Wilco and atheism

[orchestra]

it seems that, for neon and maker, science is their god. in that, science has all the answers. "It's simply a matter of being patient, humble and waiting for evidence to present itself". to suggest to them that a different paradigm is needed is heresy.

 

even the atheist has a belief system. even the atheist takes a leap of faith.

You make it sound like science is this gigantic walking building that goes around stomping on shit and making proclamations and occasionally wrestling with Allah. Science is just a bunch of controlled methods. It's people figuring stuff out and other people double-checking to make sure it's right and then others perhaps doing something interesting with that knowledge. It doesn't have morality. I don't know why you feel threatened, and I don't understand why a different paradigm would be needed to understand the way our world behaves. What answers are you looking for, anyways? Do you really value the riddle of the beginning of existence so much that you would choose to stay on that instead of all we know about the world in which we live? The beautiful, vast, varied and ever-changing world? I understand there are certain answers we don't have yet, and perhaps will never have, but I also don't understand the reasoning that just because you don't know where all the strings are attached that you need to invest in mythic stories which are all of equal value. A paradigm based on belief, or a paradigm rooted in "spirituality" isn't going to solve any problems or answer any questions, ever. Except perhaps for the one person who surrenders themselves to that. And even then those answers will be false and self-fulfilling, and even then those problems solved will be personal or psychological ones, not universal. So why do we need a different paradigm again?

 

For me the answer is that we do not. I have certain romantic ideals about the world, I look at things and I feel strong emotions. I meditate and I ponder about the nature of existence. Meaning. The whys. But it's all unproven (and why would one person's stargazing thoughts be something that would have to be disproven when it's obvious they were only created to entertain the self by answering The Big Questions) and of little to no use to me or anyone else. We don't need a whole new category of discussion and research into this world, it's all just dream-scrapings. Which doesn't make it bad. It's only bad when people try to communicate it to others as truth.

[kwall]

You make it sound like science is this gigantic walking building that goes around stomping on shit and making proclamations and occasionally wrestling with Allah.

no, that would be neon and themaker.

 

Science is just a bunch of controlled methods. It's people figuring stuff out and other people double-checking to make sure it's right and then others perhaps doing something interesting with that knowledge. It doesn't have morality.

agreed.

 

I don't know why you feel threatened,

i don't. i've just been trying to point out that everyone has beliefs.

 

Do you really value the riddle of the beginning of existence so much that you would choose to stay on that instead of all we know about the world in which we live?

no. science has done, and will continue to do, wonderful things.

 

I understand there are certain answers we don't have yet, and perhaps will never have, but I also don't understand the reasoning that just because you don't know where all the strings are attached that you need to invest in mythic stories which are all of equal value.

i don't invest in mythic stories. i simply believe (or hypothesize) that there is a creative force at work in the universe.

 

A paradigm based on belief, or a paradigm rooted in "spirituality" isn't going to solve any problems or answer any questions, ever.

speak for yourself.

 

I have certain romantic ideals about the world, I look at things and I feel strong emotions. I meditate and I ponder about the nature of existence. Meaning. The whys. But it's all unproven

agreed. everyone's thoughts about the nature of existence are unproven.

 

and of little to no use to me or anyone else.

perhaps you could just ignore it then? i don't know what to tell you.

 

Which doesn't make it bad. It's only bad when people try to communicate it to others as truth.

ok, i won't do that. thanks for the tip.

[Good Old Neon]

it seems that, for neon and maker, science is their god. in that, science has all the answers. "It's simply a matter of being patient, humble and waiting for evidence to present itself". to suggest to them that a different paradigm is needed is heresy.

 

even the atheist has a belief system. even the atheist takes a leap of faith.

 

Totally and utterly false, and can you please point out where I

[kwall]

yeah, that's themaker's quote. i assumed you two were of one mind on this subject.

[Tanner]

Thank God I'm an atheist. This thread is pretty entertaining.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Long story short, I agree that evolution isn't something that rules out the existence of a "creator," but it sure plays havoc with organized religion, doesn't it? Many evangelicals still quibble

 

O.K. Here it is again. "Many", "some" ... one proves all. The exception proves the rule, according to you.

 

It remains in religion's best interest to roll with the punches science delivers on a fairly regular basis. This is why Christianity, the religion of choice in much of the free world, has been so heavily self-edited over the years. Moderation spares contemporary Christians the embarrassment of having to stone faithless wives to death, murder homosexuals and non-believers, and avoid wearing poly-cotton blends at all costs. Conversely, it stands to reason that the Islamic world is such a beastly place precisely because of the fact that Islam has been allowed to spread mostly unfettered across several centuries."

 

That's a funny graph. You do realize that the greatest recent advancement of Christianity has been in Asia, the Middle East and South America -- at a rate that is staggering by any other faith standards. I don't intend that as marketing, my point is that it is expanding in inhospitable places, not because of missionaries, but because it is spreading within societies based on shared and developing beliefs.

 

And it's not happening because someone is using the religion as opiate for the masses or a status or process for comfort and advancement in society. In fact people are dying for their beliefs, tortured, ostracized, branded, starved, beaten. I think you belittle their belief structure by grouping all religion into some lie. Oh the stamina and heart and S-O-U-L of the self-deceived.

 

Are you willing to die for your beliefs? Frankly, in surprising many societies, despite the advancement of mankind, you and I both could be in grave danger for debating our beliefs here.

 

On another point here, you attempt to simultaneously condemn those who refuse to grow in their beliefs and condemn those who continue to explore and question their values and beliefs. You can't adhere to your beliefs so long as their are based in some creator-based faith; and if those who practice particular faiths or create no faiths or altered beliefs, they are basically bending to someone else's will rather than the benefit of your own philosophical inquiry.

