If everyone lives, believers will proclaim that it was god’s divine intervention that saved everyone (like in this case with the Hudson landing).

If some live and some die, believers will proclaim it was god’s help that kept more from dying (like 9/11, when many people in the WTC buildings were able to escape safely).

If everyone dies, well, they will proclaim that it was god’s intervention that kept the plane from crashing into a school or some other populated area. Or they will claim it was god’s intervention that someone who was originally suppose to be on the plane changed their plans or was late and missed the flight (like the airplane accident that happened a week after the Hudson landing in Buffalo, NY where everyone died).

If people really believe praying to [insert your god of choice here] works, just pray right now for no more airplane accidents ever to happen for the rest of time.

Why does the prayer have to take place right at the moment of the emergency?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29522880/?GT1=43001

“People want to relate it and say it’s luck, divine intervention or heroism, but my thought was everybody was just doing their jobs,” Skiles said.

Wink, nod…my thought as well, sir.

The impasse between you and I remains of little to no real importance because we are still typing here for other reasons.

What is important, in my opinion, are our respective motivations for still typing.

My perspective is that other readers can have a chance to determine what those motivations are by what we type and take anything of value for themselves.

I think that all good readers and writers do their personal best to digest the material, give it an honest examination, direct a response and review their own responses diligently prior to posting so that any uncertainty, ambiguities, perceivable differences in interpretation, etc. can be at least filtered down to the purest offering.

In my experience, it is virtually impossible to cover every nuance that some other person can take, quote-mine, hone in on and twist (intentionally or not) into some other meaning inadvertently causing confusion and even unnecessary insult (signal to noise ratio).

With that in mind, here is my view of your deconstruction:

While you have not directly stated that your views are not that good and moral atheists do not exist, you have gone out of your way to deconstruct the Sully and Skiles observations regarding good and moral atheists without supplying anywhere near an equivalent effort promoting the fact that we do exist.

In short, your dedication has been specific to prohibition against speculation in any case at all and was directly demeaning to any who propose that it should be done.

So, I do wholeheartedly agree that it is in fact a tangential nuance and non-sequitur that I offered about your responses within the larger framed topic of good and moral atheists existing and how we can recognize them in society at large.

For that, I apologize.

Perhaps you can present some high profile atheists who are prime examples of folks with good and moral character and how you’ve come to realize that they are “atheist”.

That said, I do note that you did merely focus on this one issue you had with my prior post and totally dismissed the issue of making valid assertions based on currently available data and holding open the possibility that new information may update any theories that are offered.

We seem to disagree that it should even be done.

I think it is acceptable to make observations and come to reasonable subjective conclusions (ala CelebAtheists) while you find offense in such observations and expressions.

In any event, I am so glad we decided to continue this conversation past the few attempts offered suggesting that we have reached the end of the line regarding such an important issue!

My view is that we all understand that you (Richard) are not convinced. I (Steve) am convinced based on what we know at this time and am open to new information should it arise and require an update of subjective view.

I certainly think (like Hemant) that it was worth looking into and commenting upon.

As I said, it is my hope that the expressions we have both made are valuable to any others interested in such observations regarding high profile incidents and any comments made by those directly involved.

Did you happen to watch the interviews with Joe Barnhart after he was injured and had a close friend killed during the shooting at the Unitarian church in Knoxville?

It was a wonderful exhibition of humanism and compassion. Joe never once stated that he was an atheist, but I know of him from his participation on the Humanist Editorial Advisory Board which published our account of experiences before, during and after hurricane Katrina in The Humanist magazine.

Now, my personal view is somewhat different and I did make it a point to remove ambiguity when I was involved in such dire situations.

You can read some of the story by googling “Humanist in a Hurricane”.

If you get a chance to read that, please let me know what you think.

I don’t think my practice of allowing for free-flowing narrative and expression of opinion is restrictive of making new discoveries even if they risk error as long as replies can clarify any misunderstandings (like we’ve done here).

We do have differing styles.

My honest view is that it is very possible that even if I did come out with “Richard, do you mean this or do you mean that” you might still have played the rogue and offered a retort starting with “I’m not going to respond further, we’ll have to agree to disagree”, while subsequently responding with a six paragraph narrative of how you subjectively think that I’m wrong.

