Wilco and atheism

[Central Scrutinizer]

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.

I think there is a spirtuality to Tweedy and his music. In Sunken Treasure he says the spiritual song is "so fearful" but fearful has different meanings. "We are all of god's money" means that if there is one, our humanity and love of life and world is as worshipful as you need to be. Living life well would seem to be tithing enough to most religions.

[bjorn_skurj]

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!).

Seeing the loaves and fishes thing on acid would be HEAVY, man.

[Sir Stewart]

Seeing the loaves and fishes thing on acid would be HEAVY, man.

"Don't eat the brown acid, unless you want to see Lazarus wake up from the dead."

[Central Scrutinizer]

"Don't eat the brown acid, unless you want to see Lazarus wake up from the dead."

Maybe if we can think real hard we can stop all this rain, NO RAIN! NO RAIN! NO RAIN! ...

 

... damn."

 

-- Noah

[sweetheart-mine]

I think there is a spirtuality to Tweedy and his music. In Sunken Treasure he says the spiritual song is "so fearful" but fearful has different meanings. "We are all of god's money" means that if there is one, our humanity and love of life and world is as worshipful as you need to be. Living life well would seem to be tithing enough to most religions.

by "fearful," he meant the song was born out of fear, imo; fear was its source. and possibly that it is ultimately fearmongering. "satan, your kingdom must come down" -- i have to agree with jt.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Your belief system says there's no god, why ask why? You argue with passion and conviction about your position.

I am only disputing your characterization of my beliefs, not whether or not god(s) exist. You still do not seem to understand my position. I do not have a belief system that says there is no god(s). There is an inherent difference between that and an absence in the belief of god(s). I merely ask that you not tell me that an absence in the belief of something you can give me no good reason to believe in is in itself an active disbelief in god(s). I'm not saying god(s) necessarily don't exist; I am saying that there is no good reason to consider that they do (for me at least). No more of a good reason than considering the existence of gnomes, purple holes or Santa Claus. All so-called proofs for the existence of God (which as we discussed earlier seems contrary to the notion of faith) start with the premise that there is a God. Me rejecting that premise doesn't mean I necessarily actively disbelieve in God. It's called an open mind. I am certainly open to someone providing me with a good reason (i.e. proof) that god(s) do exist. But I didn't come up with the premise and I'm not the one asserting it. But again, this is where we get into the circular argument of faith. Because the absence of faith in a premise is not an active disbelief ... and on ... and on... and on....

[sweetheart-mine]

the only thing that makes sense to me is "I don't know, and neither do you."

 

that's the perfect summary.

[Central Scrutinizer]

by "fearful," he meant the song was born out of fear, imo; fear was its source. and possibly that it is ultimately fearmongering. "satan, your kingdom must come down" -- i have to agree with jt.

You are probably right, but he didn't explain what he meant and I wouldn't suppose what he meant. That is not what "fear" meant biblically -- and not in the context of early folk songs. The translation of fear means of reverence, overwhelmed, awed obeyance. People were afraid of evil, the unknown, oppression, tyranny, and out of their own ignorance. Comfort and protection of a creator bonded these songs to the people and emboldened their faith, not buying into the equivalent of a midieval televangelist trying to scare them out of their farm implement.

 

Just as blood of the lamb doesn't celebrate an approach to knifing mutton.

 

Given my perception of Tweedy's sprituality, I would like to believe he implied that reference, but it would be up to him to clarify.

[sweetheart-mine]

You are probably right, but he didn't explain what he meant and I wouldn't suppose what he meant. That is not what "fear" meant biblically -- and not in the context of early folk songs. The translation of fear means of reverence, overwhelmed, awed obeyance. People were afraid of evil, the unknown, oppression, tyranny, and out of their own ignorance. Comfort and protection of a creator bonded these songs to the people and emboldened their faith, not buying into the equivalent of a midieval televangelist trying to scare them out of their farm implement.

 

Just as blood of the lamb doesn't celebrate an approach to knifing mutton.

 

Given my perception of Tweedy's sprituality, I would like to believe he implied that reference, but it would be up to him to clarify.

yes, i'm aware of those biblical meanings. i doubt very much that tweedy was using the word in those senses. no, he didn't explain what he meant, but common sense because of the context, not to mention taking into account too many lyrics of his to quote, informed my *opinion.* it's an opinion, a supposing, that's all. most of what everyone is writing in this thread includes suppositions, including a number of yours.

 

i'm still with viatroy: in the end, i don't know and you don't either. it's one of the heartaches and beauties of life.