Also, I would argue that evolution does much to address the "why" even as it explains the "how." What is evolution? The process of change in the inherited genetic traits of an organism from one generation to the next, ad infinitum (presumably). Why does this change occur? Because organisms need to better adapt to their environment. Why? Because their earliest iterations made survival difficult. Maybe because their environment has changed over time.

That's more of the "what." What enables them to change. After-the-fact musings. It doesn't answer why evolution has been equipped in organisms which causes them to survive. It doesn't explain why natural selection causes some things to adapt and other things to die (don't tell me it's the organism's own choice, or perhaps belief in a zoo in the sky). There is theories but no proof. Has man yet tried to harness the zoological and biological nature of natural selection in order to protect those endangered, or to enhance those who have benefit in our eyes? Play God, in other words.

 

There is a philosophical "why" that evolution does not attempt to answer, of course

 

Of course, it is not up to evolution to address philosophical concerns. This reminds me of the earliest bits of this discussion, when believers still expected "atheism" - literally, a lack of belief in god - to address unfounded metaphysical concerns. "Give me a substitute!" they moaned. It's pretty absurd. In fact, it makes no sense whatsoever.

I think that's heifer dust. No one is asking you to give a substitute. In pretty much most cases, no one is asking "atheism" to address metaphysical concerns.

 

In fact, I think you (as in you as one who represents or espouses atheism) create your own chasm than you scream from behind. If atheism is, by its own definition, outside of metaphysical concerns -- as you pointed out yourself you wouldn't touch theology -- then why do you keep inserting your opinion into theological discussions.

 

You say religions are lies, claim you prove them again and again -- you in fact cite occam's razor, which is a principle (an heuristic maxim -- see I know Latin too!) that addresses science, economics rather than a theological discussion -- but then say it is not your job to show this proof, nor are you under any obligation. Who is running in circles here?

 

One other thing, while you're our self-appointed inquisitor, philosophical savior, and, sporactically, a self pronounced martyr, I note this:

it's apparently my sole responsibility to address every single fucking question, anecdote, challenge and rejoinder thrown at me in this thread, in spite of the fact that the faithful (and their advocates) outnumber the secular by a pretty impressive margin.

 

"the faithful"

 

"supporters of Bog the Great and Dingus Christ, Jr."

 

"stupid lies and astonishing leaps of logic that fuel every religion to which I have ever had the misfortune of being exposed."

 

"don't ever expect me to respect any fucking cults,"

 

"faithful never seem remotely willing to meet me even halfway."

 

"academic dick-swinging is what this conversation has truly been reduced to"

I didn't see anyone appoint you with this role, so it's self-designated. But if you address (attack) only selected aspects of what people are saying you are being as disingenuous and pandering as you accuse the "flock" of being.

 

These are insults hurled in one post. So don't cry innocence, or hurt feelings.

[Spawn's dad]

I need to go on record and say that M. Chris has never held it.... While I peed, that is.

[M. (hristine]

I need to go on record and say that M. Chris has never held it.... While I peed, that is.

 

qft.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Congrats. Your self-serving obfuscation and deliberate mischaracterization of my remarks has succeeded in pissing me the fuck off. If you're smart, and I can tell by reading your stuff that you are, you'll think twice before doing it again. Because if you try, I'll just show up to tear your absurd charges apart.

You give me too much credit. I would think eventually even if no one would respond to your diatribes you'd eventually piss yourself off. In fact, I bet you annoy the hell out of you.

 

I'm smart enough to know that your threats are as hollow as some of your arguments -- like whistling through a straw.

 

Have a nice day. See you in a few pages.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Totally and utterly false, and can you please point out where I

[TheMaker]

You are a piece of work. Yeah, ad hominem, ad shmominem.

 

I didn't issue anything remotely like an ad hominem insult. (Once again, simply asserting something doesn't make it so.) I told him to pay attention, because my then-most recent post was proof enough that his assertion about me was totally false. Was I all sunshine and roses about it? No, I wasn't. That might have something to do with the fact that I really, really dislike it when people go around deliberately misrepresenting the things I say (or completely ignoring them).

 

Again, please fuck off with the ad hominem insults. I've seen you post some pretty cool shit in other threads, man, but you're being almost trollish in this one. Either join the conversation in earnest or kindly stop insulting me for the sake of insulting me. Because believe me, we get it now: you don't like me and you don't like my evidence. Enough. Thanks.

 

saying there is no creator is less logical than saying there is one simply by virtue of existence' date=' prove that wrong buddds.

(Im not saying its a he or she or an it even but we do exist duh! and don't say the onus of proof is on me)[/quote']

 

What's so maddening about this argument is that the onus actually is on you. What you're doing is making an assertion based on an already-held belief rather than on any actual evidence. Nothing in nature points to matter having been "created" per se. "We are star stuff." Because the notion of a "creator" has already been introduced, it's pretty easy to say "a powerful dude/force created all this" and then challenge somebody to "prove them wrong" (even though it's impossible to prove a negative, as we've established several times over). Atoms are nothing like a birdhouse. Matter is not a television set. Devices have creators, and this can be proven simply by tracing their origins. Answers aren't that easy, or obvious, when it comes to the building blocks of the universe. We can naively assume that a vaguely anthropomorphic creator figure made us in his image, or even simply in ours, but we do this because we've seen houses and trucks and circuit boards assembled by human hands.

 

(Sidebar: I think it might be fun to create a new religion based around a television-shaped god; there's an amusing irony there, I think!)

