Wilco and atheism

[MattZ]

So I stand by what I said. TheMaker never argued that there's been no collateral benefit. Good things have come from religion or faith. But he disputes whether it's worth it. Or whether it justifies, etc.

 

Now that we've cleared that up...

[TheMaker]

What's so funny? Religion is still an unadulterated lie, it's still ridiculous on its face, and all that we have agreed on here today is that good can flourish under most any circumstances. Within cults, in the secular world, etc. How does this help religion's case in any way, shape or form?

 

Mother Theresa was driven to help the poor at least in part because of her faith in god. Warren Buffet, an "agnostic," is driven to help the poor for entirely more practical concerns. The fact of the matter is that both of these individuals have done much good in their time, irrespective of their spiritual beliefs. Although, hey, I really have to point out that Buffet's motives are a lot purer than Mother Theresa's were. He contributes sizable donations to charities because he understands the moral and economic value of doing so. If he is motivated by inequality, it is an inequality rooted in dollars and cents - that is to say, if he feels guilty, he does so because of the fact that he is a "have" and so many of his fellow human beings are "have-nots" - and not a spiritual inequality rooted in the wages of sin. Mother Theresa no doubt cared deeply about those whom she helped, but there can also be no doubt that at least part of her reason for helping them at all involved a bucketload of shame and a desire to please the bullying, paternalistic father figure she called "god." We are quite fortunate that she chose to channel her delusions in such a productive fashion; just imagine if somebody of Mother Theresa's conviction and standing were a zealot fixated on, say, the pursuit of Islamo-fascism, instead of delivering food and clean water to those in desperate need of them in exchange for a mere conversion! We don't need to imagine this scenario, unfortunately, because if we turn to the news, we will find plenty of frightening real-life examples of such figures.

 

I'm astonished at the disingenuous quality this conversation always seems to take on whenever the believers begin to pile on. My argument has never - EVER - been that "religion is bad because on a long enough timeline it will lead to corruption and evil" (although that statement appears to be lamentably true all the same). The content of a person's character is determined by far more than which mythical deity they do or don't believe in. The case against religion is simply that the physical, metaphysical and pseudo-historical claims made by it are patently and demonstrably false, not to mention contradictory in accordance with their own mandate. That religion is not even close to being a necessary component of 21st Century life, and can in fact create more problems than it sets about solving, is merely circumstantial.

 

do you believe that humankind is capable of answering every question that it is capable of asking? in other words, are there any questions that we will never know the answer to?

 

I don't feel comfortable answering this question with a straight yes or no. My hunch, however, is that humankind isn't sufficiently advanced to deal with everything it encounters in a way that makes sense to us. I also suspect rather strongly that the god delusion has everything to do with naive and wishful thinking, and nothing to do with credible scientific inquiry. Last I checked, string theory didn't originate because some illiterate moron in the desert was contacted directly by Bog the Space-Monkey and told to "write this shit down, son. S'impordant."

 

Again, it's important to remember that even Isaac Newton once thought stable planetary orbits were beyond the comprehension of mere man. LaPlace begged to differ, discarded the god hypothesis, rolled up his sleeves, and went about proving him wrong. The great thing about mankind is that we are SO MUCH SMARTER than that stupid, ogrish, paternalistic loser called "god" as he appears in the bible. The bible has aged incredibly poorly as a text, and it will continue to do so exponentially as the sum of human knowledge continues to multiply in the coming century. With age comes experience. With experience comes wisdom. Christians love to play pretend and imagine that their useless little cult will still be around in another thousand years.

 

No.

 

It won't be.

 

We've already outgrown religion as a species. We're already smart enough to parse its many lies and contradictions and false claims. Too many of us are simply too lazy and too stubborn to let go. That will change. On a long enough timeline, even the most hopeless, lost and slow-witted human being will find no reasonable solace in religion. And that's because the truth, however painful it may be for some to acknowledge, is that it provides none.

[TheMaker]

You make plenty of valid points, but my mother and grandmother, who attend church regularly, never tried to marginalize or destroy me for not going to church.

 

Then consider yourself lucky. Like I said, this is the norm in 2008. But the very real threat of social ostracism is indeed a major player in the secret lives of many closeted American atheists. I'm not one of these douchebags who hits up Google every time he posts on a messageboard and then litters his posts with links, but I'm half-tempted to pluck out a few prime examples for you. I suspect you're being disingenuous, though, so I'm not going to bother. Again, think of how many atheists you're aware of in public office, in entertainment, and so on. There are a great number of polls available that indicate America's fear and mistrust of atheists. The one that sticks in my mind is that an openly gay congressmen has a much better chance of being elected waydownsouth than an atheist. Food for thought, huh? You're implying that I'm resorting to histrionics to help my point along, but I really have no need of doing that. Please don't take my word for it, though. Research this stuff yourself! You just might learn something interesting.

 

My best friend's mother is a devout Catholic, she's the only one out of 6 in her immediate family who is, and she is fine with that, and she has never tried to convert me or preach to me.

 

Again, consider yourself lucky. I generally find it a lot easier to deal with Catholics and Jews than Christians, simply because the piety and proselytizing aren't quite the game-changer that etc.

 

Gotta go, but I also hope this thread stays active for a while. It's neat.

