Wilco and atheism

[TheMaker]

But if he is an atheist, does he not contend that there is no creator?

 

Re: humility, I humbly suggest that evangelical atheists (despite what you may say, they absolutely exist) are the very definition of arrogance. They have no better answer to the big question than anyone.

 

Well, I'm afraid your argument is rooted in a false premise, then.

 

First of all, atheism isn't a convenient tag that exists to offer up an answer to "the big question." It is fundamentally unlike religion in this and most other ways. In fact, many noted scientists, including Stephen Hawking, suggest that asking the question "What came before the Big Bang?" is akin to asking "What lies north of the North Pole?" It simply doesn't make sense to ask it.

 

Based on the nature of your line of questioning, I humbly submit that, like many believers, you are bringing your own substantial baggage to the word "atheism." Atheism is a word that makes no promises and issues no guarantees. It takes nothing for granted and is not a pacifier to be popped into one's mouth after one has been weaned off of religion. Atheism in its main form merely connotes the absence of theistic belief; it isn't a carved-in-stone philosophy that is embraced in lieu of belief in god, but rather a mere word indicating that spiritual concerns are of no consequence to the atheist. Atheism has de facto adherents, but it cannot, by its very fucking definition, have anything like a guru. This isn't tricky. This stuff shouldn't be hard for anybody to understand.

[caliber66]

Well, I'm afraid your argument is rooted in a false premise, then.

 

First of all, atheism isn't a convenient tag that exists to offer up an answer to "the big question." It is fundamentally unlike religion in this and most other ways. In fact, many noted scientists, including Stephen Hawking, suggest that asking the question "What came before the Big Bang?" is akin to asking "What lies north of the North Pole?" It simply doesn't make sense to ask it.

 

Based on the nature of your line of questioning, I humbly submit that, like many believers, you are bringing your own substantial baggage to the word "atheism." Atheism is a word that makes no promises and issues no guarantees. It takes nothing for granted and is not a pacifier to be popped into one's mouth after one has been weaned off of religion. Atheism in its main form merely connotes the absence of theistic belief; it isn't a carved-in-stone philosophy that is embraced in lieu of belief in god, but rather a mere word indicating that spiritual concerns are of no consequence to the atheist. Atheism has de facto adherents, but it cannot, by its very fucking definition, have anything like a guru. This isn't tricky. This stuff shouldn't be hard for anybody to understand.

Well, that's one thing about which I disagree with Stephen Hawking. It's an interesting question to me, and I'm disappointed he has dismissed it as not worth asking.

 

Based on your second paragraph, I humbly submit that, you are putting your own spin onto the term, and claiming I can't make blanket statements about atheists (which I am not) by making one yourself. I know for a fact that there are evangelical atheists because I have met them. Empiricism at its finest. They are not theoretical, they aren't imaginary. They just are. Whether or not they have a guru is irrelevant. If they proselytize and evangelize, they are, by the very fucking definition of the word, evangelical.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Well, everyone once in a while I take a break and contemplate Kate Winslett circa Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but yeah, I do spend quite a bit of time thinking about these sorts of things.

 

I chose to quote Hitchens because I felt what he had to say spoke directly to the subject at hand (of course, I cannot help but notice you avoided challenging the quote itself).

 

I didn't because I'm not debating the belief vs. non-belief here. That hasn't been the point. It's interesting to read.

 

The rest that you list, the premises and the differences are all created and detailed from the perspective of an atheist. It would seem to me that atheism is neither a relgion nor an absence of religion but that all of life must be viewed from the perspective of precluding any aspect of religion (except possibly "supernatural beings" which would have to be explained -- is this Freud or DC Comics superman?). And given the existence, development and growth of mankind (and allowing evolution, not Adam, Eve, two-by-two animals, etc.), you cannot posture any approach to logic outside of religion because the development of each civilization has been through deities (single gods, more gods than you can shake a stick at, gods that shake sticks ...).

 

The mere fact that you have reproduced an interesting list (tract) of definitions implies that you are setting terms of what atheism *is* by what it is *not* (again with the premises all set on the basis of atheism). I would not say that atheism is a religion but I think that you prove the point that most atheists' approach to the issue mirrors a theological approach -- seeking to convert (un)believers, self feeling of persecution etc.