 

Add to that cognitive closure and bias and one realizes that even the most rational and intellectually astute of us are limited in ability to even ask the right questions. The empirical limit of science is my philosophical starting point' date=' not my concession.[/quote']

 

Sure. But new discoveries prompt new questions. New vistas are always opening up. Theoretical physics exists to explore new ways of blowing people's minds. We see this all the time in science. That science has an empirical limit at all is a statement that seems rooted in little more than supposition to me.

 

I definitely agree that it's important to ask the right questions, however. Half of science comes down to astute theories, and the other half is astute research.

 

would you be more comfortable if i called my belief a "hypothesis"? my hypothesis is that there is a creative force at work in the universe. your hypothesis is that science will eventually answer every question that we are capable of asking. these are competing in the sense that yours precludes the existence of a creative force.

 

is there a concession in here somewhere?

 

Not really' date=' no.

 

If your "hypothesis" - as opposed to your "belief" - is that a creative force is at work in the universe, it seems rather grandiose, doesn't it? And as I've already pointed out, fantastic claims always require fantastic evidence. You have thus far presented roughly none.

 

Additionally, I sense that you're attempting to frame "hypothesis" and "belief" as synonyms. They are absolutely not. A belief is something that is held true and dear, whereas a hypothesis is something that simply has to be proven. Christians get all fucking whiny whenever anybody suggests that their god is stupid and a lie (even though it plainly is), but you don't see scientists getting upset when rigorous peer review shoots down one of their pet theories. In fact, you can guarantee that the scientist who formulates the initial hypothesis will be working harder than nearly anybody to [i']disprove[/i] it. Science is not about wishful thinking. It's about proof.

 

my hypothesis is more logical to me.

 

Your hypothesis lacks logic completely. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but... please provide a single shred of actual evidence that points to the existence of a "creator." Bonus points if your creator sufficiently answers every existential quandary you've ever found yourself contemplating.

 

The most obvious hole in the god theory is the intellectual feedback loop created by the question "Who created god?"

"Nobody. God is eternal. He is everything and everywhere"

"Care to explain that?"

"Sorry. Can't. Maybe I'll find out one day, though."

"So did he create himself?"

"You're being silly!"

"Right. I'm being silly. Of the two of us, I ain't the guy slapping a fucking Mister Potato Head face on the goddamned universe and saying that it 'loves' me..."

Nothing in nature supports the god delusion, and it's been said by men many times smarter than any of us participating in this discussion that if the universe is ever conclusively proven to be infinite or finite, either scenario would be equally baffling to the human mind. With all the wonders of the universe, and all that remains to be explored, why cop out by attributing the origin of man and the cosmos to something as silly and relatively unimpressive as god?

[TheMaker]

So yes' date=' many ills occur in the name of religion. But the same can be said of any organization. Enron wasn't a religion (though one could argue that capitalism is in fact a religion [speaking of which the local Hummer dealer closed so did the religion lose a minor god?'])

 

American-style Christianity certainly reminds one of large corporations (and vice versa), so you just might be on to something. Ha!

 

The fact that we, as humans, screw things up doesn't negate the power or even the needs for teachings that help root us in morality or provide solace in difficult times.

 

I agree. And I also believe that these teachings can be gleaned from any morally upright individual, regardless of their affiliations (religious, political, etc).

 

What the Maker repeatedly points to does contain elements of this, it just lacks a deity, is a wholly humanistic moral path, but most importantly it lacks any soft edges in his explanation as he's too busy belittling and tearing down others.

 

I've addressed this myself. I'm a rather brusque fellow, I'm afraid. I afford religion approximately the same amount of respect and condescension it reserves for atheism. I used to take the high road, but one day I was driven into a ditch by the slathering tractor-trailer that is organized religion. It bummed me out.

 

Maker, if you're to be our new religious father

 

Yeah, I have to stop you here. Please don't ever attempt to do that again. It's petty, it's stupid, and worst of all, it's dreadfully misleading. You're just being glib, I know, but it remains that you're reaching into your semantical kit bag in an attempt to portray intellectual honesty and free inquiry as a new kind of cult - an alternative to religion, if you will - when in fact it is the very antidote to religion. Atheism: from the Ancient Greek, literally meaning godless. I am not your father, Spawn's dad. I'm a young, single dude and I'm nobody's father. Nor do I wish to lead anybody. You're a religious instructor of some kind, you said? Let the record show that I have negative interest in taking up your job.

 

Moving right along...

 

All this really points to, which I've pointed out time and again throughout these threads (and which Old Neon declares too invalid to even acknowledge) is that spiritual practice is personal, experiential, and the truths realized fall outside the methodologies most commonly used by science.

 

My rough edges hardly point to the validity of "personal truth." They point to the fact that I'm a real asshole to people with whom I vehemently disagree (*smiles real big; waves at everybody*), but they hardly point to much else.

 

Truth is a fairly well-defined word at this point. Conformity to fact or actuality. A statement proven to be or accepted as true. Reality. "Subjective truth" is an inherently dishonest pursuit, and it can lead to some pretty hairy places, morally and intellectually. Most people are responsible enough to avoid these pitfalls; it's certainly a minority of folks who end up believing that they're the reincarnation of Jesus Christ or that space aliens will come to collect them if they gather in a circle and drink poisoned Kool-Aid. But the fact of the matter is simple; if something is unprovable, we have no good reason to believe it. "It gives me hope" is not a good reason. "I got the cancer" is not a good reason. "It allows me to think that one day I'll see my dead wife again" is not a good reason. In short, wishful thinking is not a good reason.

