Wilco and atheism

[Tanner]

Personally, I have never understood Atheism. I can understand someone not brought up in Christianity or religion or any higher power belief system to not believe in God or a god. But eventually, how does one not conclude that SOMETHING beyond our imagination or comprehension is over-seeing or looking upon everything?

 

 

Just the fact we exist and can see and can think and can care and taste the sweetness of a strawberry....NO WAY is that all an accident.

 

 

The thought of death being final...lights out...nothing....black.....I don't believe it.

 

 

Plus, I've always thought that infants or children who lose their life to an accident or disease got totally screwed. I've gotta believe they go somewhere to live life....or maybe they get to come back as Mick Jagger or someone who's got to live an amazing life.

 

Mick Jagger is an atheist.

[Tanner]

Atheist here. I was just sick for two days so I listened to The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I seriously recommend it to everyone. I'm not saying a man has the answer to the perennial questions, but Dawkins is very insightful.

 

On a separate note, this girl in my zoology class today was visibly upset by our discussion of evolution. She screamed "Creationism is truth" and ran out. I was hysterical.

[i'm only sleeping]

Personally, I have never understood Atheism. I can understand someone not brought up in Christianity or religion or any higher power belief system to not believe in God or a god. But eventually, how does one not conclude that SOMETHING beyond our imagination or comprehension is over-seeing or looking upon everything?

 

 

Just the fact we exist and can see and can think and can care and taste the sweetness of a strawberry....NO WAY is that all an accident.

 

 

The thought of death being final...lights out...nothing....black.....I don't believe it.

 

 

Plus, I've always thought that infants or children who lose their life to an accident or disease got totally screwed. I've gotta believe they go somewhere to live life....or maybe they get to come back as Mick Jagger or someone who's got to live an amazing life.

 

A perfect example of wishful thinking. All superstitions, sorry, I meant religions, are based on the same incredulity, already predated by bishop Paley, desperately seeking for a watchmaker

I

[fineartoflife]

A perfect example of wishful thinking. All superstitions, sorry, I meant religions, are based on the same incredulity, already predated by bishop Paley, desperately seeking for a watchmaker

I

[Panther]

A perfect example of wishful thinking. All superstitions, sorry, I meant religions, are based on the same incredulity, already predated by bishop Paley, desperately seeking for a watchmaker

I

[i'm only sleeping]

A perfect example of wishful thinking. All superstitions, sorry, I meant religions, are based on the same incredulity, already predated by bishop Paley, desperately seeking for a watchmaker

I

[Panther]

Well, basically I concur with all you say. I should add that we atheists are (or at least can be) as spiritual as anybody, including Einstein, monks and popes of all sorts. And Tweedy, of course, one of the most spiritual artists I have notice.

For me creativity has nothing to do with religions, fairy tales, etc. but with searching of the beauty, the pattern, the process. This is inside art and science, and atheists should thank nonexistent gods only by the great work has inspired in the past. However, gods are no longer necessary when you assume you

[Moe_Syzlak]

fair enough, but I think there is a pretension in atheism that kills its ability for objectivity.

You could say the exact opposite, as well. Atheists (or more accurately, agnostics -- same thing in my mind, but we won't go there again) are not attributing the world's mysteries to some unknown being. An atheist might be more inclined to build powerful telescopes to peer into the origins of the universe, whereas a person of faith might be less inclined because well, they "know" the answer: God did it. The truth is that is a specious argument and objectivity can and does exist among those of faith and those without it.

[Central Scrutinizer]

You could say the exact opposite, as well. Atheists (or more accurately, agnostics -- same thing in my mind, but we won't go there again) are not attributing the world's mysteries to some unknown being. An atheist might be more inclined to build powerful telescopes to peer into the origins of the universe, whereas a person of faith might be less inclined because well, they "know" the answer: God did it. The truth is that is a specious argument and objectivity can and does exist among those of faith and those without it.

These sort of generalities get both sides of the argument in trouble. What you say about "a person of faith" is absolute bullshit. The search for -- or against -- fath is a lifelong journey. Someone who ceases to question the existence is just as mentally and spiritually bankrupt as one who is absolute certain of its absense.

