Wilco and atheism

[TheMaker]

Dogg, it's tied to the gospels. I ain't cool with it. Yeah, I've seen it used to describe atheists outside of this thread, but it strikes me as unnecessarily combative. Going back to what I wrote earlier, we aren't the ones telling people what to think; we're trying to tell them how to think (i.e., critically).

[caliber66]

Dogg, it's tied to the gospels. I ain't cool with it.

Dogg, definitions evolve over time. Evangelism need not connote Christian fervor.

[Central Scrutinizer]

One of the great things about atheism that sets it apart from religion (and again, the two share absolutely nothing in common, which makes this is a very long list) is that there are no degrees of belief; there lacks a continuum which sees some atheists willing to fly planes into buildings to put an end to heresy, while other, more peaceable atheists sit around trying to reconcile their beliefs with modern notions of tolerance and diversity. Put simply, a continuum does not become the truth.

 

When you're going after truth - and I think we can at least agree that there is a set-in-stone definition for this word, that it does not involve subjectivity, and that everybody who is intellectually honest is constantly in pursuit of it - a word like "moderation" has no place in the discussion. What religious moderates are generally after is a sort of balance in which their own unjustified beliefs are respected by others with equally illogical beliefs.

 

A great deal of religious moderates have taken it upon themselves to preach pluralism, or the belief that all faiths are equally valid (a notion that is ridiculous on its face), but in so doing, they turn a blind eye to the sectarian truth claims of each religion. For instance, a Christian who believes that on Judgment Day only the "saved" will ascend to Heaven cannot possibly have any genuine respect for any belief that clashes against his own. Moderation can in some cases quiet the kind of violent jihadist tendencies that arise in, say, the Middle East with alarming frequency, but it is at best a band-aid solution, as it disallows anything critical to be said about religious literalism, which is unfortunately the root of many problems with zealotry.

 

Moderation is ultimately useless and laughable, since it refuses to call into question the core dogmas of all faiths, namely that we know there is a god, and that we know what he wants from us. A more rational stance for any moderate or agnostic to take is to simply admit that we cannot even come close to proving that there is a god, and we have no idea what he wants from us.

"truth" in your sense is a strictly philosophical term and does not address theology.

 

So the pursuit of "truth" cannot be done with respect to others' viewpoints? Can't be "moderated" as in a free exchange of ideas within an acceptable format?

 

Your last paragraph is heifer dust, since you set out to define the basis of all religions. A lot of the approaches of "athiest" is a lot of anthropological double-talk. You can't observe a society and judge upon it when you are part of the society. Your approach is skewed.

[caliber66]

Dogg, it's tied to the gospels. I ain't cool with it. Yeah, I've seen it used to describe atheists outside of this thread, but it strikes me as unnecessarily combative. Going back to what I wrote earlier, we aren't the ones telling people what to think; we're trying to tell them how to think (i.e., critically).

The most criticalest thinking in the world cannot explain the origins of the universe, at least at this time.

[TheMaker]

Dogg, definitions evolve over time. Evangelism need not connote Christian fervor.

 

I'd argue that in many cases, though, it does. That's all I really want to get across. Atheists who are blazing trails in the 21st Century aren't trying to sway people from believing in their God to suddenly believing in our No-God God. Atheism isn't just another pacifier, and borrowing from the religious lexicon can only hope to muddy public perception of what atheism really is. There's more than enough confusion in that regard already, in my opinion.

[bjorn_skurj]

The most criticalest thinking in the world cannot explain the origins of the universe, at least at this time.

That's what the Large Hadron Collider is for. Unless IHVH gets pissed at us being too nosy and makes it make a big black hole to devour the Earth.

[bobbob1313]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, nothing worse than an evangelical atheist.

[TheMaker]

The most criticalest thinking in the world cannot explain the origins of the universe, at least at this time.

 

Now we're just repeating ourselves. You want atheism to answer this question; atheism does not deign to answer it.

 

Uh, sorry, I guess...? Heh.

[bjorn_skurj]

I want SCIENCE to answer that question, but science may not be equipped to do so.

[cryptique]

I have to say, I am frustrated by non-atheists' attempts (not necessarily in this thread, the bulk of which I have not read) to attach religious terminology to atheism, to ascribe to it some of the trappings of religion, or to equate it with religion or agnosticism.

