Wilco and atheism

[Central Scrutinizer]

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.

"God is a concept, by which we measure our pain. Say it again ..."

 

It was poignant. So I repeated it.

[bjorn_skurj]

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.

What do you think of the theory that religious yearning is hardwired into the human brain?

[Good Old Neon]

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.

 

[caliber66]

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.

This is what is known as evangelical atheism. The pathological need to make others believe what you believe and to pass off your belief as fact. And, incidentally, to demean and browbeat those who disagree with you. Preach on, brother.

 

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.

It is "beyond rationality" to me to accept on faith that the universe has always been and will always be, that it was not somehow created by someone or something.

[bjorn_skurj]

This is what is known as evangelical atheism. The pathological need to make others believe what you believe and to pass off your belief as fact. And, incidentally, to demean and browbeat those who disagree with you. Preach on, brother.

 

 

It is "beyond rationality" to me to accept on faith that the universe has always been and will always be, that it was not somehow created by someone or something.

Hoyle's "steady state" theory was disproved a while ago, so we know the universe didn't exist, then did exist. (His derisive name for the opposing theory was "Big Bang.")

[the carlos]

why would anyone care if someone else had faith? what's it to you?

[Good Old Neon]

It is "beyond rationality" to me to accept on faith that the universe has always been and will always be, that it was not somehow created by someone or something.

 

If the universe demands a creator, then it follows that the creator demands a creator and so on and so on and so on and so on

[the carlos]

I won't get an answer will I?

[TheMaker]

Ecch, I couldn't stay away. And I told myself I wasn't going to eat near or in front of the PC anymore!

 

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' date=' it's equally unwise to use science to decide morality.[/quote']

 

Wouldn't it be nice if this particular tactic weren't weren't total BS?

 

Here's the problem with what you're proposing: faith makes truth claims that are incompatible with the physical universe as we know it to exist, and it makes them by the score. Faith and science aren't two scrappy little kids who can't get along. We can't effectively solve their problems by sticking them in separate rooms. Science and religion often occupy the same space, and when they do, religion always loses out to informed observation (or "science"). The reason for this is simple; science doesn't attempt to make an argumentum ad consequentiam, whereas that's all religion is capable of making. Religion masquerades as absolute authority (except when it's being reduced by moderates and other apologists, of course), but scientific claims often find their own worst enemies within the scienctific community, where they are subject to a tireless process of peer review in which even the scientist issuing the claim actively attempts to disprove it. Science is fueled by curiosity, not ego. If a theory can be proven, it's science. If it can't be proven, well, it's back to the drawing board.

 

One thing that really bothers me about the faithful is their distrust of science in general. This manifests itself whenever somebody attempts to recast atheism as a codified belief system akin to Christianity or Islam, and it's even more pronounced when you see somebody talking about science as if it were something abstract that simply happens in a petri dish and is genuflected upon by evil know-it-all scientists (emotionless eggheads in clinical white coats, every last one of 'em, I'll have you know). Science is not religion; science is objective, science must not only be testable, but also yield repeatable results, and scientists love nothing more than close scrutiny. Remember Newton, LaPlace, and Napoleon? I swear, this is the perfect example to end this discussion fairly decisively, but nobody seems to want to acknowledge it besides me. We could very well ascribe certain "unknowables" to a divine creator possessed of infinite wisdom, but whenever we capitulate to such utter nonsense, all we end up doing is curtailing our own insatiable curiosity about the universe. When it came to gravity, Newton couldn't explain the effect of a single large tug on a number of smaller ones, so he threw his arms in the air and cried "GOD!" LaPlace, however, refused to give in and was eventually able to explain the orbital patterns scientifically. If everybody threw up his or her arms and cried "GOD!" at the first sign of resistance, or worse, bafflement, just think of all the stuff we, as a species, would never figure out. And that is an absolute holocaust of knowledge that I cannot condone.

 

And if we divorce religion from the physical world entirely, what legitimacy could it possibly retain, even in the eyes of its most ardent disciples?

 

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.

 

That's right, yes. Religion obviously isn't a prerequisite for morality, nor does morality always follow from religion. Pol Pot was blatantly antitheistic, for example, and he was a monster. Hitler was a Christian of convenience, and he is history's greatest monster. These men were amoral independent of the conditions which led them to believe or disbelieve various hypotheses. What interests me, and what I truthfully was hoping to bait believers with, is the oft-repeated fallacy that morality is derived from religion, which is of course something that is as ridiculous on its face as the concept of god itself. Especially since modern religion is such a pathetic cobbling together of other, perhaps even more stupid faiths. Talk about putting the cart before horse...