 

You would probably be amazed at the number of scientists that are Christias, Jews, Muslim etc.

 

On the other hand there are a great number of atheists -- or agnostics (despite the nature of the term) who find it impossible to give the honest answer, "I don't know."

[Central Scrutinizer]

fair enough, but I think there is a pretension in atheism that kills its ability for objectivity. The world is a mysterious place and one day we are going to understand how the pyramids were built and all that ancient knowledge that archeologists hope they will find will be found and we will understand how blind we have been and we will know who we really are because lets face the facts at this point we have no fucking clue.

 

I think I understand what you mean by gods are no longer necessary and I think I agree with you, but it seems to me that atheism is more about letting the religious fanatics

know how insane they are and yes they are in many cases. But it doesn

[Good Old Neon]

I may, in a sense, be reading more into your intentions here (although, based on past posts, I don't think so) and I think you make a few great points here that are falling on deaf ears.

 

The "pretentiousness" that you allude to, can be restated as people who practice "devout athiesm." The are evangelic about it. And often there are emotions and personal issues behind the zeal. Faith, existence, is an intellectual argument and there should be pleasure and enlightenment in the pursuit. It shouldn't be a reverse witch hunt.

 

The bible -- both old testament and ew -- has value regardless of belief or lack of, because it is at its heart the history of a people. The old testament has a book called "Kings," because the poeple called out to their god to give them a king, a partriarch in their own image of a leader (think a circumsized Swarzenegger). The leaders in the bible are fallable, foolish, vain, boorish and frequently wrong. And despite that, it just doesn't matter. Because despite one side or the other's confidence, it's all out of our hands.

 

There is a failing in

 

It could be argued that

[caliber66]

In my opinion, an individual can no more be a devout atheist, as he or she can be a devout oceanographer, or a devout paleontologist or a devout cosmologist or a devout advocate of the existance of gravity. Atheism is not a faith, at it's core lies the pursuit and application of knowledge and reason - two attributes that are dreadfully lacking as of late - at least within the public/political sphere.

The oceanographer does not deny the existence of the sky. The paleontologist does not deny the existence of living animals. If an atheist were to be able to explain the existence of the universe, I would renounce my belief in a higher power.

[Good Old Neon]

The oceanographer does not deny the existence of the sky. The paleontologist does not deny the existence of living animals. If an atheist were to be able to explain the existence of the universe, I would renounce my belief in a higher power.

 

So it then follows that because we cannot say with certainty why or how the universe came to exist, the only viable alternative is the belief in a higher power? A higher power for which no evidence exists, aside from a book written by folks who

[TheMaker]

When in doubt, make shit up, Jack's War. It worked for some of the greatest minds in history, after all.

 

 

Neil Degrasse Tyson is one of atheism's most affable spokesmen, and he is a far cry from the angry, smug, and generally miserable Hitchenses and Dawkinses that have become atheism's public face in recent years (but damn, I do love Hitch). It'd be great if the believers in this thread would take a few minutes to watch the video in the above link and consider the intellectual grounds for Tyson's argument. Also, do a YouTube search for Sam Harris and watch him debate theologists for a few hours. That guy is fucking incredible. He's humourless, like Dawkins and Hitch, but he's not angry. He's a bit cold, and he's a dead ringer for Ben Stiller, but all the man cares about is truth and objectivity. He's almost rabid about it.

 

I may actually be the board's most vocal atheist (hell, it inspired my avatar/user pic/whatever for a long old time), but this doesn't really belong in the Wilco forum.

[caliber66]

So it then follows that because we cannot say with certainty why or how the universe came to exist, the only viable alternative is the belief in a higher power? A higher power for which no evidence exists, aside from a book written by folks who

[Central Scrutinizer]

It could be argued that

[Central Scrutinizer]

When in doubt, make shit up, Jack's War. It worked for some of the greatest minds in history, after all.