[Central Scrutinizer]

I am only disputing your characterization of my beliefs, not whether or not god(s) exist. You still do not seem to understand my position. I do not have a belief system that says there is no god(s). There is an inherent difference between that and an absence in the belief of god(s). I merely ask that you not tell me that an absence in the belief of something you can give me no good reason to believe in is in itself an active disbelief in god(s). I'm not saying god(s) necessarily don't exist; I am saying that there is no good reason to consider that they do (for me at least). No more of a good reason than considering the existence of gnomes, purple holes or Santa Claus. All so-called proofs for the existence of God (which as we discussed earlier seems contrary to the notion of faith) start with the premise that there is a God. Me rejecting that premise doesn't mean I necessarily actively disbelieve in God. It's called an open mind. I am certainly open to someone providing me with a good reason (i.e. proof) that god(s) do exist. But I didn't come up with the premise and I'm not the one asserting it. But again, this is where we get into the circular argument of faith. Because the absence of faith in a premise is not an active disbelief ... and on ... and on... and on....

I'm saying you have a belief system -- those things which you believe to be true, those decisions you've made on how to live your life, whether you think killing is o.k., to tip 15% or 20%, to not lie (or to lie). Whether god or no god enters into that makes no difference. You have what you believe that makes you who you are and guides your decisions. That's all that I meant. You hold those decisions dear and defend them because that's what you believe to be true (again god, or even the question of existence doesn't have anything to do with it. Throw god out the door, put him in a box, fix him up with the underpants gnome.) Again, I'm saying you have a system of things you believe to be true, thus and so -- and that guides your life and you adhere to it. How you arrived at it, I can't understand, nor should I even profess to know enough to want to try to argue you out of it. It works for you and makes you who you are. You shouldn't have to defend it, I don't feel threatened by it. I would hope whatever I think wouldn't threaten you -- that I wouldn't threaten you with it -- and that you respect it. I feel you do. Please understand my feeling is likewise.

 

What I draw is a parallel of the system your psyche, intellect, soul etc. derived guides you as someone who may have ekked out their own system that somewhere includes a belief in a creator, or whatever. You and he may behave from the same principles agree on all aspects but the question of god/no god or whether that is or should even be such a question. Your way works for you, his way works for him and you're capable of co-existing. What's important is people can come to that last conclusion for whatever reason and act and behave justly.

 

Let me buy you a drink!

[Central Scrutinizer]

yes, i'm aware of those biblical meanings. i doubt very much that tweedy was using the word in those senses. no, he didn't explain what he meant, but common sense because of the context, not to mention taking into account too many lyrics of his to quote, informed my *opinion.* it's an opinion, a supposing, that's all. most of what everyone is writing in this thread includes suppositions, including a number of yours.

 

i'm still with viatroy: in the end, i don't know and you don't either. it's one of the heartaches and beauties of life.

 

I would hope from his phrase -- and your use of it -- that you imply I don't know myself. I know myself more than anyone and you certainly wouldn't profess to know whether that's true or not.

 

I don't know you and you don't know me. But as long as we co-exist and find a means to do so justly, that's all that matters. That is the point I've been trying to make all along.

[sweetheart-mine]

I would hope from his phrase -- and your use of it -- that you imply I don't know myself. I know myself more than anyone and you certainly wouldn't profess to know whether that's true or not.

 

I don't know you and you don't know me. But as long as we co-exist and find a means to do so justly, that's all that matters. That is the point I've been trying to make all along.

i didn't and don't profess to know anything about you at all, except now you offered moe a drink and not me. but it's okay, honest!

[Moe_Syzlak]

I'm saying you have a belief system -- those things which you believe to be true, those decisions you've made on how to live your life, whether you think killing is o.k., to tip 15% or 20%, to not lie (or to lie). Whether god or no god enters into that makes no difference. You have what you believe that makes you who you are and guides your decisions. That's all that I meant. You hold those decisions dear and defend them because that's what you believe to be true (again god, or even the question of existence doesn't have anything to do with it. Throw god out the door, put him in a box, fix him up with the underpants gnome.) Again, I'm saying you have a system of things you believe to be true, thus and so -- and that guides your life and you adhere to it. How you arrived at it, I can't understand, nor should I even profess to know enough to want to try to argue you out of it. It works for you and makes you who you are. You shouldn't have to defend it, I don't feel threatened by it. I would hope whatever I think wouldn't threaten you -- that I wouldn't threaten you with it -- and that you respect it. I feel you do. Please understand my feeling is likewise.

 

What I draw is a parallel of the system your psyche, intellect, soul etc. derived guides you as someone who may have ekked out their own system that somewhere includes a belief in a creator, or whatever. You and he may behave from the same principles agree on all aspects but the question of god/no god or whether that is or should even be such a question. Your way works for you, his way works for him and you're capable of co-existing. What's important is people can come to that last conclusion for whatever reason and act and behave justly.