 

I have argued that religion is a greater force for evil than good in the world, and that's because it's true as far as I have ever been able to discern. My main beef has always been, and will continue to be, that religion is simply bullshit. Lying to people about "life after death" when no evidence to support this belief exists is cruel at best and absolutely devastating at worst. Forced conversions are an abomination. Barbaric rituals and punishments rooted in archaic religions are abhorrent. Pretending to have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe is twisted and delusional to such a degree that it seems disturbing on its face when subjected to neutral analysis. War. Poverty. Land-grabs. The list goes on and on and on and on. Religion is hardly evil in and of itself, but it's tougher to find any other social construct that encourages violence and intolerance quite like religion tends to do. Because it is demonstrably false, because it is unnecessary in the promotion of morality, and because it has the capacity to organize and reinforce the most insidiously evil elements of society, it should be destroyed.

 

Neon seems to have a hard time dumping on the eastern religions, though I could (and have actually) pointed to many aspects that would require the same sort of experiential knowledge to understand. But the real question would be what is to be gained from dumping on real people who are here talking about their lives and what role religion or spirituality plays in their lives?

 

Neon may have a hard time dumping on Jainism, Hinduism, Shintoism and the rest, but Neon also celebrates Christmas. I don't do those things. I'm not tolerant of any of this garbage anymore. My line is harsh, it's true, but quite necessary from where I'm standing. Rather than enable and embolden certain religious elements by apologizing for them, I have drawn a line in the sand and seldom consider crossing it. We live in a world held prisoner by hokey, clearly outmoded superstition, and I simply refuse to yield another inch. My intolerance (and I freely admit that it is most definitely a vicious intolerance) is born of intellectual honesty, a holistic worldview and my fascination with detail (historical, scientific, you name it). There's a wonderful televised debate on YouTube between Sam Harris (author of "Letter to a Christian Nation") and Rabbi David Wolpe (a brilliant man in his own right, by the way) on the subject of god and whether he exists, and Harris says something that is just fantastic (and, incidentally, ties into my earlier offense at your bullying insinuation that I desire on some level to be a "spiritual father" of some sort) and that I will never forget if I live to see a hundred: "Religion teaches people what to think; inquiry teaches people how to think."

 

Believe it or not, I am mindful of the fact that some people dedicate their entire lives to the lies of religion. That's precisely why I don't shy away from confronting them about the irrationality of their beliefs. If I were as insensitive as some people seem to think I am, I simply wouldn't bother engaging them at all. And believe me, I know many atheists who go out of their way to avoid having to deal with Christians. I'm the guy who'd invite the fucking Jehovah's Witnesses into my living room to talk if I were a homeowner. Like the Christians who stop folks on the street, I'm interested in delivering people - from Christ, in my case. I don't want to tell them about Christ, though. I don't want to tell them about anything. I simply want them to start asking intelligent questions pertaining to the very nature of faith. I do this in the hope that they will ultimately arrive at intelligent conclusions that don't make me at least a little ashamed to be fucking human. (Not in the way that self-flagellating Christians are ashamed to be human, mind you, HIYOOOOO!)

 

It's quite a flawed world outlook that is so devoid of humility or compassion that ones only role in a community is to be proven correct all the time.

 

I've definitely established that my worldview is comprised of much more than petty concerns. You charge me of being devoid of humility. I'm as willing to entertain any idea as I am to research it, evaluate it, and ultimately accept or reject it. Believers try to box atheists by suggesting that their worldview is lacking due to the fact that it doesn't attempt to explain everything right now, even at the expense of logic; I would counter that a mere demand for evidence lacks nothing, least of all patience and a contentment with not having to know everything, but continuing to learn as much about the world as possible. I would also suggest that the ridiculous idea of a "creator" being sufficient explanation for the many wonders of the cosmos is not only conceited, it's also extraordinarily limited in scope.

 

Faith is characterized by a lot of things; a desperate need to know, wishful thinking, laziness, ignorance, and so on. Atheism is characterized by a lot of things, too; restlessness, free inquiry, patience, open-mindedness, humility by design, and so on.

 

But even if that's true, my personal path makes that existence, for me, more joyful and rich.

 

I would hate to have to require such validation.

[Panther]

if their is creation then their is a creator though our languge dosent allow us to express it properly. This is a lame discussion like Ive said before Atheism is backwardslooking. Lets get to the good stuff, do you atheist and non atheist out there belive in the afterlife or a next life or w.e you would like to call it?

[Panther]

American-style Christianity certainly reminds one of large corporations (and vice versa), so you just might be on to something. Ha!

 

 

 

I agree. And I also believe that these teachings can be gleaned from any morally upright individual, regardless of their affiliations (religious, political, etc).

 

 

 

I've addressed this myself. I'm a rather brusque fellow, I'm afraid. I afford religion approximately the same amount of respect and condescension it reserves for atheism. I used to take the high road, but one day I was driven into a ditch by the slathering tractor-trailer that is organized religion. It bummed me out.

 

 

 

Yeah, I have to stop you here. Please don't ever attempt to do that again. It's petty, it's stupid, and worst of all, it's dreadfully misleading. You're just being glib, I know, but it remains that you're reaching into your semantical kit bag in an attempt to portray intellectual honesty and free inquiry as a new kind of cult - an alternative to religion, if you will - when in fact it is the very antidote to religion. Atheism: from the Ancient Greek, literally meaning godless. I am not your father, Spawn's dad. I'm a young, single dude and I'm nobody's father. Nor do I wish to lead anybody. You're a religious instructor of some kind, you said? Let the record show that I have negative interest in your job.

 

Moving right along...

 

 

 

My rough edges hardly point to the validity of "personal truth." They point to the fact that I'm a real asshole to people with whom I vehemently disagree (*smiles real big; waves at everybody*), but they hardly point to much else.

