Wilco and atheism

[Party @ the Moontower]

I honestly do not believe religion is used to shape our laws and government policies. I do believe people co-opt organized religion for their own purposes.

 

Laws and government policies work best when they're forged out of compassion and sense of shared morality. A number of civilizations have chosen to embody their morality and compassion into laws -- both civil and religious. But it's the faith that makes them meaningful, you're not bound by faith to follow them.

 

Regardless of your belief structure, I would hope you at least act out of compassion and morality.

 

But who decides the circles of compassion and mortality? For instance, I believe in Pro-choice and have been told I must love murder. I am against the war and killing in Iraq but have been told I must hate America and our troops. I have supported animal rights on a personal level by going organic and saving animals when I can, boycotting animal tested products and puppy-mills etc,but have been told by Vegans I hate animals if I eat them.Where's the sense in that?

 

I don't trust a government body to tell me what compassion and morality is and then make laws based upon that. Religion has no place in politics what so ever, and it's there. Bush was voted in by many because they thought he had the Christian values.

 

I think as a society we need to teach compassion and morality thru our actions. I once saw a kid throw his cup on a sidewalk and asked him to please pick it up and throw it away.He did but looked very shocked. Looking around I saw trash everywhere, so why wouldn't he do the same. We have laws against that but I see trash everywhere I go.Why?Because a lot people don't care. Laws against murder don't prevent it.Laws against child abuse don't prevent it.What does? Better parenting and society taking responsibility for one another. Personal responsibility goes a lot further than laws can.

 

I agree if we acted with more compassion and morality things would improve.I just don't think we can agree on what that is.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Maybe we are just missing each other's point here. It CAN be a tricky discussion. What I'm saying is when you consider whether or not there are black holes, you accept a premise - however specious it may be to you -- that black holes may, in fact, exist. You may reach a conclusion that they do exist or they don't -- based on evidence, faith, trust in family that raised you to believe they exist.... whatever. BUT, once you accept the premise that black holes may or may not exist, you then weigh the evidence and the burden of proof rests with those that wish to persuade you to believe in black holes. If I told you purple holes exist only in my office closet but they can't be detected by any means known to humans, would you have any reason to accept the premise until I provided you at least SOME evidence? This is atheism. It is not -- at least fort me -- the active disbelief in god(s). It is merely the position that I see no reason to accept the premise.

But I have no more reason to consider the black holes, despite the body of information presented than I do to consider your purple hole story. I'll listen to both stories.

 

I accept the premise that I'm here and alive (whatever that means). That raises a lot of questions that I'll spend my entire life debating, questioning and doubting. I listen to a lot of stories. I listen to a lot of evidence -- both directly relating and tangential to that specific premise and the basic questions of existence that develop from it. How does athiesm sidestep the exploration of those questions?

[Good Old Neon]

I honestly do not believe religion is used to shape our laws and government policies. I do believe people co-opt organized religion for their own purposes.

 

Laws and government policies work best when they're forged out of compassion and sense of shared morality. A number of civilizations have chosen to embody their morality and compassion into laws -- both civil and religious. But it's the faith that makes them meaningful, you're not bound by faith to follow them.

 

Regardless of your belief structure, I would hope you at least act out of compassion and morality.

 

We could argue the origins of compassion, I would argue it is an evolved trait (reciprocal altruism, etc), and certainly does not require a foundation in religion. We need look no further than the animal kingdom for proof of compassion without the influence of religion

[Central Scrutinizer]

But who decides the circles of compassion and mortality?

 

Those with the largest sexual appendages.

[Moe_Syzlak]

But I have no more reason to consider the black holes, despite the body of information presented than I do to consider your purple hole story. I'll listen to both stories.

 

I accept the premise that I'm here and alive (whatever that means). That raises a lot of questions that I'll spend my entire life debating, questioning and doubting. I listen to a lot of stories. I listen to a lot of evidence -- both directly relating and tangential to that specific premise and the basic questions of existence that develop from it. How does athiesm sidestep the exploration of those questions?

I think we still must be missing each other. Atheism doesn't sidestep anything (as I said earlier, I am very much concerned with such things). I have no more reason to start from the belief that god is responsible for existence than I do to start from a belief that purple holes in my closet are responsible for them. I think one of the fundamental reasons for a belief in god is to give us some sense that we know the (presently) unknowable - where did we come from, what happens to us when we die. I am okay with pursuing those answers without presently having a hypothesis.

[Central Scrutinizer]

We could argue the origins of compassion, I would argue it is an evolved trait (reciprocal altruism, etc), and certainly does not require a foundation in religion. We need look no further than the animal kingdom for proof of compassion without the influence of religion

[moxiebean]

[Party @ the Moontower]

Those with the largest sexual appendages.