 

As an atheist, I am completely lacking in "belief" in any god or divine being, or in any kind of deliberate design to the universe, or destiny, or fate, or anything that could be described as "supernatural" to even the tiniest degree. Mine is a firm absence of belief, and in contrast to an agnostic, I am completely at peace with my secularism and do not feel the slightest need to allow for the possibility that god (etc.) exists. I never stop to ponder whether I might be wrong; I am comfortable, intellectually, and do not ponder the origins of the universe, or the nature of our world, from any perspective other than a purely rational, scientific one, unconcerned with considerations arising from religious doctrine of any form.

 

With few exceptions, I am adamant in maintaining my atheism as a private matter. I do not attempt to win others over to my brand of absolute secularism. I could not have said this a few years ago, but it is certainly true now.

 

As for the pre-Big Bang era that caliber has referred to, I honestly don't care. There are some questions that humans will never answer, and I'm OK with that. Whatever did happen, I am confident that no divine being was involved, and I see no point in dwelling on the question until and unless science provides a means to do so. I know that I do not have the answer to that particular question, but I do not feel the need to search for one, or to attempt to fill that void with any explanation that involves the supernatural.

 

I do agree with caliber that there are "evangelical" atheists, and while like TheMaker I cringe at the use of that word to describe them, I acknowledge that it does have one little-used secular meaning. Similarly, I would cringe at using the world "proselytize" to describe what certain atheists do, because of the word's strong association with religion.

 

Regardless, I am not one of those atheists.

 

And that's really all I have to say about it. Carry on.

[TheMaker]

I want SCIENCE to answer that question, but science may not be equipped to do so.

 

It's not currently equipped to do so, no. But for heck's sake, did you not read what I wrote about LaPlace and the orbits a while ago? Science evolves, whereas religion is stagnant. Scientific knowledge continues to grow past religious projections as humanity grows past its earliest ambitions. The best religion can do is apologize and self-censor for being too shortsighted to address everything from shifting morality to motherfucking dinosaurs.

[cryptique]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, nothing worse than an evangelical atheist.

I don't agree, but if I did, I would add that there are plenty of things as bad as an evangelical atheist.

 

But really, you're just using that as a spiffy slogan.

[bjorn_skurj]

It's not currently equipped to do so, no. But for heck's sake, did you not read what I wrote about LaPlace and the orbits a while ago? Science evolves, whereas religion is stagnant. Scientific knowledge continues to grow past religious projections as humanity grows past its earliest ambitions. The best religion can do is apologize and self-censor for being too shortsighted to address everything from shifting morality to motherfucking dinosaurs.

Not all religions are like that. Just the ones for stupid people.

[Guest Jules]

I, for one, am happy to see this discussion progressing along civil lines. Doesn't happen too often around here...

[TheMaker]

Your last paragraph is heifer dust, since you set out to define the basis of all religions.

 

Actually, I can't imagine why I would ever attempt such a thing, since all faiths have done a bang-up job of defining themselves. Faiths exist to posit answers to unanswerable questions. Based on a lack of corroborating evidence, we can readily conclude that they all, without exception, manufacture explanations pertaining to the origins of man and the universe. There are common threads connecting many faiths, largely because most of them are based on other, older faiths, but one thing they all share in common is the fact that they are utter nonsense. Would you disagree with this? (Feel free to disregard the last sentence before the question.)

 

A lot of the approaches of "athiest" is a lot of anthropological double-talk. You can't observe a society and judge upon it when you are part of the society. Your approach is skewed.

 

Okay, I'm being a pedantic jerk right now, and I'm certain I've made a few typos and lazy grammatical shortcuts in this discussion myself, but you misspelled atheist. I'm just sayin', is all.

 

Antrhopological double-talk? Cut me a break, please. If we can't observe a society while we're a part of if, then how is it possible for us to judge with any accuracy what goes on around us, and why are we having this conversation? Or indeed any conversation?

[bobbob1313]

I don't agree, but if I did, I would add that there are plenty of things as bad as an evangelical atheist.

 

But really, you're just using that as a spiffy slogan.

[Sir Stewart]

TheMaker - I don't know how you include quotes from others in your posts, but the "Reply" function will automatically show who it is. I'm in the dark when I'd like to know who you're responding to (I know if I'm reading all of this thread, I should figure it out, but still). Also, there's a chance your method involves copying and pasting, which is more work than quoting from the post.

[TheMaker]

Not all religions are like that. Just the ones for stupid people.

