Is Mr Jillette going to make these principles clearer somewhere?

Quote:

6. Respect and protect all human life. (Many believe that “Thou shalt not kill” only refers to people in the same tribe. I say it's all human life.)

Dare I ask, but what is Penn Jillette's stance on abortion? Now, I am in favour of abortion but Penn Jillette can't toss off this little crowd-pleaser and expect not to be challenged on it. Similarly does he think that the lives of say, Hitler or Stalin should be respected as much as, say, Bayard Rustin?

Quote:

7. Keep your promises. (If you can't be sexually exclusive to your spouse, don't make that deal.)

What if you agreed to be sexually inexclusive?

Quote:

8. Don't steal. (This includes magic tricks and jokes — you know who you are!)

I've heard that one before. Attribution, please!

Quote:

9. Don't lie. (You know, unless you're doing magic tricks and it's part of your job. Does that make it OK for politicians, too?)

What if an axe-murderer comes to my door looking for the guy I am sheltering from the axe-murderer? Do I say, "Sure he's here. He's hiding under the bed."?

Quote:

10. Don't waste too much time wishing, hoping, and being envious; it'll make you bugnutty.

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/rel...#ixzz1cDu7gaLe

[Resume]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

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]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

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/rel...#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]

Originally Posted by Resume

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]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

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]

Originally Posted by Resume

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]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

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]

Originally Posted by Resume

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]

Originally Posted by VanillaCone

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]

Originally Posted by godless dave

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]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

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]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

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]

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

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]

Originally Posted by VanillaCone

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]

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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:

Quote:

“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]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

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]

Originally Posted by VanillaCone

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

Originally Posted by paiute

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]

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

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]

Originally Posted by paiute

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?