 

Let me buy you a drink!

Okay, that seems pretty far off from the original point...

 

This is a key point. For to believe in the absence of god, due to lack of proof, is faith -- that proof against it will eventually be found, since it doesn't exist as we know it.

 

Hey, I'm a cherry ghost!

 

 

This is not true. The burden of proof is not on the atheist. That would presuppose theism for which there is no support... except faith. It's a circular argument and one which serves little purpose, IMO. If you have faith and it works for you, great! But the absence of faith does not REQUIRE faith. I don't assert that God does NOT exist; I merely do not accept the premise that God DOES exist.

 

... but hey, I'm always up for a drink! Cheers! sweetheart-mine, you can come too!

[yermom]

What's this thread all about?

A picture is worth a thousand words, yknow...

Break out the Blackberry jam, I'm ready to give this Eucharist thing a go.

[Central Scrutinizer]

i didn't and don't profess to know anything about you at all, except now you offered moe a drink and not me. but it's okay, honest!

Bartender ...

[Central Scrutinizer]

Okay, that seems pretty far off from the original point...

 

 

 

 

 

 

... but hey, I'm always up for a drink! Cheers! sweetheart-mine, you can come too!

 

You wanna boil all of that down to a Reader's Digest version?

 

Cheers!!

[uncool2pillow]

Okay, so I work part-time at a bookstore. Tonight, a guy comments that we sell a lot of witchcraft books. "I wouldn't want to be responsible for that when Jesus comes." Later he comments, "Hmm... Dragonology. Do people think that stuff's not real? I mean, you sell that stuff to kids!"

 

Turns out the guy was buying a calendar and picture books and using a check from his Baptist Mission. I don't know if that's how people imagine their charitable donations being spent, but who am I to judge?

[TheMaker]

Someone said that an atheist is simply an angry agnostic...

 

Someone also said that there are no atheists in foxholes. As a very content atheist, trust me when I say with confidence that both men were, and continue to be, dead wrong.

 

P.S., Congratulations on winning the argument using actual logic, Moe. But they'll never get it. Brainwashing runs hard and deep.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Someone also said that there are no atheists in foxholes. As a very content atheist, trust me when I say with confidence that both men were, and continue to be, dead wrong.

 

P.S., Congratulations on winning the argument using actual logic, Moe. But they'll never get it. Brainwashing runs hard and deep.

Sorry but no one won this civil debate. I understand that we've all been put upon by people foisting their religion upon us, forcing their beliefs but the consensus -- and the points that were raised on both sides throughout -- is, in the words of Timothy Leary "Fucking think for yourself." You believe/or don't believe what you want to believe.

 

Getting militant about atheism is as foolish as foisting tracts at the airport.

 

There is no such thing as pure logic. Your emotions and biases wouldn't have brought you to toss this grenade into the room. If you believe you've come upon calling yourself "an athiest" by pure logic, then you are practicing self brain washing, and refuse to listen to logic that challenges your biases. It is exactly what you accuse "believers" of. And you don't even realize it.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Okay, that seems pretty far off from the original point...

 

 

 

 

 

 

... but hey, I'm always up for a drink! Cheers! sweetheart-mine, you can come too!

 

Just to do that Readers Digest thing, here are my comments throughout this thread -- including the first one, which has been my point all along:

 

If I'm wrong, I'll be whacked by many dingbat sticks, but Theologians doesn't deal with faith vs. atheism. It's that those who profess to know, don't truly know.

 

It's like saying "Rock Lobster" protests offshore drilling.

Excellent point. It's not the destination, it's the journey.

Here's one from Tweedy himself that I posted way earlier:

This was obviously from a few years ago from Calvin College (Nov. 10 is a Monday this year). http://www.calvin.edu/admin/sao/calendar/i...jeff_tweedy.htm

"I think we live in a culture that is spiritually sick and could really use an environment that values spirituality again," he told Paste magazine following rehab from an addiction to painkillers. "The whole point of any religion I've read about is you're not alone. ... I find music to be incredibly spiritual whether or not it has any of that content whatsoever. That's why it's such an elemental part of our lives."

 

There's only one sure way to gather true evidence, and we all know what that is. I'm not ready to do that field research.

 

(my comment was reposted below but here is the comment I was responding to) I meant to also say that atheists aren't any more or less arrogant than fundamentalists of any religion that claim to have the truth, and the only truth.

 

This is a key point. For to believe in the absence of god, due to lack of proof, is faith -- that proof against it will eventually be found, since it doesn't exist as we know it.