 

your beliefs -- or lack of them -- are your own.

 

No, actually. Sorry. Every religion that I'm aware of makes authoritative truth claims, or at the very least defers to a higher power that has issued such claims, and most of them are ridiculous at worst and, uh, outlandish at best. If religion were a personal thing that didn't affect other people, didn't shape their worldview, didn't impact their decision-making process, etc., I would more than happily leave it alone. In fact, there's nothing more I'd like to be able to do. And yet here we are. In the real world. Where religion is stupid, fake, illogical, and yet, however maddeningly, nonetheless embraced by billions who cannot even explain why they have carved a god-shaped hole in their brains and filled it with childish nonsense. What a world, huh?

[viatroy]

why would anyone care if someone else had faith?

 

 

ego

[TheMaker]

If the universe demands a creator, then it follows that the creator demands a creator and so on and so on and so on and so on

[the carlos]

ego

good point. I forget that sometimes.

[TheMaker]

ego

 

Exactly. It takes a tremendous ego to believe in any permutation of god. The humility necessary to simply observe and trust in the observable universe isn't something that everybody has at his or her disposal. "I don't know, and I'm okay with not knowing for the time being" isn't a statement that a lot of people are comfortable issuing.

 

So you're right! You make a very sound point.

[the carlos]

you could be less mean spirited.

[Good Old Neon]

Ecch, I couldn't stay away. And I told myself I wasn't going to eat near or in front of the PC anymore!

 

 

 

Wouldn't it be nice if this particular tactic weren't weren't total BS?

 

Here's the problem with what you're proposing: faith makes truth claims that are incompatible with the physical universe as we know it to exist, and it makes them by the score. Faith and science aren't two scrappy little kids who can't get along. We can't effectively solve their problems by sticking them in separate rooms. Science and religion often occupy the same space, and when they do, religion always loses out to informed observation (or "science"). The reason for this is simple; science doesn't attempt to make an , whereas that's all religion is capable of making. Religion masquerades as absolute authority (except when it's being reduced by moderates and other apologists, of course), but scientific claims often find their own worst enemies within the scienctific community, where they are subject to a tireless process of peer review in which even the scientist issuing the claim actively attempts to disprove it. Science is fueled by curiosity, not ego. If a theory can be proven, it's science. If it can't be proven, well, it's back to the drawing board.

 

One thing that really bothers me about the faithful is their distrust of science in general. This manifests itself whenever somebody attempts to recast atheism as a codified belief system akin to Christianity or Islam, and it's even more pronounced when you see somebody talking about science as if it were something abstract that simply happens in a petri dish and is genuflected upon by evil know-it-all scientists (emotionless eggheads in clinical white coats, every last one of 'em, I'll have you know). Science is not religion; science is objective, science must not only be testable, but also yield repeatable results, and scientists love nothing more than close scrutiny. Remember Newton, LaPlace, and Napoleon? I swear, this is the perfect example to end this discussion fairly decisively, but nobody seems to want to acknowledge it besides me. We could very well ascribe certain "unknowables" to a divine creator possessed of infinite wisdom, but whenever we capitulate to such utter nonsense, all we end up doing is curtailing our own insatiable curiosity about the universe. When it came to gravity, Newton couldn't explain the effect of a single large tug on a number of smaller ones, so he threw his arms in the air and cried "GOD!" LaPlace, however, refused to give in and was eventually able to explain the orbital patterns scientifically. If everybody threw up his or her arms and cried "GOD!" at the first sign of resistance, or worse, bafflement, just think of all the stuff we, as a species, would never figure out. And that is an absolute holocaust of knowledge that I cannot condone.

 

And if we divorce religion from the physical world entirely, what legitimacy could it possibly retain, even in the eyes of its most ardent disciples?

 

 

 

That's right, yes. Religion obviously isn't a prerequisite for morality, nor does morality always follow from religion. Pol Pot was blatantly antitheistic, for example, and he was a monster. Hitler was a Christian of convenience, and he is history's greatest monster. These men were amoral independent of the conditions which led them to believe or disbelieve various hypotheses. What interests me, and what I truthfully was hoping to bait believers with, is the oft-repeated fallacy that morality is derived from religion, which is of course something that is as ridiculous on its face as the concept of god itself. Especially since modern religion is such a pathetic cobbling together of other, perhaps even more stupid faiths. Talk about putting the cart before horse...

