Wilco and atheism

[Central Scrutinizer]

I disagree entirely

[bobbob1313]

attacking religion as a whole is ok. Attacking religious people who aren't committing atrocities makes you an asshole.

[Elixir Sue]

i kind of almost agree with what satan has to say in that, although i do think that he is the actual satan rather than apparently his nephew, and so he is making the child believe in nothing so has to lead him from the heavenly path. or maybe not? hmmm. i don't really know. i do know he wrote a number of versions of the ending - so what is your take?

 

the whole piss-take of "the moral sense" issue throughout the story is certainly something i agree with.

It's been about 15 years since I read it, so I'll need to re-read it in order to give you a semi-intelligent response.

[Synthesizer Patel]

attacking religion as a whole is ok. Attacking religious people who aren't committing atrocities makes you an asshole.

 

it depends what you mean by "attacking"? if religion is detrimental to social, cultural & political progress, then it's ok to point that out. and that can simply be by people not joining in with that progress - ie. if you've got 20 people in a boat and 15 think that oars are a bad thing, then those 15 are dead weight, and the best thing they can do is jump over-board (or get pushed).

[MattZ]

attacking religion as a whole is ok. Attacking religious people who aren't committing atrocities makes you an asshole.

 

I agree with you, but to a degree. This is a thread that is discussing these very issues, and everyone in here can take care of themselves. TheMaker could perhaps be a bit less abrasive in the way he presents his points, but to say he is attacking anyone seems a stretch to me. This entire discussion is academic. And for someone who laments moderation, he is certainly practicing what he preaches (pun intended) -- even if it is harsh.

[Spawn's dad]

Strangely enough religion and religious people have also accomplished good things. I know, I know, it's hard to imagine. But I suppose

it's easy to separate that out. Even odder countless atrocities have been and continue to be committed in names that have

nothing to do with religion.

[bjorn_skurj]

I just really don't get why people can't just believe whatever they want. It really blows my fucking mind.

They can. A lot of people can't keep it to themselves, though, and that's where the problems begin.

[bjorn_skurj]

Can anyone tell me if it's true that TheMaker refuses to pay for anything with cash because of the whole "In God We Trust" thing?

 

Thanks, I'll hang up now while you answer.

He lives in Canada, a hotbed of atheism, so it isn't on their money.

[EL the Famous]

TheMaker could perhaps be a bit less abrasive in the way he presents his points, but to say he is attacking anyone seems a stretch to me. This entire discussion is academic. And for someone who laments moderation, he is certainly practicing what he preaches (pun intended) -- even if it is harsh.

 

i respectfully disagree and funny enough, i think he would too.

[bobbob1313]

when it comes to religion, the maker is physically incapable of respectfully diaagreeing. I think this is the crux of the whole problem in this thread.

[MattZ]

i respectfully disagree and funny enough, i think he would too.

 

Oh, I know what you mean. I know he called people's beliefs "childish" and much worse. But it seems to me that his "attacks" were general in nature and academic (and frankly, over-the-top to underline his larger point) in the context of a larger discussion about the issue of faith.

 

I am probably splitting hairs though. I certainly don't want to be in the position of defending anyone's statements (and certainly not TheMaker's) -- just that there are a lot of personal attacks around here, and it seemed to me that TheMaker was more focused on attacking faith in general, and maybe because people identify so closely with faith, it feels like a personal attack. Again, maybe I am splitting hairs and it's one and the same thing.

 

I found the lack of self-censorship to be amusing, not offensive.

[Spawn's dad]

that's fucking retarded

 

Granted I'm old but I don't imagine academia has changed that much.

[MattZ]

that's fucking retarded

 

Granted I'm old but I don't imagine academia has changed that much.

 

You want the guy to moderate himself as he villifies moderates? It's inconsistent. It's part of the schtick. Or, so I thought, which is why it was amusing to me.

 

EDIT: I am done defending the guy -- if he offended folks, I suppose that is all that matters. Not whether he offended me, or I thought it was schtick.

[bobbob1313]

just because his schtick is 'being an asshole', he's not excused.

[Spawn's dad]

no, I don't expect him to moderate himself. Though I would expect him to be moderated if others are going to be suspended for like acts of exasperation.

