Wilco and atheism

[MattZ]

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.

 

This is how I rationalize it too. I don't believe in God, but I spend my time trying to lead a good life, I try to help people as best as I can and do good when I can. If it turns out I was wrong about God, and someone like me is forced to spend eternity in hell as a result, and the God whose existence I was wrong about doesn't care about my actions, but only my faith, well, hell is in my future. And that's fine with me. Most of my friends will be there anyway.

[TheMaker]

Eh whatever. Seems like much ado about nothing to me. I don't share their beliefs and they don;t share mine. So what.

 

I guess this is why you're closer to the agnostic line than the atheist one. So what? So the truth matters to me, that's what. I resent having to share the planet with billions of people who believe fallacies that only somebody who is stupid, desperate, or inculcated from birth could believe. A lot of religious organizations do good, it's true (this just in: BABIES LIKE PABULUM), but I don't think anybody in this thread has tried to argue that faith is always an obstacle to happiness or productivity. These states are not, however, byproducts that are exclusive to the domain of faith. Again, what harm could it possibly do to simply admit, as a society, that there is no god according to any evidence we have on hand presently, morality is not derived from religion, and it's just a damned great thing to be a skeptical inquirer about everything? Why do we still cling the old myths when it's clear that we not only no longer need them, but can see straight through them?

[TheMaker]

This is how I rationalize it too. I don't believe in God, but I spend my time trying to lead a good life, I try to help people as best as I can and do good when I can. If it turns out I was wrong about God, and someone like me is forced to spend eternity in hell as a result, and the God whose existence I was wrong about doesn't care about my actions, but only my faith, well, hell is in my future. And that's fine with me. Most of my friends will be there anyway.

 

Yeah, but there's no reason for you to think that Hell exists, fortunately. "Some dudes wrote about it this one time and theologians like to talk about it as if it were real" isn't any kind of evidence, I don't think. And that's important. Pascal's Wager is pretty dumb, in my opinion, not to mention cowardly.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

[bjorn_skurj]

I guess this is why you're closer to the agnostic line than the atheist one. So what? So the truth matters to me, that's what. I resent having to share the planet with billions of people who believe fallacies that only somebody who is stupid, desperate, or inculcated from birth could believe. A lot of religious organizations do good, it's true (this just in: BABIES LIKE PABULUM), but I don't think anybody in this thread has tried to argue that faith is always an obstacle to happiness or productivity. These states are not, however, byproducts that are exclusive to the domain of faith. Again, what harm could it possibly do to simply admit, as a society, that there is no god according to any evidence we have on hand presently, morality is not derived from religion, and it's just a damned great thing to be a skeptical inquirer about everything? Why do we still cling the old myths when it's clear that we not only no longer need them, but can see straight through them?

Many people need those myths. I need those myths. As I have said before, print out a copy of the Nicene Creed and I will sign it with my blood. My belief in Jesus is invulnerable to rational attack and believe me, I tried. Believing in God is as based in reason about as much as falling in love is, and despite my conviction that the scientific method describes the physical world accurately, I don't want to do without falling in love or believing in God.

[TheMaker]

You've crossed the bridge, bjorn! This is when the conversation at last becomes interesting, once we begin to use the same leaps in logic to explain human consciousness and belief in god.

 

Unfortunately, "there is no rational answer that I can comprehend" is not sufficient to take the place of proof, regardless of the topic at hand.

 

And if you admit that your belief in Jesus is "irrational," then I'm afraid you are doing nothing more or less than advertising your ability to believe absolutely anything.

[Guest Jules]

[TheMaker]

DAMMIT THEY AREN'T DOING ANYTHING WHEN I CLICK ON THEM

[bobbob1313]

I love atheists who complain about religious people being unnaccepting and judgemental and then do the same.

[TheMaker]

Yeah, well, stupid cult bullshit is hard to tolerate, especially when the faithful are ignoring the pertinent parts of your argument. What's a boy to do?

 

Seriously, though, I would love it if somebody - anybody? - could produce a better defense for faith than "maybe it's illogical, but it's all I've got." Because I've still got fuckloads of ammo in the cannon. I don't know about the religious posters, though.

[TheMaker]

Also, I'm assuming your post was directed at me, yes? I've never been elliptical or evasive in the course of this discussion, unlike some hit-and-run posters. I've dealt with criticism and refutation head-on, I've allowed for digression and disagreement, and furthermore, I don't think I've ever complained about the faithful being closed-minded or judgmental. I have railed against religion for being stupid and illogical, however, which is a different beast entirely. Religion judges; it's part of what it exists to do. Atheism is... oh, fuck it. You're a big boy. You probably caught the definition the first few times you ignored it and attempted to recast it as an alternative to faith.