 

 

[mfwahl]

[Central Scrutinizer]

I think we still must be missing each other. Atheism doesn't sidestep anything (as I said earlier, I am very much concerned with such things). I have no more reason to start from the belief that god is responsible for existence than I do to start from a belief that purple holes in my closet are responsible for them. I think one of the fundamental reasons for a belief in god is to give us some sense that we know the (presently) unknowable - where did we come from, what happens to us when we die. I am okay with pursuing those answers without presently having a hypothesis.

I think we will continue to miss each other on this, but we're both still swinging eh?

 

I don't think you can think about a fundamental reason for a belief in god because you have chosen to exclude that question. So you can't understand how someone who built a system of intellectual and emotional beliefs that embody the potential that there is a greater force that we cannot possibly understand and has, for some reason, molded me out of some stuff from a metaphysical jar and placed me in motion like a pea in a pachinko game.

 

Whether I embody faith in god/God/the deity formerly known as Prince, I can't understand how you built your system of intellectual and -- yes -- emotional beliefs that completely exclude the potential that there's a reason the universe will party like it's 1999.

 

I don't know. You don't know. But I appreciate your trying to explain what you think, and listening to me yammer about what I think I think.

 

 

"HEY! That should be white bread!"

 

-- Jerry Falwell

[Good Old Neon]

You're right we could argue this onion layer by layer, dissected thousands of different ways.

 

My original point goes back to all that you describe are based on your structure of beliefs, which were honed and developed because of and in spite of your dealings with the rest of your community (and particularly those you hold highest and those you display the most scorn for).

 

Yes belief systems are made more relevant or less relevant by our rationalizations for living within and without of our faith system. I don't know nothing about your soul. I can guess/surmise/judge. But instead I'll respect that you're doing your best to forge your belief structure as long as you don't believe it's O.K. to kill me, steal my crops or cancel my favorite TV show. If you are an athiest -- whether you are by virtue of avoiding or refusing the premise of God/no God -- it is a component of your system of beliefs, otherwise it wouldn't be important enough to discuss with me and lay claim to that belief.

 

I

[Moe_Syzlak]

I don't know. You don't know. But I appreciate your trying to explain what you think, and listening to me yammer about what I think I think.

I enjoy these discussions and appreciate the civility that has been exercised here so far. AND I respect yours and anyone else's ability to believe what they want to believe.

 

Whether I embody faith in god/God/the deity formerly known as Prince, I can't understand how you built your system of intellectual and -- yes -- emotional beliefs that completely exclude the potential that there's a reason the universe will party like it's 1999.

 

For me, the crux of it comes down to why I should accept as a starting point that god is the raison d'etre. To me, that's a little like saying I believe my computer was built by the underpants gnomes and then dismissing anyone who doesn't share my belief. Someone who doesn't believe my computer was built by underpants gnomes should have no reason to disprove my assertion. Would you agree that faith is at its root an emotional thing? You can't empirically prove it, but you have a feeling it is true. The point is, I don't subscribe to the notion that I need to prove that god doesn't exist anymore than I would put the burden of proof on you to prove that underpants gnomes didn't build my computer. That doesn't "completely exclude the potential that there's a reason the universe will party like it's 1999;" it merely says that presently I see no reason to ascribe a label of "god" to that potential. The mere fact that I enjoy this discussion should be evidence enough that I have intellectual curiosity.

[bjorn_skurj]

Would you agree that faith is at its root an emotional thing? You can't empirically prove it, but you have a feeling it is true.

At its root, and in its essence. Faith is not subject to the scientific method.

[Moe_Syzlak]

At its root, and in its essence. Faith is not subject to the scientific method.

Exactly! If you could prove it, it would no longer be faith. But for me (and others) your feeling is not enough for me to base my beliefs around. It is not that I actively disbelieve in god(s), it is that I have no reason to even consider it -- just as you have no reason to consider purple holes or underpants gnomes. Just because it means something to you -- and you believe it -- doesn't mean I have to disprove it in order to not subscribe to it.

[Guest Jules]

What's this thread all about?

[bjorn_skurj]

Exactly! If you could prove it, it would no longer be faith. But for me (and others) your feeling is not enough for me to base my beliefs around. It is not that I actively disbelieve in god(s), it is that I have no reason to even consider it -- just as you have no reason to consider purple holes or underpants gnomes. Just because it means something to you -- and you believe it -- doesn't mean I have to disprove it in order to not subscribe to it.

Of course, but there are a lot of people whose religion tells them it is their job to get other people to believe in the religion too.

I would suggest taking a good healthy dose of LSD and then wading neck deep into Lake Champlain while a reggae fest is going on. Hey, it worked for me.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Of course, but there are a lot of people whose religion tells them it is their job to get other people to believe in the religion too.

And to bring this back on topic, I would surmise that is where the bulk of Tweedy's issues with religion come into play. Not just the spreading the "good news," but the idea that those that don't share those beliefs are somehow lesser moral citizens.

[bjorn_skurj]

And to bring this back on topic, I would surmise that is where the bulk of Tweedy's issues with religion come into play. Not just the spreading the "good news," but the fact that those that don't share those beliefs are somehow lesser moral citizens.