 

Truth is a fairly well-defined word at this point. Conformity to fact or actuality. A statement proven to be or accepted as true. Reality. "Subjective truth" is an inherently dishonest pursuit, and it can lead to some pretty hairy places, morally and intellectually. Most people are responsible enough to avoid these pitfalls; it's certainly a minority of folks who end up believing that they're the reincarnation of Jesus Christ or that space aliens will come to collect them if they gather in a circle and drink poisoned Kool-Aid. But the fact of the matter is simple; if something is unprovable, we have no good reason to believe it. "It gives me hope" is not a good reason. "I got the cancer" is not a good reason. "It allows me to think that one day I'll see my dead wife again" is not a good reason. In short, wishful thinking is not a good reason.

 

I have argued that religion is a greater force for evil than good in the world, and that's because it's true as far as I have ever been able to discern. My main beef has always been, and will continue to be, that religion is simply bullshit. Lying to people about "life after death" when no evidence to support this belief exists is cruel at best and absolutely devastating at worst. Forced conversions are an abomination. Barbaric rituals and punishments rooted in archaic religions are abhorrent. Pretending to have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe is twisted and delusional to the point where it seems disturbing on its face. War. Poverty. Land-grabs. The list goes on and on and on and on. Religion is hardly evil in and of itself, but it's tougher to find any other social construct that encourages violence and intolerance quite like religion tends to do. Because it is demonstrably false, because it is unnecessary in the promotion of morality, and because it has the capacity to organize and reinforce the most insidiously evil elements of society, it should be destroyed.

 

 

 

Neon may have a hard time dumping on Jainism, Hinduism, Shintoism and the rest, but Neon also celebrates Christmas. I don't do those things. I'm not tolerant of any of this garbage anymore. My line is harsh, it's true, but quite necessary from where I'm standing. Rather than enable and embolden certain religious elements by apologizing for them, I have drawn a line in the sand and seldom consider crossing it. We live in a world held prisoner by hokey, clearly outmoded superstition, and I simply refuse to yield another inch. My intolerance (and I freely admit that it is most definitely a vicious intolerance) is born of intellectual honesty, a holistic worldview and my fascination with detail (historical, scientific, you name it). There's a wonderful televised debate on YouTube between Sam Harris (author of "Letter to a Christian Nation") and Rabbi David Wolpe (a brilliant man in his own right, by the way) on the subject of god and whether he exists, and Harris says something that is just fantastic (and, incidentally, ties into my earlier offense at your bullying insinuation that I desire on some level to be a "spiritual father" of some sort) and that I will never forget if I live to see a hundred: "Religion teaches people what to think; inquiry teaches people how to think."

 

Believe it or not, I am mindful of the fact that some people dedicate their entire lives to the lies of religion. That's precisely why I don't shy away from confronting them about the irrationality of their beliefs. If I were as insensitive as some people seem to think I am, I simply wouldn't bother engaging them at all. And believe me, I know many atheists who go out of their way to avoid having to deal with Christians. I'm the guy who'd invite the fucking Jehovah's Witnesses into my living room to talk if I were a homeowner. Like the Christians who stop folks on the street, I'm interested in delivering people - from Christ, in my case. I don't want to tell them about Christ, though. I don't want to tell them about anything. I simply want them to start asking intelligent questions pertaining to the very nature of faith. I do this in the hope that they will ultimately arrive at intelligent conclusions that don't make me at least a little ashamed to be fucking human. (Not in the way that self-flagellating Christians are ashamed to be human, mind you, HIYOOOOO!)

 

 

 

I've definitely established that my worldview is comprised of much more than petty concerns. You charge me of being devoid of humility. I'm as willing to entertain any idea as I am to research it, evaluate it, and ultimately accept or reject it. Believers try to box atheists by suggesting that their worldview is lacking due to the fact that it doesn't attempt to explain everything; I would counter that a demand for evidence lacks nothing, least of all patience and a contentment with not having to know everything, but continuing to learn as much about the world as possible. I would also suggest that the ridiculous idea of a "creator" being sufficient explanation for the many wonders of the cosmos is not only conceited, it's also extraordinarily limited in scope.

 

Faith is characterized by a lot of things; a desperate need to know, wishful thinking, laziness, ignorance, and so on. Atheism is characterized by a lot of things, too; restlessness, free inquiry, patience, open-mindedness, humility by design, and so on.

 

 

 

I would hate to have to require such validation.

 

 

 

I agree with basically everything you said , very well put but what do you have against "do onto others as you would have them do onto you".

My point being that spiritual teachings simply show us that we are blind and that what we do on this earth actually matters in the bigger picture.

The fact that religions are evil is nothing to be suprised about but I like the fact that you don't tolerate any of the religious b.s. or muck around.

Their is allot of denial out there I mean do any of you cathloics actually belive that the vatican spent the last w.e hundread years teaching the word of christ.

It should be obvious what they did, they killed people they added pagan beliefs and symbols and they continued the roman empire and world domination, nothing to do with a boy from nazareth.

 

Emperor Constantine held meetings after adopting the then unknown faith where they decided to make their "version" of the bible literal and tech it that way.

It was a strategy it worked it is still working. You have to be smart about it but christanity can be a beautiful thing.

[orchestra]

if their is creation then their is a creator though our languge dosent allow us to express it properly.

 

What?

 

This is a lame discussion like Ive said before Atheism is backwardslooking.

 

Atheism, to me, seems a lot more present-oriented than most religions (which are looking towards a judgment that won't happen and/or a second life they shouldn't save their passions for). I'm not sure about Buddhism. Isn't part of that being completely present-oriented?

 

Lets get to the good stuff, do you atheist and non atheist out there belive in the afterlife or a next life or w.e you would like to call it?

 

No but why would you unless you were just wishing there would be a comfort to greet you there?