 

Heh. Pretty sure you're just being a smart-arse, but there sure are degrees of stupidity and brutishness inherent in different religions. I'm particularly fond of the comparison made by Sam Harris between Islam and Jainism in one of his books. He basically argues that if you're looking for a holy text, or set of holy texts, to inspire you to commit violent acts, you really couldn't ask for a more tacit endorsement than the writings of the Koran. Jainism, on the other hand, is basically a hippie religion that doesn't encourage any kind of violence whatsoever. Christianity, like Islam, is fucking brual, but it's because of moderation that we no longer stone unfaithful women to death, etc. But again, moderation is nothing more than censorship, and what's being censored is a stupid lie to begin with, so it's really the root of the problem of religion (that god exists, that we know this, and that we can discern what god wants from us) that society needs to be dealing with.

[TheMaker]

TheMaker - I don't know how you include quotes from others in your posts, but the "Reply" function will automatically show who it is. I'm in the dark when I'd like to know who you're responding to (I know if I'm reading all of this thread, I should figure it out, but still). Also, there's a chance your method involves copying and pasting, which is more work than quoting from the post.

 

 

Well, that explains why "quote" and "reply" are options following every post in a thread...

[Moe_Syzlak]

Meh, I think moderation can mean more than that. If someone lost someone close to them, belief can be comforting. If someone needs a "higher power" to give them focus, direction and purpose, who am I to take that away from them just because I find the basis for it intellectually naive. Plenty of people are motivated to do charitable things because of their faith and I applaud that. I am not threatened they believe something I do not. My problem is when those beliefs are foisted on those that do not share them. Those living their lives and allowing me to live mine do not bother me even if they believe in the Easter Bunny.

[TheMaker]

Well, that's where you and I differ. We all lose people at some point, Moe. We all have health problems or money problems at some point. But false comfort really is no comfort at all.

 

And if someone lacking direction needs a "higher purpose," what could be higher than something like charity, or exploration of the cosmos? Rather than pouring ourselves into an emotional and intellectual abyss, why not do something productive with our sorrows and frustrations? Why not sink them into something tangible and good, rather than something abstract and elusive? FUCK, y'know? Just FUCK! I don't understand this abject philosophical waste of human resources, and it tears me up inside.

 

When given the option to choose between the grandeur of the observable universe and the religious teachings which attempt to either obfuscate or turn a blind eye to the reality of that universe, I really don't understand why we need to tolerate moderates and their band-aid solutions. I'm sorry, I just don't.

 

P.S., Actually, I'm not sorry at all.

[bjorn_skurj]

The problem is that a lot of religious people won't let people who are not in their religion lead their lives unmolested. They want to kill them sometimes, or threaten them with eternal damnation if they do not change their beliefs. And we've all had the experience of somebody knocking on our door on Sunday or whatever day and wanting to talk about being an IHVH Witness.

[TheMaker]

Again, total waste of resources. Even that sort of thing seems like a tragedy to me.

[bjorn_skurj]

Personally, I don't like being threatened with eternal damnation. Judgment is Mine, saieth the Lord, and if Gandhi went to hell because he didn't believe Jesus was the son of IHVH, then hell is good enough for me too, as it will have proved man's goodness hath surpassed God's.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Well, that's where you and I differ. We all lose people at some point, Moe. We all have health problems or money problems at some point. But false comfort really is no comfort at all.

 

And if someone lacking direction needs a "higher purpose," what could be higher than something like charity, or exploration of the cosmos? Rather than pouring ourselves into an emotional and intellectual abyss, why not do something productive with our sorrows and frustrations? Why not sink them into something tangible and good, rather than something abstract and elusive? FUCK, y'know? Just FUCK! I don't understand this abject philosophical waste of human resources, and it tears me up inside.

 

When given the option to choose between the grandeur of the observable universe and the religious teachings which attempt to either obfuscate or turn a blind eye to the reality of that universe, I really don't understand why we need to tolerate moderates and their band-aid solutions. I'm sorry, I just don't.

 

P.S., Actually, I'm not sorry at all.

Eh whatever. Seems like much ado about nothing to me. I don't share their beliefs and they don;t share mine. So what. As long as we can agree to disagree, no harm no foul, IMO. I don't think in most cases belief prevents people from doing "something productive" any more than just about anything else. Kill TV, etc. I mean, couldn't you be out ... oh I dunno ... adopting a highway or something instead of THIS abject waste of human resources? There are always differences in how people would elect to dedicate their time and energies. They have theirs and I have mine.

 

The problem is that a lot of religious people won't let people who are not in their religion lead their lives unmolested. They want to kill them sometimes, or threaten them with eternal damnation if they do not change their beliefs. And we've all had the experience of somebody knocking on our door on Sunday or whatever day and wanting to talk about being an IHVH Witness.

Oh I agree with this and I would NOT call those people moderates.