 

 

 

No, actually. Sorry. Every religion that I'm aware of makes authoritative truth claims, or at the very least defers to a higher power that has issued such claims, and most of them are ridiculous at worst and, uh, outlandish at best. If religion were a personal thing that didn't affect other people, didn't shape their worldview, didn't impact their decision-making process, etc., I would more than happily leave it alone. In fact, there's nothing more I'd like to be able to do. And yet here we are. In the real world. Where religion is stupid, fake, illogical, and yet, however maddeningly, nonetheless embraced by billions who cannot even explain why they have carved a god-shaped hole in their brains and filled it with childish nonsense. What a world, huh?

 

Right-fucking-on - well said

[viatroy]

Exactly. It takes a tremendous ego to believe in any permutation of god. The humility necessary to simply observe and trust in the observable universe isn't something that everybody has at his or her disposal. "I don't know, and I'm okay with not knowing for the time being" isn't a statement that a lot of people are comfortable issuing.

 

So you're right! You make a very sound point.

 

 

It works both ways.

[Beltmann]

One thing that really bothers me about the faithful is their distrust of science in general.

I agree, but I don't understand why there is distrust in the first place. If God does indeed exist, then science is not His enemy; all science will ever do is help illuminate God's creation and workings. Perhaps a distrust of science is a manifestation of insecurity about their faith?

[TheMaker]

It works both ways.

 

Not really, no. You might want to review my comment about how science is fueled by curiosity, not ego, and how rigorous the scientific process actually is. Religion is just pabulum, fit for babies. That's all she wrote.

[bobbob1313]

I personally don't like any time anyone writes off someone else's personal beliefs. You can dislike organized religion, and all of the trappings that come along with it, but if someone just has personal faith, how does it affect you? Does your personal lack of faith affects other's day to day life?

 

and a big fucking laffo to TheMaker criticizing religion as an arrogance thing. What a fucking joke after that last post.

 

Seriously. Why does someone have to be right or wrong? I'm an atheist, but I'm ok with other people believing. It simply doesn't affect me.

[the carlos]

Not really, no. You might want to review my comment about how science is fueled by curiosity, not ego, and how rigorous the scientific process actually is. Religion is just pabulum, fit for babies. That's all she wrote.

you honestly think there is no ego in science? you think there is no ego in scientific research. oh man.

[viatroy]

How do you account for scientists who profess faith in god? I don't believe in "god" in any permutation, but if we were ever to arrive at the intersection of faith and science, that's probably what we'd find -- an answer.

[austrya]

I asked the deacon at my church to clarify the whole creation thing for me.

 

He explained that although the bible says that the world was created in a week, that doesn't necessarily mean that it was created in 7 days. Methuselah lived 969 years according to the bible but we all know that isn't humanly possible. Sometimes things had other meanings in the time that the bible was written. He thinks that the age translated to how "great" a person was or how important a person was in society.

 

He explained that the first day may have been the whole "big bang" thing. Billions of years later, when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth was a "few days" later in biblical terms. Perhaps when Adam was created he was a Neanderthal and not human like we are. He doesn't discredit evolution, but believes it's still all the work of God.

 

I can live with that explanation. Science and religion in harmony...

[caliber66]

Not really, no. You might want to review my comment about how science is fueled by curiosity, not ego, and how rigorous the scientific process actually is. Religion is just pabulum, fit for babies. That's all she wrote.

[ikol]

If the universe demands a creator, then it follows that the creator demands a creator and so on and so on and so on and so on

[laurie]

And I suspect that's the point of his argument. On some level, perhaps not even a conscious one, he knows it's going to be insulated against scientific knowledge for at least the remainder of our natural lives. And since he's the one who demands of atheism an answer to "the big question," that allows him to run into the comforting arms of Jesus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, His Holiness My Neighbour Vinnie Delducca, etc.

 

I recommend a book that affected me greatly re SCIENCE and TRUTH, though I am in much agreement with you, and actually spent a lot of time on the topic in years past. i now (ironically) am doing "scientific" research !!

 

really, it's a must read:

 

The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould

 

There are some tech parts a little tough but mainly, he is a scientist who discusses the conduct of science, and the quest for "truth" in unusual ways. It' tauted as having the "definitive refutation to the argument of 'The Bell Curve'

 

 

 

Please let me know if you get a chance to read it -

 

L