;0)

By the way, I had a magnificent time at the parade!

We kept it safe and secure for the kids and I only had to make one arrest which was a good thing.

I’m sun and wind burned as all get out, though.

I’ll post pictures over at our Great Southern Humanist Society website soon, so please stop by for a visit.

All my best,

Steve

PS Thanks for the update Mike, definitely worth noting!

It is interesting to me that you have spent so much of your personal time trying to deconstruct the specific notion that good and moral atheists exist, that they must choose to be ambiguous in their language in a specifically hyper-religious society so that they are not ostracized and devalued for their views and that you further reject the notion that anyone should apply even a subjective recognition of those who purposefully decline to promote religious notions and rituals when given national opportunities to do so.

Now the only thing I’m interested in “deconstructing” here are your non sequitur generalizations and Olympic jumps to conclusions about me in the above fanciful paragraph. It is a good example of what I have been objecting to, inventing your own meaning for someone else’s statements. I’m done with the discussion about Sullenberger and Skiles; the impasse remains.

I have learned to write very explicitly rather than implicitly because some people don’t just read my words, they would much rather frolic and play with giddy abandon in their fantasy world in between my words, making up silly meanings that have nothing whatsoever to do with my crystal clear, frank and explicit meaning. But no matter how careful I am, I still run into some who can’t JUST READ MY WORDS. Like you.

Herein begins the deconstruction:

I have never said nor implied that good and moral atheists do not exist. I spend most of my blogging time continuously arguing with people for the exact opposite, that most atheists are good and moral people. How you came to think this about me is beyond my imagination. I have a very healthy imagination, but I know when to turn it off.

I have never said nor implied that atheists must choose to be ambiguous in their language to avoid being socially ostracized. Some choose to be ambiguous, some make other choices. They get a variety of consequences for whatever choices they make. I think it’s great when they do come out, because that helps to normalize societal attitudes toward atheists. I have no idea why you think I have such a prohibitive view in general, when I have said repeatedly that such decisions should be up to each individual.

I have never said nor implied that no one, at any time should ever, ever, ever “apply even a subjective recognition of those who purposefully decline to promote religious notions and rituals when given national opportunities to do so.” I have only said that I found your and only your subjective views about S. and S. not convincing, and I have repeatedly said very clearly that people in general should simply be cautious about jumping to conclusions in general. I made no big, hard, absolute prohibitions against any and all conjecture, just my views about the desirability of having a high standard for evidence when indulging in conjecture.

Herein ends the deconstruction.

Steve, everything I have said to you in all these exchanges has been ONLY about your arguments about Sullenberger and Skiles. NOT ABOUT ANYTHING OR ANYONE ELSE. If you have ideas about what I am saying that go beyond the simple, straight forward meaning of my statements, please ask me “Richard, do you mean this, do you mean that…” rather than assume all sorts of implications swarming out of your imagination like bats out of Carlsbad Caverns.

I hope you had a great time at the Biloxi Mardi Gras.

Accueillez en arrière à la Terre.

I have been enjoying our discussion as well and I agree that we are certain to conclude by agreeing to disagree.

My experience is that the value of these sorts of conversations is for others to read, assess for themselves and use whatever value they find in our respective perspectives to shape their own world view and opinions if they choose to do so.

I enjoy merely expressing thoughts in the open marketplace of ideas!

We both are repeating our assessments of the facts and circumstances, Richard, and I don’t mind being a bit redundant if you do not.

It is interesting to me that you have spent so much of your personal time trying to deconstruct the specific notion that good and moral atheists exist, that they must choose to be ambiguous in their language in a specifically hyper-religious society so that they are not ostracized and devalued for their views and that you further reject the notion that anyone should apply even a subjective recognition of those who purposefully decline to promote religious notions and rituals when given national opportunities to do so.

My motivations are clear, these men did not remain neutral.

They both proactively countered against the notion that:

1). Prayer was personally used by the Captain to resolve the situation.

2). The outcome was a “miracle”.

3). A deity was involved in co-piloting the plane.

Further, in every single interview and documented account of gatherings of crew and passengers, both men promoted the notion that their training, diligence and human efforts were directly responsible for a successful landing and saving of lives.

That said, it does become clear that these are humanistic and secular views and not super-naturalistic in any way.