 

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.

 

There's no semantics about arguing it, and I think this goes back to Tweedy's songs. I DON'T KNOW. YOU DON'T KNOW. There's only one way to prove there is or isn't a god (or God). And that's by dying and demonstrating your soul, arete, everlasting-gobstopper, etc. ceases to be, or goes on.

 

An athiest believes there is no God. Refusing to accept the premise of g/God is a belief -- one that I wouldn't argue you out of (though within Christianity, I would not be doing my job if I didn't try). By refusing to accept the existing you believe there's an absence.

 

I hope neither of us prove ourself right or wrong any time soon!

 

Those are from the original first two pages. You believe what you believe. Whether that involves even addressing the question of god/no god, what you believe about yourself, life and everything is a combination of your logic mixed in with your biases, emotion, whims, fancy. To say you've arrived at where you're at with some Vulcan logic approach is as self-delusional as someone praying for winning lottery numbers.

 

Logic leads you to question values, beliefs assumptions -- in others, but also your own -- how you judge others and reflect on what others say mold your beliefs.

 

1 last thing to try to clarify throughout these posts "beliefs" =/= "belief in God or even addressing that question. It is those closely held ideas, values, emotions that guide you in self defined principles and approaches to life.

 

Anyone who continues to try to make this thread -- or accuse me of making this an argument of belivers vs. athiests is full of heifer dust.

 

Have a nice day!

[jakobnicholas]

Just an innocent passerby here.

 

 

Interesting thread.

 

 

 

 

I'll side with One Wing.

 

 

I'm a life-long Catholic, but totally understand almost all sides of this debate. It's true....none of us know for sure. That's why it's called faith. That's all we have. I can understand those less fortuanate, especially the disabled or the disease-inflicted or those with suffering family members, being doubtful if God exists. Mother Theresa herself questioned what kind of god would allow the suffering and starvation in 3rd world countries. Again, it's all faith. And a huge, huge majority of the faithful lead good, strong, caring, hopeful lives because they think a Heaven exists. And because of their beliefs, and because of their good thoughts and work ethic and love of family and life, this world is a much better place.

[sweetheart-mine]

Just an innocent passerby here.

 

Interesting thread.

 

I'll side with One Wing.

 

 

I'm a life-long Catholic, but totally understand almost all sides of this debate. It's true....none of us know for sure. That's why it's called faith. That's all we have. I can understand those less fortuanate, especially the disabled or the disease-inflicted or those with suffering family members, being doubtful if God exists. Mother Theresa herself questioned what kind of god would allow the suffering and starvation in 3rd world countries. Again, it's all faith. And a huge, huge majority of the faithful lead good, strong, caring, hopeful lives because they think a Heaven exists. And because of their beliefs, and because of their good thoughts and work ethic and love of family and life, this world is a much better place.

 

i wouldn't be able to side with anyone -- i've agreed with things said by moe and with things said by one wing. (actually, sometimes they seem to be saying the same thing.) some "people of faith" do what you describe. some don't. i've seen a lot of damage done by some of them, both from a distance and from up close and personal. even if that weren't the case, in no way do they have a corner on leading "good, strong, caring, hopeful lives" and "good thoughts and work ethic and love of family and life."

[Moe_Syzlak]

I can understand those less fortuanate, especially the disabled or the disease-inflicted or those with suffering family members, being doubtful if God exists.

I think this discussion is so yesterday, but I just want to point out that this is exactly the reason I presented my thoughts on the issue. Why is faith the starting point and it takes some misfortune to cause someone to lose it? There is no reason to start with faith other than the teachings of those that have raised you. At some point in life, you may feel "touched" by God and that may cause you to have faith. But you weren't born with that. God -- at least our various images of God (god(s) could exist -- I don't know, you don't know and so forth) -- are human creations.

[sweetheart-mine]

I think this discussion is so yesterday, but I just want to point out that this is exactly the reason I presented my thoughts on the issue. Why is faith the starting point and it takes some misfortune to cause someone to lose it? There is no reason to start with faith other than the teachings of those that have raised you. At some point in life, you may feel "touched" by God and that may cause you to have faith. But you weren't born with that. God -- at least our various images of God (god(s) could exist -- I don't know, you don't know and so forth) -- are human creations.

you know, let's just have that drink. i'm trying to get off a med and am no good today anyway.

[Central Scrutinizer]

i wouldn't be able to side with anyone

That is the point. That is the point. You believe what you want to believe. Side with the Seeds but don't side with anyone but yourself. Whatever you believe about life the world -- whatever -- that makes you comfortable about who you are and what is what. I have tried to make that point every which way. skol!