[TheMaker]

but what do you have against "do onto others as you would have them do onto you".

 

Absolutely nothing at all.

 

I would have others evaluate my positions honestly and straightforwardly, which is precisely how I evaluate theirs.

 

I also said I don't mind being called a dickface, so long as the person calling me one actually has something to add to the conversation.

 

I've been pretty consistent throughout this discussion.

[Panther]

What?

 

my point is that the idea of a creator is more logical than the idea of no creator by virtue of creation or existence.

I feel like everyone argues the conventional idea of a god instead of the idea of the void or the I am, you know what I'm saying

[Panther]

Absolutely nothing at all.

 

I would have others evaluate my positions honestly and straightforwardly, which is precisely how I evaluate theirs.

 

I also said I don't mind being called a dickface, so long as the person calling me one actually has something to add to the conversation.

 

I've been pretty consistent throughout this discussion.

 

you have and I didn't mean what do you(as in actually you) have against that I mean I knew you wouldn't

I just wnated to point out a virtue of christianity while I was pointing out the evil of it at the same time.

[Panther]

No but why would you unless you were just wishing there would be a comfort to greet you there?

 

why wouldn't you unless you were just trying to avoid the answer, just kidding.

 

seriously I think that the idea of an afterlife is more logical than no afterlife although I can't really give you an answer of suitable substence.

That being said the reasearch on past lives near death expirences and out of body expirences is impressive.

 

not to mention that the amount of energy in every single cell reaches infinity when scientists try to measure it, so what happens to all that energy.

What happens to the mind(or the soul as I like to call it) this type of discussion or these ideas I am presenting require another person to contribute .

It will be very easy for you to say welll you just die, but you don't no what that word even means dead. So youre logic is no better.

[TheMaker]

I answered this in another thread on here. The whole part of the bible that deals with creation says that it took God 7 days. But who's to say that was 7 literal days, as in one week. Maybe those 7 days were actually millions of years.

 

...Suggesting that god created the world on seven particular days spread across millions of years, or that "seven days" is somehow a euphemism for "millions of years?" If it's the former, that's one hell of a stretch, even for folks who might happen to be the biggest fans of poetic license. If it's the latter, it simply seems shifty for no good reason. Why such deliberate obfuscation among so much supposed divinity? Is the bible like a word game, perhaps?

 

The bible also says people lived to be 900 years old, which we know isn't possible. The deacon at my church is actually the one who opened my eyes to this.

 

I understand what you're saying, but I'm still not entirely sure that I'm grasping your point. If the bible is allegorical, is it allegorical all the time? Some of the time? Nobody knows? Can there be any consensus as regards its general message if this is the case? It seems to me that this helps to undercut the alleged truth of the bible, rather than support it.

 

I go to church because I feel it keeps me in balance. It gives me an outlet to voice my frustration with every day life and I feel a sense of peace as soon as I walk through the doors.

 

This I understand, because I feel the same way whenever I walk into a library or a planetarium or a museum or an art gallery. I can celebrate or genuflect upon or rage against or detest the works contained therein, and I always feel more serene upon leaving than entering.

 

I can pray and feel that God is listening to what I'm saying. It's like instant therapy for me.

 

Do you ever get a response? Does some sort of outcome that can be traced to your pleas ever manifest itself? Again, I'm sure some will assert that I'm being sarcastic, but I'm genuinely curious.

 

I've always been Catholic, but lapsed as a child. It wasn't until about 5 years ago that I was confirmed and started attending regularly. When my dad died unexpectedly 4 years ago, my faith held me together like nothing else. I think if it were not for that, I would be in a pretty bad place right now.

 

All I can say to this is that atheists go through many of the same experiences as the faithful, and we do so without the god concept. We lose loved ones, we face health crises, we face financial turmoil, and all the rest. There are many ways of coping with loss, stress and instability, and many of them don't involve the intangible.

 

There's more that I'd like to add to this point about the nature of your relationship to your particular faith, but out of respect for what you've gone through fairly recently, I'll save it for a later discussion in case something I say ends up being misconstrued or comes across as too personal, or even nasty, rather than fairly broad (even though I'm definitely still thinking in fairly broad terms).

 

How could there be such a thing as God when someone you love so much is taken from you?

 

Again, I'm trying to tread carefully here out of respect for your loss, but this certainly isn't why most atheists are atheists. There's a very big difference between abandoning one's faith due to a sense of betrayal - "How could you be so cruel to me, god, after all I've done for you?" - and not adhering to a faith because of other, more valid reasons.

 

My mind can't grasp why someone wouldn't want to believe there is something greater out there.

 

Neither can I, actually. The total number of people asserting that there isn't anything greater out there in this thread is exactly zero, as far as I've noticed. I've heard the saying; I know "god is great," but the universe itself is so much greater, more perplexing and unfathomable that it dwarfs every single creation myth put together! What puzzles me is that we would have to invent a god when we still have what appears to be a virtually infinite cosmos to become acquainted with. The available evidence suggests quite strongly that you and I are both made of matter that exploded into the universe billions of years ago! Is that not absolutely incredible to you? We have every reason to believe that humankind evolved because of our tenacity, our resourcefulness and our innate ability to adapt to challenging environments! What I can't understand is how the rather on-the-nose fairy tale of Adam and Eve is somehow greater than this likelihood. And have you ever seen this .gif?

 

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff298/s...ctive_stars.gif

 

Take a look at it! Just sit there and gape, that's all I ask. By all that's holy (no pun actually intended!), take a minute to look at this thing and then try to tell me that science and free inquiry are arguing against the greatness, the majesty, the power and the wonder of all that exists! I challenge you to do it. It boggles my mind that anybody would find any creation myth more engrossing and attractive than even the observable cosmic objects in our universe.