 

Atheism, I would assume, takes an anthropological approach to religion; however it tries to do it under a currently existing society, one in which the atheist is part of, which muddies the sample. I think the trap many atheists fall into is they believe they are above all of the emotional issues that attached to the points you list -- that they are cool unmoved analysts -- but in fact their emotions and biases bring them to explore and reinforce the nature of what they believe -- or refuse to consider.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Of course he can't. And neither can any man-made god. The difference is that Tyson doesn't pretend to have answers to every question. The scientific community is embodied by two qualities that are wholly absent from every religion I have ever encountered: humility and rigorous analytical process.

 

You're asking a big question. Religion's stance is effectively, "Well, we have the answers, and in death, they will be revealed to you, my child. We have stopped looking, and we are content." Science, on the other hand, is saying to you, "Shit, man, that's really interesting. We are actively looking into this, and we'll get back to you."

The above should be carved in stone as an example of how an "atheist" just doesn't get it.

 

This is strictly bias of thought.

 

Every religion has "absence" of humility?!?

 

You take your little myopic view of "religion" and you say "this is what everyone thinks."

 

Just out of curiosity, what specifically are you looking into and when should we get back with you?

[Moe_Syzlak]

First I do not agree entirely with what TheMaker posted, but you have taken an equally myopic view in this entire thread. Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they fall neatly into the definitions you have provided. An atheist is merely someone who does not have an active belief in gods. Period. Anything else is baggage I would argue you and others (on both "sides") are assigning. As I said before, as an atheist, I am contending nothing. Lack of belief in something is not automatically contention in disbelief. I know that is hard to grasp, but it is the truth. The mere fact that I don't know necessitates that I do not believe in a creator. BUT I don't contend that there isn't one. I merely search for answers that may or may not include a creator.

[TheMaker]

Based on your second paragraph, I humbly submit that, you are putting your own spin onto the term, and claiming I can't make blanket statements about atheists (which I am not) by making one yourself. I know for a fact that there are evangelical atheists because I have met them. Empiricism at its finest. They are not theoretical, they aren't imaginary. They just are. Whether or not they have a guru is irrelevant. If they proselytize and evangelize, they are, by the very fucking definition of the word, evangelical.

 

I'm not going to present a history of the word atheism. Its roots are fairly obvious, and we've gone over what it means to the tune of something like four consecutive sentences in my last post. Evangelicals, on the other hand, are committed to a Christian church believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, in salvation through regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed personal life. Evangelicalism is rooted in the untestable and superstitious, whereas atheism is a word stemming from a life lived only in accordance with the observable natural world. There is no corollary here, running in either direction. Once again, spiritualists recklessly attempt to bend the definition of atheism to fit their absolutist worldview, and in so doing expose their ignorance of what atheism really signifies.

 

Christianity - idols, superstition, nonsense; religion

 

Atheism - no guru, no method, no teacher, just the facts, ma'am; not a fucking religion in any way, shape, form, nor is it a substitute for religion

 

Pitting atheism against religion is like comparing apples and airliners.

[Central Scrutinizer]

First I do not agree entirely with what TheMaker posted, but you have taken an equally myopic view in this entire thread. Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they fall neatly into the definitions you have provided. An atheist is merely someone who does not have an active belief in gods. Period. Anything else is baggage I would argue you and other (on both sides) are assigning. As I said before, as an atheist, I am contending nothing. Lack of belief in something is not automatically contention in disbelief. I know that is hard to grasp, but it is the truth. The mere fact that I don't know necessitates that I do not believe in a creator. BUT I don't contend that there isn't one. I merely search for answers that may or may not include a creator.

That is a perfectly understandable approach and premise. Again, I think caliber hit the nail on the head. There are those who believe what they believe, who conceive what they conceive and there are those that proselytize: "to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause."

 

The myopic approach has been meant only to show how the opposite can be true; that the "argument" is in approach, and preconceived notions that the true debate and discourse may never begin.

 

Repeated for emphasis and agreement: I merely search for answers that may or may not include a creator.

[TheMaker]

Just for the record, I don't agree with Moe, either. He's an agnostic wearing his atheist costume. Halloween's next month, bro.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Pitting atheism against religion is like comparing apples and airliners.

Then don't do it.

[Moe_Syzlak]

That is a perfectly understandable approach and premise. Again, I think caliber hit the nail on the head. There are those who believe what they believe, who conceive what they conceive and there are those that proselytize: "to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause."

 

The myopic approach has been meant only to show how the opposite can be true; that the "argument" is in approach, and preconceived notions that the true debate and discourse may never begin.

 

Repeated for emphasis and agreement: I merely search for answers that may or may not include a creator.