Nobody likes (well, almost nobody) having a belief system crammed down their gullet. That's why there's this sort of ne plus ultra carrot-and-stick thing about "if you don't believe in this perception of the universe (and give us your money) you will burn in hell forever."

[Moe_Syzlak]

i don't wanna desecrate my only day to sleep in late.

[sweetheart-mine]

Of course, but there are a lot of people whose religion tells them it is their job to get other people to believe in the religion too.

I would suggest taking a good healthy dose of LSD and then wading neck deep into Lake Champlain while a reggae fest is going on. Hey, it worked for me.

hey, that sounds really good to me right now and i'm not even one of those proselytizers.

[bjorn_skurj]

hey, that sounds really good to me right now and i'm not even one of those proselytizers.

 

"I was looking for Champ but found God instead!"

[viatroy]

god is a champ?

 

While I enjoy pondering the imponderables as much as the next person, the only thing that makes sense to me is "I don't know, and neither do you."

 

"our love is all of god's money" comes as close to summing up the idea of god as anything I've heard.

[Central Scrutinizer]

I enjoy these discussions and appreciate the civility that has been exercised here so far. AND I respect yours and anyone else's ability to believe what they want to believe.

 

 

 

For me, the crux of it comes down to why I should accept as a starting point that god is the raison d'etre. To me, that's a little like saying I believe my computer was built by the underpants gnomes and then dismissing anyone who doesn't share my belief. Someone who doesn't believe my computer was built by underpants gnomes should have no reason to disprove my assertion. Would you agree that faith is at its root an emotional thing? You can't empirically prove it, but you have a feeling it is true. The point is, I don't subscribe to the notion that I need to prove that god doesn't exist anymore than I would put the burden of proof on you to prove that underpants gnomes didn't build my computer. That doesn't "completely exclude the potential that there's a reason the universe will party like it's 1999;" it merely says that presently I see no reason to ascribe a label of "god" to that potential. The mere fact that I enjoy this discussion should be evidence enough that I have intellectual curiosity.

You better be careful, I'm going to get all Jodie Foster-Contact (not that there's anything wrong with Jodie Foster). I appreciate this discussion and hearing your views and believe me the last thing I'm trying to do is change anyone's mind. In fact that's my point. Your mind is made up base on your beliefs -- both empirical and emotional (you are arguing rather passionately about your subject ) I would say people's beliefs are an emotional thing. You feel passionately about them that you're willing to defend them. Your belief system says (I'm way, way oversimplifying not to belittle but for argument sake) there's no god, why ask why? You argue with passion and conviction about your position. Your position regarding the whole concept is as pointless to me as the underpants gnomes and computer because it can't be debated empirically because you offer not standing from which to address it.

 

Again, I'm not asking to prove anything; and that's my point. You have structured what your beliefs are and they are who you are. But ultimately your comfort with them has to move into underpants gnome territory, or at least you have to take a leap in your intellectual curiosity.

 

BTW, God made the underpants gnome, but the underpants are Fruit of the Loom.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Exactly! If you could prove it, it would no longer be faith. But for me (and others) your feeling is not enough for me to base my beliefs around. It is not that I actively disbelieve in god(s), it is that I have no reason to even consider it -- just as you have no reason to consider purple holes or underpants gnomes. Just because it means something to you -- and you believe it -- doesn't mean I have to disprove it in order to not subscribe to it.

If you could prove to me there was not god -- or the exact cause of the universe, and the meaning and life, and everything (42), I wouldn't need faith. So you can't convince me to believe or not believe in a god just because your standpoint is you won't even consider it. Also what creeps in is this belief that anyone is trying to convince you of it. I am at the moment considering purple garden gnomes but it wioll pass. That's what this keeps butting up again. You believe what you believe, but you believe what you believe and are passionate about it because your emotions are as much at play in what you believe as your reason.

 

It's not what you believe. It's THAT you believe -- that you have FAITH of your convictions that embolden you to go back and check your work, counter arguments, weigh your stance (regardless of what my stance may be).

 

And that faith is a component of your faith system -- whether it's no god/don't ask me/ garden gnomes or purple, holy underwear (chrotle).

[Central Scrutinizer]

Nobody likes (well, almost nobody) having a belief system crammed down their gullet. That's why there's this sort of ne plus ultra carrot-and-stick thing about "if you don't believe in this perception of the universe (and give us your money) you will burn in hell forever."

Honestly, no one can tell you what to believe. People can affect what you believe (some lured into church, some repelled into other beliefs by "churchy behavior." Holier than though. The greatest hypocrites often sit in the front pews and nod their heads and raise their hands most urgently. But if you burn or not, if there's even a fire, you figure that out for yourself.

 

And honestly, some of the parables attributed to Jesus are better than LSD (or for a kick mix the two with the sacramental wine at your next party!).