 

it seems that' date=' for neon and maker, science is their god. in that, science has all the answers.[/quote']

 

How many times you gonna jump the shark, bud? Five? Ten? Do I have to go over all forty-odd pages of this thread and actually quote the number of instances where Neon and myself have asserted that science in fact doesn't have all the answers, and that a large part of its appeal and durability has to do with the fact that it doesn't make promises it can't keep?

 

Look, this is what you're trying to do; it's the same thing Spawn's dad tried (and failed) to do earlier in the thread: you're clumsily attempting to argue that reason is a substitute for faith, when that is simply not true. Hypotheses are testable; religion falls apart when subjected to even the faintest glimmer of reality. You attempt to position atheism and religion as opposite sides of the same coin, perhaps to plant the idea that atheism is in fact an alternative to religion. It is not.

 

A.

 

Theism.

 

No.

 

God.

 

Perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised at your insistence that I prove a negative, considering that it's beginning to look like you have an incredibly difficult time with negatives in general.

[Panther]

No offense dude(the maker) but the fact that you don't understand how the bible makes sesne if you don't take it literally is not a virtue of yours.

Your arguement over the hole 7 day things is really stupid, but that is common among athesit when they talk about realigions they dumb it down.

I mean you do realize these stories were written thousands of years ago. The whole seven days is symbolic as everything in the bible is.

You are on the side of logic simply because people are saying stupid shit to try and argue your straight logic.

[Guest Hollinger.]

Umm... what?

[Spawn's dad]

I actually agree with the maker more than I disagree with him, though admittedly (and to his credit he admits it as well)

he's more than a bit of an asshole. Still, I'm more of a live and let live kind of guy and for me this

 

"Religion teaches people what to think; inquiry teaches people how to think."

 

isn't as mutually exclusive of another as it's made to seem here. Big R religion perhaps, but spiritual

inquiry is of a different ilk. The listening to the inner voice of how things are. Seeing with the eyes.

Hearing with the ears. I have little use for dogma or systems, but there is more to the personal

spiritual path than simple big R colored with one brush Religion. To my mind this inquiry is akin

to my own outlook, though it is colored with language the Maker would find unacceptable.So yeah,

there's that which shuts down independent though...but it's the same in politics, religion, education,

of in the capitalistic ideas how how much and what we need. But there's also that which invites one

to challenge systems, to explore detail and nuance, and to repeatedly look and see how things

actually are.

[TheMaker]

[everything]

 

I don't think it'll surprise anybody that I like the way you think' date=' but man, I especially like the way you write. Your zeal certainly wasn't lost on me!

 

O.K. Here it is again. "Many", "some" ... one proves all. The exception proves the rule, according to you.

 

First of all, allow me to introduce myself: I'm TheMaker. I tend to say what I mean in a pretty blunt fashion. Some people go out of their way to chime in about what a "real piece of work" I am. If I were attempting to portray an entire religion's subscribers as stunned cunts, believe me, I would have said "most" or "all" without hesitation.

 

Did you not catch the part where I went out of my way to mention that most Christians are decent folks who are not prone to disagreeable acts of scientific bullying, violence, and so on? And that my problem with their beliefs lies not with their behaviour, but rather with the belief itself? The destructive aspect of religion is not why I am principally opposed to it. Pretty sure I've gone over this several times. I have no need to suggest that all Christians are a backwards lot in order to discredit their spiritual beliefs, and I don't believe I have ever attempted this kind of spin.

 

That's a funny graph. You do realize that the greatest recent advancement of Christianity has been in Asia, the Middle East and South America -- at a rate that is staggering by any other faith standards. I don't intend that as marketing, my point is that it is expanding in inhospitable places, not because of missionaries, but because it is spreading within societies based on shared and developing beliefs.

 

Then they must be true! Or perhaps just coercive in some way. Hey, I don't really remember: is this the first time the West has had a massive, even disruptive, cultural influence on the east? (Yeah, I'm being a sarcastic douche. But hey, I rest my case.)

 

And it's not happening because someone is using the religion as opiate for the masses or a status or process for comfort and advancement in society. In fact people are dying for their beliefs, tortured, ostracized, branded, starved, beaten. I think you belittle their belief structure by grouping all religion into some lie. Oh the stamina and heart and S-O-U-L of the self-deceived.

 

While it goes without saying that anybody should be tortured for holding any belief, however nonsensical it might be, is unspeakable, their suffering lends no credence to their beliefs whatsoever. Their religion is a lie, and I am belittling their belief structure even as I oppose their inhuman suffering. I'm a lot of things, but I'm no brute.

 

Are you willing to die for your beliefs? Frankly, in surprising many societies, despite the advancement of mankind, you and I both could be in grave danger for debating our beliefs here.

 

You're absolutely right, and it must be noted that most of those societies are theocratic, and yes, unequivocally, I would absolutely die for my right to deny the existence of god before I would ever utter a single prayer. I'd die a thousand times, if such a thing were possible.

 

And the real kicker, One Wing, is that the strength of my convictions has nothing to do with the validity of any of them. That's a bitter pill for any of us to have to swallah', ain't it?

 

On another point here, you attempt to simultaneously condemn those who refuse to grow in their beliefs and condemn those who continue to explore and question their values and beliefs. You can't adhere to your beliefs so long as their are based in some creator-based faith;

 

If your assertion is true, then it's also conditional. First of all, "exploring and questioning" a lie is ultimately pretty useless, don't you think? Instead of continually revising the world's religions as they become ever more archaic and embarrassing, doesn't it make infinitely more sense to simply regard them as fables (which is clearly what they are)?