Well I think the arguments stems from an increasing desire to counter the influence of the religious evangelicals who strive to institutionalize their beliefs.

 

Just for the record, I don't agree with Moe, either. He's an agnostic wearing his atheist costume. Halloween's next month, bro.

 

To me they are the same thing. As someone who doesn't know (and who really could?), I don't have a belief in God. I will say that I have no reason at this point to even consider the existence of God. Which is to say, I would never start with that as a premise. But, until it can be disproven, I need to be intellectually honest and allow for the possibility, no matter how remote.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Just for the record, I don't agree with Moe, either. He's an agnostic wearing his atheist costume. Halloween's next month, bro.

When you atheists meet, do you have a contemporary service too?

[Central Scrutinizer]

Well I think the arguments stems from an increasing desire to counter the influence of the religious evangelicals who strive to institutionalize their beliefs.

Imagine being stuck i the middle of that then. Religious evangelicals, despite popular view, are a narrow but vocal vein. I can't speak for them so I can't defend myself against those things which I do not believe.

 

If the problems come from polarity, they have to be broken down, but from both sides of the wall.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Imagine being stuck i the middle of that then. Religious evangelicals, despite popular view, are a narrow but vocal vein. I can't speak for them so I can't defend myself against those things which I do not believe.

 

If the problems come from polarity, they have to be broken down, but from both sides of the wall.

Agreed. Which is why I think those with more reasonable beliefs should stand up and be vocal themselves. They allow themselves to be given a bad name.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Agreed. Which is why I think those with more reasonable beliefs should stand up and be vocal themselves. They allow themselves to be given a bad name.

I think many try to -- Jim Wallis is a great example of someone with a moderate view -- but they never seem to be heard because of the baggage that's dumped on them. I think that has been demonstrated in attempts within the thread and previous ones like it.

 

Again, it's not strictly a Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu thing.

[TheMaker]

Just out of curiosity, what specifically are you looking into and when should we get back with you?

 

First of all, I never claimed to be a scientist. I'm not looking into anything personally, although a lot of folks out there are looking into a lot of different things, including (but not strictly limited to) string theory, quantum gravity, the BEH mechanism, rotational speeds of galaxies, orbital velocities of clustered galaxies, galaxy evolution, and so forth. Atheism and science are not synonymous, but they flatter each other wonderfully, in my opinion. After all, it is a lack of belief that results in the kind of questing mind that is unafraid to seek verifiable answers to "the big question."

 

Fun story: In 18th Century France, there lived a famous mathematician by the name of Pierre-Simon Laplace, who crafted a five-volume work on celestial mechanics. In it, Laplace updated Isaac Newton's research by expanding it through advanced calculus, thereby opening up a broader range of solvable mathematical problems. You see, Newton, for all his contributions, was unable to explain the stability of the solar system through mathematics. In his arrogance and superstition, he resorted to invoking spirituality to explain what he could not. "This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." Laplace, however, building on Newton's knowledge and being free from the constraints of ego and overwhelming superstition, was able to figure out the gravitational fields that hold celestial bodies in place over long periods of time. (Ironically, he solved this problem using calculus, which was essentially invented by Newton.)

 

Apocryphal, yes, but absolutely poignant: When Napoleon summoned Laplace after reading his work from cover to cover, he asked him "What role does God play in the construction and regulation of the Heavens?" Laplace replied, "Sir, I had no need for that hypothesis."

 

When you atheists meet, do you have a contemporary service too?

 

Stop testing my fucking patience. If you want to have a grown-up conversation about belief, then you can't redefine what atheism is to suit your narrow, shortsighted, and ultimately imperceptive and inadequate worldview.

[caliber66]

I'm not going to present a history of the word atheism. Its roots are fairly obvious, and we've gone over what it means to the tune of something like four consecutive sentences in my last post. Evangelicals, on the other hand, are committed to a Christian church believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, in salvation through regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed personal life. Evangelicalism is rooted in the untestable and superstitious, whereas atheism is a word stemming from a life lived only in accordance with the observable natural world. There is no corollary here, running in either direction. Once again, spiritualists recklessly attempt to bend the definition of atheism to fit their absolutist worldview, and in so doing expose their ignorance of what atheism really signifies.

 

Christianity - idols, superstition, nonsense; religion

 

Atheism - no guru, no method, no teacher, just the facts, ma'am; not a fucking religion in any way, shape, form, nor is it a substitute for religion

 

Pitting atheism against religion is like comparing apples and airliners.

