TheMaker

But if he is an atheist, does he not contend that there is no creator?

 

Re: humility, I humbly suggest that evangelical atheists (despite what you may say, they absolutely exist) are the very definition of arrogance. They have no better answer to the big question than anyone.

Well, I'm afraid your argument is rooted in a false premise, then.

First of all, atheism isn't a convenient tag that exists to offer up an answer to "the big question." It is fundamentally unlike religion in this and most other ways. In fact, many noted scientists, including Stephen Hawking, suggest that asking the question "What came before the Big Bang?" is akin to asking "What lies north of the North Pole?" It simply doesn't make sense to ask it.

Based on the nature of your line of questioning, I humbly submit that, like many believers, you are bringing your own substantial baggage to the word "atheism." Atheism is a word that makes no promises and issues no guarantees. It takes nothing for granted and is not a pacifier to be popped into one's mouth after one has been weaned off of religion. Atheism in its main form merely connotes the absence of theistic belief; it isn't a carved-in-stone philosophy that is embraced in lieu of belief in god, but rather a mere word indicating that spiritual concerns are of no consequence to the atheist. Atheism has de facto adherents, but it cannot, by its very fucking definition, have anything like a guru. This isn't tricky. This stuff shouldn't be hard for anybody to understand.

So you're saying Neil deGrasse Tyson can tell me where all the matter and energy in the universe came from?

Of course he can't. And neither can any man-made god. The difference is that Tyson doesn't pretend to have answers to every question. The scientific community is embodied by two qualities that are wholly absent from every religion I have ever encountered: humility and rigorous analytical process.

You're asking a big question. Religion's stance is effectively, "Well, we have the answers, and in death, they will be revealed to you, my child. We have stopped looking, and we are content." Science, on the other hand, is saying to you, "Shit, man, that's really interesting. We are actively looking into this, and we'll get back to you."

It's foolish, however, that people pursue this as a debate to be *won.* Your tone and proclamation of affiliation comes across like a disciple, trying to evangelize for converts. I don't know. You don't know. I have my beliefs that evolve. I hope yours are too.

My tone is in fact quite weary. When you're one of only a few million people in human history who gauge the world on its face, trust me, you start to feel pretty worn down after interacting with the faithful for any amount of time. You can forgive me for saying so, but watching an entire planet drink the proverbial Kool-Aid isn't exactly my idea of a grand old time.

At any rate, atheism is not an evangelical pursuit. I mentioned Neil deGrasse Tyson in my last post; I don't want to put too fine a point on this man's atheism, since he is first and foremost a brilliant astrophysicist, but he has a wonderful line about scientific pursuit that can (and ultimately must) be applied as well to the question of god/s: "If you have to lead your argument [by listing your credentials], then you don't have an argument. I like to believe that by the time I'm done, you feel empowered by the information I gave you, so that you're not going to say, 'This is true because Tyson said it,' you're going to say, 'This is true because now I understand it and I can present that argument,' without reference back to me." When you're dealing with objective truths, you're not looking for somebody to teach you what to think; you're looking for somebody who is equipped to teach you how to think. There's a world of difference between the two.

The word atheism connotes a lot of unfortunate things in our society. I think the faithful tend to see it almost as a badge of pride, when in reality it exists only to combat their superstition. It's unfortunate that skeptical inquirers are branded thusly, since it tends to obfuscate the meat of our actual argument. I assure you, friend, we are not looking for saviours or idols, and it pisses us off when we see shortsighted reviews of books by authors such as Harris and Dan Dennett refer to their readership as "disciples." Once again, for those of you in the intellectual cheap seats: these men aren't teaching people what to think; they're teaching them how to think. And there's a big, big difference separating those schools.

When in doubt, make shit up, Jack's War. It worked for some of the greatest minds in history, after all.

Neil Degrasse Tyson is one of atheism's most affable spokesmen, and he is a far cry from the angry, smug, and generally miserable Hitchenses and Dawkinses that have become atheism's public face in recent years (but damn, I do love Hitch). It'd be great if the believers in this thread would take a few minutes to watch the video in the above link and consider the intellectual grounds for Tyson's argument. Also, do a YouTube search for Sam Harris and watch him debate theologists for a few hours. That guy is fucking incredible. He's humourless, like Dawkins and Hitch, but he's not angry. He's a bit cold, and he's a dead ringer for Ben Stiller, but all the man cares about is truth and objectivity. He's almost rabid about it.

I may actually be the board's most vocal atheist (hell, it inspired my avatar/user pic/whatever for a long old time), but this doesn't really belong in the Wilco forum.

Ha! This was a cute fan-ficcy episode. A part of me really wants to sketch it up, but I don't have the time to even breathe these days. Boo, hiss!

I've never listened to the Mescaleros more than The Clash, especially immediately following Joe's death, but they were a damned underrated combo. He was doing incredible stuff towards the end of his life, certainly.

Wow, I'm on the losing end of this one, too. I think AGIB is Wilco's weakest album by a nose, and I freaking love the first Loose Fur album. It's so much better than their more incidental follow-up.