 

 

Neil Degrasse Tyson is one of atheism's most affable spokesmen, and he is a far cry from the angry, smug, and generally miserable Hitchenses and Dawkinses that have become atheism's public face in recent years (but damn, I do love Hitch). It'd be great if the believers in this thread would take a few minutes to watch the video in the above link and consider the intellectual grounds for Tyson's argument. Also, do a YouTube search for Sam Harris and watch him debate theologists for a few hours. That guy is fucking incredible. He's humourless, like Dawkins and Hitch, but he's not angry. He's a bit cold, and he's a dead ringer for Ben Stiller, but all the man cares about is truth and objectivity. He's almost rabid about it.

 

I may actually be the board's most vocal atheist (hell, it inspired my avatar/user pic/whatever for a long old time), but this doesn't really belong in the Wilco forum.

Actually there was a vote and you was second-most vocal atheist (the other guy isn't around anymore, something about locusts and boils).

 

Seriously, I enjoy listening and viewing all input on the subject. And I have read about Tyson. It is interesting stuff.

 

It's foolish, however, that people pursue this as a debate to be *won.* Your tone and proclamation of affiliation comes across like a disciple, trying to evangelize for converts. I don't know. You don't know. I have my beliefs that evolve. I hope yours are too.

 

This thread (and previous ones, as Analogman has pointed out) started on the basis of spirituality themes in Tweedy's songs.

[Good Old Neon]

Your second paragraph is the best. That is the test of any empirical or spiritual pursuit -- and I mean spiritually as in philosophically as well as theologically.

 

You fail greatly in the first graph in foolishly believing Christians applies a literal reading of the Bible. And the last paragraph is just a lie. As I said there are countless renown physicists, scientists, "thinkers" in successful "intellectual pursuits" whose lives embody Christian (EDIT: and other spiritual and religious) beliefs and values and it doesn't seem to hold them back.

 

All intellectual and emotional pursuits ultimately chase the same questions -- "who am I?" and "why am I here?"

 

Yes, but for the better part of two thousand years, Christians did just that, interpreted the bible literally

[caliber66]

Find me one credible scientist who truly believes the earth is only six thousand years old, or that dinosaurs co-existed with man.

You are describing a small subset of Christians.

[Good Old Neon]

You are describing a small subset of Christians.

 

Now, go back a few hundred years and the percentage would be skewed heavily in favor of the new earth creationist view. How many biblical claims must be disproved before we finally get to the center of the tootsie pop, only to find it hollow?

[caliber66]

Now, go back a few hundred years and the percentage would be skewed heavily in favor of the new earth creationist view. How many biblical claims must be disproved before we finally get to the center of the tootsie pop, only to find it hollow?

Ok. You think Christianity is false. I know. Everybody on the board knows. The "undiscovered" Amazon tribe in Brazil got the press release.

 

Explain to me how our universe blinked into being, since science says matter can be neither created nor destroyed.

[Good Old Neon]

Ok. You think Christianity is false. I know. Everybody on the board knows. The "undiscovered" Amazon tribe in Brazil got the press release.

 

Explain to me how our universe blinked into being, since science says matter can be neither created nor destroyed.

 

I cannot, and I openly admit that

[Good Old Neon]

It's foolish, however, that people pursue this as a debate to be *won.* Your tone and proclamation of affiliation comes across like a disciple, trying to evangelize for converts. I don't know. You don't know. I have my beliefs that evolve. I hope yours are too.

 

This I have a problem with

[MattZ]

Explain to me how our universe blinked into being, since science says matter can be neither created nor destroyed.

 

Our understanding of the world around us evolves. We don't yet know the answer to your question, and frankly, we may never know. Science certainly doesn't have an answer today. But there were many other things that science could not explain 100s of years ago that it can now explain. Given this current dynamic and the progress that science makes, I am much more willing to accept that either (1) science will eventually get to a point where this mystery can be explained, or (2) science will never get to that point because our brains aren't sophisticated enough to understand concepts like infinity or "the beginning".

 

I am much more willing to accept my own (and our own collective) ignorance than I am willing to attribute that which I cannot understand to something that I cannot see and there is little to no evidence for.

 

Just my two cents.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Yes, but for the better part of two thousand years, Christians did just that, interpreted the bible literally