[MattZ]

Is it possible for an atheist to have a completely open and honest discussion of faith with a believer without offending that believer? Sure, an atheist doesn't have to call faith fucking retarded. But isn't it sort of implicit given what we know about atheism? After all, an atheist believes that God does not exist. And a believer puts all (or some) of his/her faith in that same God. Aren't feelings bound to be hurt? And then, isn't it just a matter of degrees? And if it is just a matter of degrees, why are any of the believers engaging TheMaker in a quote unquote open discussion? Would people really be happier if TheMaker didn't drop an F bomb when he made his points? Or called faith silly instead of childish? Why does the discussion need to be sugar coated?

 

I don't think any believer should be offended by what TheMaker said. And if they are, they shouldn't engage in the debate.

 

I think we've beaten this horse dead. Like I said, these are sensitive topics, and if people were offended, I suppose that's all that matters. And perhaps I am naive in my thinking about this.

[bjorn_skurj]

I enjoy discussing these things. I don't take being called an idiot because I believe in God personally. It is, after all, the Internet.

[Moe_Syzlak]

You know what I find interesting is I don't understand why someone would get so worked up due to the absence of a belief. It's not the belief that angers me anymore than someone believing ... oh I don't know ... that Bryan Adam's "Reckless" is a worthy album. It is only when someone insists that I listen listen to said album all the time despite my lack of this belief. That's not frustration or anger with the belief, it is frustration and anger over the actions of the believer.

[bjorn_skurj]

You know what I find interesting is I don't understand why someone would get so worked up due to the absence of a belief. It's not the belief that angers me anymore than someone believing ... oh I don't know ... that Bryan Adam's "Reckless" is a worthy album. It is only when someone insists that I listen listen to said album all the time despite my lack of this belief. That's not frustration or anger with the belief, it is frustration and anger over the actions of the believer.

What if your immortal soul hung in the balance of whether you liked "Reckless" or not? People do not want you hurled into the Lake of Fire.

[Moe_Syzlak]

What if your immortal soul hung in the balance of whether you liked "Reckless" or not? People do not want you hurled into the Lake of Fire.

 

Immortal soul hurled into the Lake of Fire or "Reckless" on repeat? I'll take my chances with my own playlist. But the point is so long as those people that might prefer I not take my chances respect my belief I have no reason to not respect theirs.

[bjorn_skurj]

Immortal soul hurled into the Lake of Fire or "Reckless" on repeat? I'll take my chances with my own playlist. But the point is so long as those people that might prefer I not take my chances respect my belief I have no reason to not respect theirs.

Clearly, you cannot be trusted with your own soul. Please report to your nearest megachurch, and bring money.

[EL the Famous]

Is it possible for an atheist to have a completely open and honest discussion of faith with a believer without offending that believer?

 

I don't think any believer should be offended by what TheMaker said. And if they are, they shouldn't engage in the debate.

 

I think we've beaten this horse dead. Like I said, these are sensitive topics, and if people were offended, I suppose that's all that matters. And perhaps I am naive in my thinking about this.

 

absolutely possible! i have no issue whatsoever w/ atheism, zero. i completely understand why someone would have it as a belief or non-belief or whatever it is. someone saying 'god does not exist' in and of itself doesn't offend me at the least...someone even trying to convince me that god does not exist doesn't bother me (unless that's all they want to talk about). it's when you actually insult me or my intelligence for believeing. which, quite frankly, both the maker and j.nick do on a regular basis.

 

take religion out of it...you call me stupid, for whatever reason and i don't think it is justified...i'm going to push back. and, as austrya said, you can say you are speaking in 'general terms' but when those general terms include strata that i fall into, how can i not feel included when you call the beleif 'stupid'? the reality is, it doesn't keep me up at night or anything...but c'mon.

 

so, quite frankly, the question is can the maker have a completely open and honest discussion of...well, anything. his schtick is just as present in music threads completley devoid of religion. he relishes in playing this outsider holier-than-thou (HA!) figure. if anything, maybe it's dissapointing versus insulting...or sad, tired, whatever. pffft.

[Good Old Neon]

I agree that Arabic meanings are elusive as well; talking with Muslims the issue again is in interpretation ("eye for an eye" may have one time been true, but interpreatation of equal justice."

 

I can only speak from the aspect of Christian faith -- but it has been tested in philosophical thought -- that man has free will (that can be argued outside of faith vs. whatever. It is how man chooses to act, how he responds to the organized religion, how he rationalizes what he does or doesn't do. In that way religion can be replaced with political approach, justification, free will, sociopathy, etc. etc. etc. "The Devil made me do it." "It was free will." "It was George Will."

 

True, we do have free will

[Central Scrutinizer]

You continue to separate religious belief from the book (or books) it is founded upon

[Good Old Neon]

It