Brighter Than Creations Dark is the best album of '08. The more I listen, the more it seems like a classic to me. Who knew a 19 song album could be so cohesive. Spooner helps too.

craig

All of this, yes. Except "craig."

If everything on BAITUSA were as strong as the first three and very last tracks, it'd get my vote. Alas, I'm tying this contest up with a vote for SBS.

It was an honest mistake. This reaction is immature and elitist, not to mention uncalled for. If are truly an artist, why are you not being introspective by calling yourself into question? I hope for your sake you are still in high school and are on the verge of out-growing this mind-set.

Yeah, you're right. Correcting people's mistakes is such an adolescent thing to do.

Look, I make my living from art. It's a hard fucking swath to mow, but I have fun mowing it. I get to draw shit for catalogues and colour comic book pages like the one in my av every day. Believe it or not, there are such things as working artists in the world. Would that I were still in high school; maybe I'd be wise enough to end up doing something with my adult life that's fun AND pays well!

Anyway.

Jeff says "work in progress" in the video. Ain't my fault you didn't catch on. Be thankful you learned something new. For Christ's sake.

Holy shit. I don't believe this. Are people actually complaining about this tour not stopping in Chicago? Wilco played Chicago weeks ago, for fuck's sake. Holy crap. Some of you people are like fat little birds with open mouths going caw caw caw all day long. Wow.

Yeah, TOOM is by far my favourite album of the '90s. Possibly my favourite album of my lifetime, actually. It's that or London Calling.

Someone said that an atheist is simply an angry agnostic...

Someone also said that there are no atheists in foxholes. As a very content atheist, trust me when I say with confidence that both men were, and continue to be, dead wrong.

P.S., Congratulations on winning the argument using actual logic, Moe. But they'll never get it. Brainwashing runs hard and deep.

AUGH, why are tickets going on sale when I'm tightening my belt to afford first and last month's rent? Whyyyy?! I can't believe I'm fucking saying this, but I have to skip this one. (To any aspiring artists who may be reading this: drop out of school and become a lawyer. Seriously. Your job will be terrible and you will be overpaid to a ludicrous extent, but you will be comfortable at all times.)

Small Change

Small Change

Small Change

I could have treated this more seriously, but such a glaring omission in this thread is worthy of a little overkill on my part, I think.

The generally favourable reviews back up your personal opinion that the album is weak? Yeah, you need to work on that a bit, champ!

(Hint: now you link me to the Pitchfork review, because they are the be-all, end-all of critical opinion in the '00s, I'm told, in spite of the fact that the site is inconsistent at best and ignores vast swaths of the musical landscape. Then I ignore you for being so narrow! Don't mind me, I'm just trying to move this along a little faster for the both of us.)

I still agree with Rolling Stone: it's their very best record.

This guy's album still bores the paint off me, but I really liked those Dylan and Prine covers. Nice choice of songs, both pretty well played.

Re: Stacks and Flume are really nice songs. The rest is standard guy-with-guitar stuff, press and blogs be damned. This is like Damien Rice all over again, only on a much more microscopic scale and with much more intense critical praise.

I suppose I'm coming at it from the exact opposite angle. I really enjoyed her last two because I felt they served the melody and song more than her earlier work. I feel like as she's grown in confidence (read: getting sober) her performances on record have become stronger and stronger. Maybe I have fondness for melody or the pop-song structure, but I think she's really coming into her own and grown as an artist. If you compare both the Covers Records it feels like she used to be stubbornly abstract with her interpretations, almost confrontational, and that has its place, but sometimes you just want a great 3 minutes.

Exactly. I find her early records to be arch and stuffy to the point of being nigh unlistenable. Really not impressed by her folk material at all, but The Greatest opened a very, very interesting door for her.

What's weird is that, while I adore both of them and count them among their generation's finest singer-songwriters, I think it's pretty fucking obvious that Jim has a much, much better voice than Matt. (Penance and apology: Matt is the better guitar player.)

Augh, and the fact that it happened in the greatest city on Earth makes it an even blacker eye... sigh...

Good luck to the jerkoff who tries selling this stuff, though. He likely won't get far.

No, seriously, I have great taste in music. My sense of humor is also superior to yours.

This scans, at least based on the evidence presented in this thread.

A lot of folks are mentioning Vampire Weekend, and now I'm wondering if I should have included them on my list. No two ways around it, those kids know their way around a song, but I played their album in such heavy rotation that it just kind of grates on me now. Still, they deserve at least an honourable mention.

Haha, clearly the guy who posted the vid isn't an artist (or very observant). It's a WIP, as in "Work In Progress," not "A Whip," as in the title of the song.

Now that there would make a fine DVD.

I also thought it was cool that they finished at midnight on the dime. Nicely planned, gentlemen.

HOLY SHIT TOTAL PROS WITH NUDIE SUITS

Right! Yes! Criminy, I laughed. Nobody can ever accuse this band of not having an extraordinary sense of humour/fun.