[kwall]

I don't feel comfortable answering this question with a straight yes or no. My hunch, however, is that humankind isn't sufficiently advanced to deal with everything it encounters in a way that makes sense to us.

so, these questions that we are incapable of answering (or, are not comfortable answering), should we just stop contemplating them?

[Good Old Neon]

so, these questions that we are incapable of answering (or, are not comfortable answering), should we just stop contemplating them?

 

Where the hell did you get the woefully misguided idea that atheists don

[M. (hristine]

certainty?

Exactly.

[the carlos]

Exactly.

so naive.

hehe.

[kwall]

Where the hell did you get the woefully misguided idea that atheists don

[Good Old Neon]

so naive.

hehe.

 

so ironic.

[austrya]

so iconic.

[markosis]

Again, consider yourself lucky. I generally find it a lot easier to deal with Catholics and Jews than Christians

 

Catholics are Christians. Catholicism is a subset of Christianity.

 

I suspect you're being disingenuous, though, so I'm not going to bother.

 

What in the hell gives you the right to accuse me of being disingenuous? What I said is absolute fact: I was brought up around Catholicism, and the devout Catholics in my family allow me to say, think, and do whatever I please. What I'm trying to say is that religion and common sense/tolerance are not exclusive, at least in my own experience. Or am I just being disengenuous again?

[the carlos]

so ironic.

insult? flirting?

[TheMaker]

so, these questions that we are incapable of answering (or, are not comfortable answering), should we just stop contemplating them?

 

Serious question: are you actually bothering to read what I write? Because I'm sincerely beginning to suspect you aren't.

 

Please refer to the Newton/LaPlace example that I have provided at least five times in this thread. Free inquiry is what I'm advocating, as free inquiry is the only thing that has the capacity to free us from myth and superstition. This has been proven millions of times in the course of human history.

 

It is religion's official position to answer the question "Why is the sky blue?" with a pat "Because it's the will of Bog, my child." Science does not accept this pure fucking nonsense as an acceptable answer to an important question. Why is the sky blue? Science would explain that molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light. Instead of the mindlessly idiotic condescension proffered by all religions, science instead rolls up its sleeves and sets about doing the hard work that is necessary to help explain the mysteries of the natural world.

 

I applaud scientific minds that answer questions previously considered unanswerable, I don't tell them to shut the fuck up. That is the domain of faith, as evidenced in thousands and thousands of ways since the birth of humanity. (Fun recent example: stem cell research bans!)

[H to the ickle]

Why is this thread still going on, don't you people have families?

[Moe_Syzlak]

It is religion's official position to answer the question "Why is the sky blue?" with a pat "Because it's the will of Bog, my child." Science does not accept this pure fucking nonsense as an acceptable answer to an important question. Why is the sky blue? Science would explain that molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light. Instead of the mindlessly idiotic condescension proffered by all religions, science instead rolls up its sleeves and sets about doing the hard work that is necessary to help explain the mysteries of the natural world.

I, as an atheist, would say the principles expressed here offer a good example of how atheists aren't "arrogant" as is so commonly suggested except the way in which you make every single argument IS arrogant. Even Bill Maher says certainty on the side of atheism is just as bad as certainty on the side of religion.

[markosis]

I, as an atheist, would say the principles expressed here offer a good example of how atheists aren't "arrogant" as is so commonly suggested except the way in which you make every single argument IS arrogant. Even Bill Maher says certainty on the side of atheism is just as bad as certainty on the side of religion.

 

Its about damn time someone besides myself made that point.

 

Edit: This is post #666 in this thread. I feel honored.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Its about damn time someone besides myself made that point.

I tried to make this argument repeatedly about 30 pages ago, but lost interest.

[markosis]

I tried to make this argument repeatedly about 30 pages ago, but lost interest.

 

 

Yeah, I did too. Lesson learned: a hardcore atheist is no better than a hardcore Christian or a hardcore anything. Any way you slice it, its like trying to rationalize with a brick wall.

[kwall]

I applaud scientific minds that answer questions previously considered unanswerable . . .

so, is it your position that, given enough time, someday science will be able to tell us why we are here?

 

just asking questions here. if you could spare me the vitriol, i'd appreciate it.

[Good Old Neon]

so, is it your position that, given enough time, someday science will be able to tell us why we are here?

 

just asking questions here. if you could spare me the vitriol, i'd appreciate it.

 

Outside of the fact that we exist in the here and now, there needn

[Good Old Neon]

I, as an atheist, would say the principles expressed here offer a good example of how atheists aren't "arrogant" as is so commonly suggested except the way in which you make every single argument IS arrogant. Even Bill Maher says certainty on the side of atheism is just as bad as certainty on the side of religion.

 

Arrogance, or the display thereof is subjective. I don

[caliber66]

Huh. Seems to me that the dude who is an "arrogant asshole" and is unwilling to consider even the slightest possibility that he could conceivably be incorrect, is the one who is not interested in engaging in honest debate.

[M. (hristine]

The spiritual impetus is not a "thing" to be proven. You want me to prove it exists? Why don't you prove it doesn't?

 

The problem I have here is that your lack of experiential apprehension of the spiritual doesn't have to negate my experience. Why is doing that so important to you?

[JUDE]

I think THDW is actually Hayes Carll.

[kwall]

Outside of the fact that we exist in the here and now, there needn