Much in the same way we can recognize that those who do promote the notion that prayers were effective while giving supplication to their God in the aftermath of a dire situation are “religious” without being characterized as being offensive in our presumptions of others, deviously subjective, just wrong, lame, undignified or that we are grasping at straws for our in-group, we can engage in making perfectly rational assessments of statements and behavior and provide a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt and present them openly.

I don’t think that it is “too risky” to make an assessment of such statements and behavior given the facts and circumstances as we now know them at this point in time as long as we are willing to be open to any new offering of statements and evidence that may or may not change such a conclusion.

If, hypothetically speaking, Captain Sullenberger comes on Oprah today in blue jeans and collared shirt and begins promoting Scientology or Catholicism or Mormonism or his strong belief in the views of Joel Osteen then (as rational observers) we can re-assess the evidence and make changes to our views to incorporate this new data (sounds a bit like the scientific method).

As it stands at this point in time, I think the stronger case is that they are secular, humanistic and pointedly irreligious in contrast to common religious assertions as we equally recognize them.

We are not absent of direct evidence, in this case.

As for President Obama, I think that the evidence would indicate the he is a Christian, because he states openly that he is a Christian.

That said, he also states that he was raised in a home that was not religious by a mother who was a humanist and an atheist.

More information can be found at the American Humanist Association website (AmericanHumanist.org)

Now, this organization (along with many others) is a valuable resource to rebut the common notion that religious values are necessary to establish good, moral and ethical behavior.

My view is that we have not come anywhere near wearing a hole in this topic, my friend!

I think it is part and parcel of a foundational need to keep such a dialogue flowing so that these issues can be challenged, articulated and expressed (even if, as you pessimistically suggest, no one else is interested in reading this thread) to promote the probability that someone, somewhere will consider taking that step to look for commonality where it exists and understand that there are other atheists, freethinkers, humanists and irreligious skeptics in this wonderful global community.

You may disagree on certain nuances of case by case assessments and practice, but I hope you do see the potential that is available.

My best to you as well, Richard, I’m off to work the Mardi Gras parade in Biloxi so…

Laissez Le Bon Temps Roulet!

In other words, I agree that I am making assumptions about them, but my assumptions are based on a reasonable and critical analysis of the stated facts and circumstances I’ve already articulated.

Our impasse is that what you call a reasonable and critical analysis of the stated facts I call conjuring up significance from ambiguity.

You have repeated your arguments for your hypothesis that Sullenberger and Skiles are secret atheists, but repeating them has not made them any more substantial or convincing. It may very well be that they are atheists, but your case for that is still weak in my view, because it is 95 percent your analysis and five percent their words, words which are not definitive. You have only added your personal assertions, such as that the two men…

went very much out of their way to counter religious language in favor of strong refutation against common super naturalistic rhetoric.

“Very much out of their way” is a subjective characterization of what they said, an opinion of your own. In my own just as subjective opinion, the statements I have heard them make don’t seem like they worked very hard to refute the religious implications that people were dangling in front of them, they simply side-stepped them. That could have been for a dozen reasons other than that they were closet atheists. A dodge is not a counterpoint. Why they dodged is not clear, and any number of reasonable explanations for dodging would suffice, including that they are simply private people who just don’t want to get into all that crap.

As a possible motive for them being cagey, you repeated your experience of professionals who are secretive about their non-belief because they don’t want to bring controversy to their employers. I can just as easily talk about the professionals I have known who keep their devout religious views private for similar reasons, or for reasons that are strictly personal or even a part of their religious convictions.

Just to be clear, I’m an atheist, an atheist who is very skeptical about everything, especially assumptions about people. Nothing puts our feet into our mouths more often than making assumptions about people whom we do not know very closely, and even with our intimates assuming things is risky.

I want to be respectful, but to me, your examples and arguments for this assumption are just as insubstantial as the arguments we hear from theists for the existence of their gods. I’m reminded of their cliché, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Absence of evidence is absence of evidence. Period. We really should have the patience and humility to live with that until evidence is finally found. I’m not saying that you are wrong. I’m saying that you have not come close to showing that you are right.