[bjorn_skurj]

You've crossed the bridge, bjorn! This is when the conversation at last becomes interesting, once we begin to use the same leaps in logic to explain human consciousness and belief in god.

 

Unfortunately, "there is no rational answer that I can comprehend" is not sufficient to take the place of proof, regardless of the topic at hand.

 

And if you admit that your belief in Jesus is "irrational," then I'm afraid you are doing nothing more or less than advertising your ability to believe absolutely anything.

I like to think of it as more "beyond rationality" than "irrational," which sounds a little pejorative, but I think you think of it in a pejorative sense anyhow.

Maybe all my belief in Jesus advertises is that I am not a Vulcan, i.e., I allow feelings a place in my belief system as well as logic.

[ikol]

You've crossed the bridge, bjorn! This is when the conversation at last becomes interesting, once we begin to use the same leaps in logic to explain human consciousness and belief in god.

 

Unfortunately, "there is no rational answer that I can comprehend" is not sufficient to take the place of proof, regardless of the topic at hand.

 

And if you admit that your belief in Jesus is "irrational," then I'm afraid you are doing nothing more or less than advertising your ability to believe absolutely anything.

 

You do realize that there's a difference between "knowing" something versus "believing" in something?

[Moe_Syzlak]

I guess this is why you're closer to the agnostic line than the atheist one. So what? So the truth matters to me, that's what. I resent having to share the planet with billions of people who believe fallacies that only somebody who is stupid, desperate, or inculcated from birth could believe. A lot of religious organizations do good, it's true (this just in: BABIES LIKE PABULUM), but I don't think anybody in this thread has tried to argue that faith is always an obstacle to happiness or productivity. These states are not, however, byproducts that are exclusive to the domain of faith. Again, what harm could it possibly do to simply admit, as a society, that there is no god according to any evidence we have on hand presently, morality is not derived from religion, and it's just a damned great thing to be a skeptical inquirer about everything? Why do we still cling the old myths when it's clear that we not only no longer need them, but can see straight through them?

I don't really get what that has to do with agnostic vs. atheist. There are those that resent sharing the planet with those that don't believe in God or don't believe in their God. What difference does it make to you if someone believes something you don't so long as it is personal? There are people out there that believe all kinds of things yet we get worked up over this. I would like to see us move away from the so-called culture wars and the best way I can see is to stop being threatened by differing beliefs. Agnostic doesn't mean tolerant of religious beliefs. It means " I don't have all the answers." That, by the way, necessarily precludes the belief in God so it IS atheist. As a skeptical inquirer I must also -- if I am to be intellectually honest -- be skeptical that the absence of God is an absolute.

 

BTW, I just noticed the irony of your screen name. Intentional? (other than the Lanois song)

[TheMaker]

I like to think of it as more "beyond rationality" than "irrational' date='" which sounds a little pejorative, but I think you think of it in a pejorative sense anyhow.

Maybe all my belief in Jesus advertises is that I am not a Vulcan, i.e., I allow feelings a place in my belief system as well as logic.[/quote']

 

If you only "think" I regard faith in the pejorative sense, I am forced to conclude that my argument has lacked punch thus far. Like LaPlace said, "I have no need for that hypothesis." While I'm certainly capable of respecting those who practice a given faith, I am not so kind towards faith itself. Faith makes illegitimate claims and is frequently condescending and ignorant towards my beliefs - or, more accurately, my lack of belief in a higher power - and I see no reason why I should be sensitive or respectful to those claims out of hand. It's socially acceptable for good little Christians to stamp out atheism with snide rhetoric whenever they encounter it, but it's somehow rude for me to tell Christianity to go fuck itself?

 

Nah. No dice. That doesn't fly with with me at all.

 

Being meek in this sort of discussion is simply a waste of my time, and all it does is help to enable the stranglehold religion already has on our society. I'm not interested in playing that game, and I don't care how many of you decide to punish my disinterest by piling smart-ass remarks on top of my arguments. I just don't.

 

Anyway, feelings aren't rooted in blind faith. You're making it sound as if an absence of belief in god connotes a robotic attitude or something, but nothing could be further from the truth. Feelings are rooted in neuro-chemical processes, and they're subjective in accordance with any number of external stimuli! Depression can be treated with medication and therapy, we fall in and out of love for any number of reasons (bitch be cheatin' on me, he's an arrogant bastard anymore, etc.), and there are probably thousands of behavioural studies being done in universities right now while guys like you and me while away our time on insignificant internet chat boards! Once again, science attempts to understand what religion is more than content to simply thrust into the domain of "god." It doesn't work, it's lazy, it's circular, it's dumb.