 

And I've actually admitted several times now that the underlying fallacies of religion can occasionally produce pretty ripe academic fruit. Theology, fueled as it is by the god delusion, can still inspire, provoke, and even enlighten. (It goes without saying that secular musings can also inspire, provoke and even enlighten, although they do so without a grumpy, invisible father figure peering over their shoulder.) Have I ever stood here and decried everything that Thomas Aquinas ever said? Have I ever attempted to wholly discredit the contributions of John Donne because of his religiosity? I rather don't think so. And it shouldn't surprise anybody that brilliant minds can thrive even under the muggy cloud of religions like Christianity and Judaism. These are ultimately very permissive organizations (mostly thanks to moderation and selective reading of texts, not because of anything inherent in any of them), so it stands to reason that they won't always get in the way of inspiration and the pursuit of knowledge. Theology is all right be me much of the time, in spite of the fact that at its core rests a rather mortifying belief in a celestial pater familias.

[TheMaker]

That's more of the "what." What enables them to change. After-the-fact musings.

 

It's not more of the "what," and it's hardly an after-the-fact musing to conclude that Darwin's Finches changed several times in body size and in two beak traits over a 30-year period in order to better adapt to their environment.

 

What did they do?

 

They changed several times in body size and in two beak traits over a 30-year period!

 

Why did they do it?

 

To better adapt to their environment!

 

It's practically a union chant, for fuck's sake! What you're after is a philosophical "why," and no clear-headed individual can reasonably expect biology to explain something like that.

 

It doesn't answer why evolution has been equipped in organisms which causes them to survive.

 

Neither does the god delusion. The best it can offer is a fantasy scenario involving god's will, man's work, ascension, life after death, and other circular pseudo-answers that resolve absolutely nothing at all. Evolution is a dent in this particular Big Question. It is a far, far bigger dent than the small scratch made two thousand years ago by the joke that is Christianity.

 

It doesn't explain why natural selection causes some things to adapt and other things to die (don't tell me it's the organism's own choice, or perhaps belief in a zoo in the sky). There is theories but no proof.

 

And yet it remains a cornerstone of modern biology. How wonderful! Goddamn you, science. Goddamn you all to hell.

 

Natural selection varies from organism to organism, as does pretty much everything. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but it almost feels like you're ready to debate evolution on philosophical grounds, and that worries me a great deal. Not least because natural selection is an antecedent to breeding animals and encouraging certain natural genetic traits, which is something we've been able to observe for quite a number of years. Nor am I concerned because Darwinian evolution has actually been observed in nature during painstaking studies (refer if necessary to my earlier example of Darwin's Finches). The reason I'm concerned is that you seem to be placing a finer argumentative point on philosophy than physics. In no way am I attempting to undercut the importance of philosophy, mind you, but I think it's slightly absurd to suggest that proven discoveries are not at least as important as The Big Questions which tend to precede them.

 

Has man yet tried to harness the zoological and biological nature of natural selection in order to protect those endangered, or to enhance those who have benefit in our eyes? Play God, in other words.

 

Yes, yes, an expression derived from centuries of Christian influence. We get it, thanks. Jesus Christ (LOL did u see wut i sed... jus now... i muss B a kriss-jin yall).

 

And yes, we see what Darwin referred to as "artificial design" in microbiology and genetics all the time. Could our resources be better focused? Probably, yeah. We sure don't use it to preserve threatened species like we ought to.

 

I think that's heifer dust. No one is asking you to give a substitute. In pretty much most cases, no one is asking "atheism" to address metaphysical concerns.

 

Reserving that for Darwinism, are you?

 

(Fuck, man. I actually felt bad about that zinger. Sorry!)

 

You say religions are lies, claim you prove them again and again -- you in fact cite occam's razor, which is a principle (an heuristic maxim -- see I know Latin too!) that addresses science, economics rather than a theological discussion -- but then say it is not your job to show this proof, nor are you under any obligation. Who is running in circles here?

 

Actually, I've claimed repeatedly that it's impossible to prove a negative, but it's perfectly reasonable to mount a case against fantastic claims which sorely lack fantastic evidence.

 

Once again, religion makes physical truth claims as well as metaphysical ones. Religion intrudes on the secular world far more often, and with greater aplomb, than vice versa. We can present evidence that contradicts the sweeping claims made by religion. We needn't leave the secular world in order to discredit Christianity or Islam or any of the rest.

 

One other thing, while you're our self-appointed inquisitor, philosophical savior, and, sporactically, a self pronounced martyr, I note this:

 

Oh, look. Somebody who is pro-faith, and he's ascribing religious tags to me. This is the... seventh time this has happened? Maybe the sixth. I've lost track, honestly. Do you people ever tire of this juvenile bullshit? Yes? No? Maybe fuckin' so? Please stop dragging me down to the level of your myths. I ain't your fuckin' preacher. I ain't your fuckin' Pope. I ain't your fuckin' Daddy God-God. I don't have any interest in personally replacing these idiotic things. I don't wish to replace them with science. I don't wish to replace them with anything. I simply wish to utterly discredit and destroy them, and I wish to do so because they are false and unnecessary. Can you people honestly not fucking process this? Jesus Christ.

 

P.S., "Inquisitor" fits, I guess. Feel free!

 

I didn't see anyone appoint you with this role, so it's self-designated. But if you address (attack) only selected aspects of what people are saying you are being as disingenuous and pandering as you accuse the "flock" of being.

 

Right. As you can see, I've redoubled my efforts to respond to these threads as comprehensively as I can reasonably be expected to do. Happy now? Then let's keep this shit rolling. Why not?

 

Umm... what?

 

No idea, dude. Life's too short to deal with certain stupid comments, though. I'm outta here for the night.