I'm not going to present a history of the word "evangelical". I'll just post a link to its definition.

 

See # 5: marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause.

 

If you can't understand what I mean when I speak of an evangelical atheist, you either are not competent to have this discussion or are being deliberately obtuse. In any event, I am comfortable saying that I have met and spoken with evangelical atheists, safe in the knowledge that I am right. The evangelical atheists of whom I have personal knowledge self-identified, and if there is definition-bending occurring here, it's theirs, not mine. Although, since there is no atheist orthodoxy, I'm not sure who (besides yourself) can provide the definitive meaning of the term.

 

Stop testing my fucking patience. If you want to have a grown-up conversation about belief, then you can't redefine what atheism is to suit your narrow, shortsighted, and ultimately imperceptive and inadequate worldview.

You are fucking hilarious.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Stop testing my fucking patience. If you want to have a grown-up conversation about belief, then you can't redefine what atheism is to suit your narrow, shortsighted, and ultimately imperceptive and inadequate worldview.

Oohhh .... do not tempt him!! Let us all take one shoe like him and in the say way shove it into our mouths!

[mfwahl]

When you atheists meet, do you have a contemporary service too?

Classic.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Christianity - idols, superstition, nonsense; religion

 

Atheism - no guru, no method, no teacher, just the facts, ma'am; not a fucking religion in any way, shape, form, nor is it a substitute for religion

 

Pitting atheism against religion is like comparing apples and airliners.

 

 

I've got it...you worship Van Morrison!

[TheMaker]

I think many try to -- Jim Wallis is a great example of someone with a moderate view -- but they never seem to be heard because of the baggage that's dumped on them. I think that has been demonstrated in attempts within the thread and previous ones like it.

 

Again, it's not strictly a Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu thing.

 

One of the great things about atheism that sets it apart from religion (and again, the two share absolutely nothing in common, which makes this is a very long list) is that there are no degrees of belief; there lacks a continuum which sees some atheists willing to fly planes into buildings to put an end to heresy, while other, more peaceable atheists sit around trying to reconcile their beliefs with modern notions of tolerance and diversity. Put simply, a continuum does not become the truth.

 

When you're going after truth - and I think we can at least agree that there is a set-in-stone definition for this word, that it does not involve subjectivity, and that everybody who is intellectually honest is constantly in pursuit of it - a word like "moderation" has no place in the discussion. What religious moderates are generally after is a sort of balance in which their own unjustified beliefs are respected by others with equally illogical beliefs.

 

A great deal of religious moderates have taken it upon themselves to preach pluralism, or the belief that all faiths are equally valid (a notion that is ridiculous on its face), but in so doing, they turn a blind eye to the sectarian truth claims of each religion. For instance, a Christian who believes that on Judgment Day only the "saved" will ascend to Heaven cannot possibly have any genuine respect for any belief that clashes against his own. Moderation can in some cases quiet the kind of violent jihadist tendencies that arise in, say, the Middle East with alarming frequency, but it is at best a band-aid solution, as it disallows anything critical to be said about religious literalism, which is unfortunately the root of many problems with zealotry.

 

Moderation is ultimately useless and laughable, since it refuses to call into question the core dogmas of all faiths, namely that we know there is a god, and that we know what he wants from us. A more rational stance for any moderate or agnostic to take is to simply admit that we cannot even come close to proving that there is a god, and we have no idea what he wants from us.

[Central Scrutinizer]

I've got it...you worship Van Morrison!

Lately that's getting to be like worshipping buddah.

[TheMaker]

If I were the sort of person to worship anybody, it'd probably be Van, yeah. He's real (real gone), at least.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Lately that's getting to be like worshipping buddah.

 

 

Nah...Buddha smiles...

 

 

[TheMaker]

I'm not going to present a history of the word "evangelical". I'll just post a link to its definition.

 

See # 5: marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause.

 

And I'll refer you to the first four definitions in your link, which are why I have a big problem with people who don't believe in that sort of nonsense using it to further their reasoning. It doesn't fit, so we should summarily discard it.

[caliber66]

And I'll refer you to the first four definitions in your link, which are why I have a big problem with people who don't believe in that sort of nonsense using it to further their reasoning. It doesn't fit, so we should summarily discard it.

 

There are six definitions listed. Number five is not a conditional definition, only applying if the others do as well. Since you're on a quest for truth, you can start by admitting that evangelism doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does to everyone else.