[TheMaker]

You do realize that there's a difference between "knowing" something versus "believing" in something?

 

Of course. I know that it's stupid and intellectually dishonest to believe in a god of any kind based on the evidence that is readily available to each and every one of us. I believe that even the most devout Christian knows deep down that his religion is total fucking bullshit that only a child could invest anything in.

 

And with that' date=' I'm off. I'm not running away from the conversation (rather, it's the comfort of home and warm food I'm running [i']towards[/i]), and if it's grown a few pages by tomorrow, expect to see me back for more.

 

Suggested sub-topic for the next few pages: morality.

[ikol]

Anyway, feelings aren't rooted in blind faith. You're making it sound as if an absence of belief in god connotes a robotic attitude or something, but nothing could be further from the truth. Feelings are rooted in neuro-chemical processes, and they're subjective in accordance with any number of external stimuli! Depression can be treated with medication and therapy, we fall in and out of love for any number of reasons (bitch be cheatin' on me, he's an arrogant bastard anymore, etc.), and there are probably thousands of behavioural studies being done in universities right now while guys like you and me while away our time on insignificant internet chat boards! Once again, science attempts to understand what religion is more than content to simply thrust into the domain of "god." It doesn't work, it's lazy, it's circular, it's dumb.

 

Which is why it's best to not look for scientific answers in religion or philosophical answers in science. Just as it's dumb to try to explain the origin of species using the Bible, it's equally unwise to use science to decide morality. That's not to say religion is required for morality, just that it should not be automatically excluded. Just like a Christian can't prove that God exists and Jesus is His son, a utilitarian atheist cannot prove that "the greatest good for the greatest number" is the correct basis for a system of behavior.

 

Of course. I know that it's stupid and intellectually dishonest to believe in a god of any kind based on the evidence that is readily available to each and every one of us. I believe that even the most devout Christian knows deep down that his religion is total fucking bullshit that only a child could invest anything in.

 

Wow.

[fineartoflife]

I'm still holding on to the fact that love ain't a bunch of chemical reactions

[Central Scrutinizer]

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.

Exactly! The "evangelical" implies those who are confident that "atheism" is the answer to the question, and want to bring other to the same conclusion. I think it was a clever choice of words for that very reason. Ironical, ain't it?

[lost highway]

God as a word is both easily refuted and horribly obeyed when defined in simple terms.

 

I give the word a little more stretch than Christian-fundamentalists and Atheist-fundamentalists and I find it's a handy concept to meditate upon.

[Central Scrutinizer]

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.

 

... let me repeat that ... "unanswerable questions." O.K., go on ...

 

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.

 

"Without exception"? False. As in not true.

 

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.)

 

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?

Dogg, you misspelled anthropological. I spelled it right 99.44 percent of the time, and yes you misspelled more than your share too, but then I'm trying to see beyond those to hear what you're saying, and you're preaching away whatever you're trying to sell me on. Your arugments de-evolve into attacking generalities in response to your generalities, but then you follow up with additional generalities. Do you need a book to thump while you're making your points?

[Central Scrutinizer]

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.

"beliefs are foisted on those that do not share them."

[Central Scrutinizer]

I guess this is why you're closer to the agnostic line than the atheist one. So what? So the truth matters to me, that's what. I resent having to share the planet with billions of people who believe fallacies that only somebody who is stupid, desperate, or inculcated from birth could believe. A lot of religious organizations do good, it's true (this just in: BABIES LIKE PABULUM), but I don't think anybody in this thread has tried to argue that faith is always an obstacle to happiness or productivity. These states are not, however, byproducts that are exclusive to the domain of faith. Again, what harm could it possibly do to simply admit, as a society, that there is no god according to any evidence we have on hand presently, morality is not derived from religion, and it's just a damned great thing to be a skeptical inquirer about everything? Why do we still cling the old myths when it's clear that we not only no longer need them, but can see straight through them?

MY (insert deity) you are sooo angry about this. I think the point some pretty fair-minded people are making about this is that your beliefs -- or lack of them -- are your own. Getting militant about your beliefs because someone somewhere did the same to you doesn't sound like a rational argument.

 

There are all kinds in the world. What they believe shouldn't bother you as much as it appears to. Is there not a deeper issue for your reaction?

[Central Scrutinizer]

I love atheists who complain about religious people being unnaccepting and judgemental and then do the same.

Amen, brother. More Kool-aid?

[Central Scrutinizer]

I'm still holding on to the fact that love ain't a bunch of chemical reactions

 

I learned that when I reached puberty. Damned sheets...

[Moe_Syzlak]

"beliefs are foisted on those that do not share them."