Why do I think that being so careful not to jump to these conclusions is so important? Because as I said before, people grab on to heroes and celebrities to lend themselves credibility by association, and that is demeaning and degrading to both. Wait for Sullenberger and Skiles to make their own statements if they ever do, instead of putting meaning into their ambiguous statements. If they eventually do acknowledge non-belief, great, but it should be their choice.

Even if you are right that they are atheists or something of the sort, prematurely grasping at straws to try to bring their shining example into our camp comes across lame and undignified. I have been embarrassed to hear atheists speculate that President Obama must be an atheist because he re-did the bungled swearing in without a Bible. Oh pullleeeze.

I agree with you when you say,

Finally, I find nothing wrong with being an assertive, proactive, strong vocal atheist who is also known for good moral character and good community service.

…and some day, years from now that may be what most atheists can enjoy. To get there we will have to individually step forward as examples of non-believing solid citizens to wear down the negative stereotypes that you have described so well, but it must be our own personal choices to do that, not because others tried to “out” us by claiming that we are atheists because of one conjecture or another.

Steve, we have worn a hole in this thread, and probably you and I are the only ones still reading it. I have enjoyed our dialogue and I look forward to more discussions with you, perhaps on less belabored topics. My best regards,
Richard

I’d be interested to know why exactly you “feel sorry” for atheists?

Do you think something is going to happen to us specifically?

Also, if your God has its own reasons for things happening as they do (good, bad and ambiguous) and you, as a human being, cannot ever hope to know the intent and purpose and detail of such a plan, how do you propose to know it is even beneficial to humanity?

Thanks for any insight you can offer.

Steve

Please, should you consider continuing our discussions, just call me Steve.

No problem about the delayed response by the way, it has been awhile since I had a chance to even notice that you even responded. I’m glad that you did, because this is a very important topic that can directly affect society for the greater good when open to examination.

Your overall assertion seems to be that someone must always raise their hand right hand and specifically articulate that they are an atheist as if that is the absolute requirement to attain certainty about their views.

I find that to be rather unrealistic and impractical unless involved in formal debate where topics and positions must be itemized prior to opening statements.

My experience is that many working professionals (especially when they’re representing a corporation) who are also atheists, igtheists, agnostics and/or humanists/freethinkers/irreligious must remain ambiguous when expressing any sort of view that addresses the issue of the outright rejection of supernatural beings beyond space/time, especially in light of the hyper-religiosity of our American culture and the serious ramifications of being “out”.

That said, my view is that both the good Captain Sullenberger and Co-pilot Skiles, on more than one occasion and in more than just one venue, went very much out of their way to counter religious language in favor of strong refutation against common super naturalistic rhetoric.

In other words they were neither reticent nor neutral, but specific.

It is with this in mind that I hold to my earlier assessments of their irreligious expressions as positive indicators that they do no believe in miracles or that any of the purported God(s)ess(es) exist, much less fly planes or answer emergency supplications for special favor in time of crisis.

I don’t feel that it is disrespectful to either of these men to note and to speculate about their views (freely offered) and that my conjecture (and Hemant’s for that matter) is plainly not “empty”.

It is not only not absurd to recognize the fact that neither men were ambiguous about their feelings, but it is very important to note that they specifically rejected religious language when directly asked.

In other words, I agree that I am making assumptions about them, but my assumptions are based on a reasonable and critical analysis of the stated facts and circumstances I’ve already articulated.

As for me, I actually enjoy setting the record straight when people make assumptions about my motives and attitudes. In fact, I take every opportunity I can to articulate my position in unambiguous language in order to bring about clarity and understanding.

Maybe Captain Sullenberger and Co-pilot Skiles are reading this even now and would like to elaborate every single nuance of their personal life philosophy here in the open marketplace of ideas.

Finally, I find nothing wrong with being an assertive, proactive, strong vocal atheist who is also known for good moral character and good community service.

It is often necessary to counter the monopoly religious adherents have had over the years defining atheists as untrustworthy deviants and atheism as a communistic threat dedicated to abolishing freedoms and tearing apart the order of our society when nothing could be further from the truth.

Should you be interested, I have recently been given an opportunity to further expound on this particular topic over at msatheists and would welcome you’re participation.

Take care, Richard, and be good no matter which of the many purported God(s)ess(es) you do or do not believe in!

Steve Schlicht
Biloxi MS

Great Southern Humanist Society