Cline's nicely schematic articles made me realize what I was looking for though, and that is more or less belief formation, rather than God or no God proofs--in terms of what theists and atheists really argue about, and whether secular humanism will continue to stand as an independent value.
I bugged out on this whole thing because... well, never mind. But this is kind of my point. There are people who believe in angels. There are people who believe that Katrina was god's retribution for the sins of New Orleans. There are people who believe that other people can connect them to the dead, and it doesn't even help if you learn "cold reading" and use it on them... then they think that YOU can talk to the dead!Originally Posted by The Atheist
Trying to make sense to these people is like trying to talk to a wall that gets angry at you.
As much as I hate Dawkins' use of the term "brights", it reflects my view of the world, for lack of a better way to describe it. I can't understand (sorry Jozanny, there it is again; my lack of understanding) believing in fairy tales. At the same time, I can't hold any dislike for theists. Heck, I'm married to one. There are some deep thinkers among them, and calling them "unbright" does not serve them well.
The world changes one person at a time, and with however many billion of us there are now, that means slowly, and it also means probably not in enough time to help anyone break the chains of theism. If that way of thinking takes what is essentially a philosophical discussion and grounds it in reality (as we know it), maybe it should connect to reality every now and then. The real goal shouldn't be the destruction of theism, it should be making sure theism doesn't impede the progress generated by atheism. The rest should take care of itself.
Really well put, right down to agreement on Dawkins and brights.
The only thing I'd change is to use "science" rather than "atheism" in the sentence quoted above.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
I have a lack of understanding as well. If you wish to participate in the discussion then do, but if you are simply objecting to the fact that I started the thread, then there are plenty of threads in which I do not post.
I am interested in atheism as a topic because:
1. I started an article for atheist markets about Christianity and football.
2. There are atheists and presumably others who read skeptic publications.
3. I like stirring the pot to get ideas.
4. I have since gotten some
5. Since Austin Cline teaches courses in atheism, there is obviously a readership available for such material.
6. I cannot say why you would or would not read such material, that is a choice for you to make, but I also fail to see why you ask the question of why anyone else would.
That hinges on my ability to make a successful pitch to an editor. I am not addressing this line of thought again.
I bugged because my questions were going off in a different direction than the main thrust of the thread; you folks were having an interesting discussion that was better for me to read than to contribute to. When it came back around to a place where I thought I had something to add, I did so.
I ask them as honest questions, not as criticisms. When I say I don't understand, it doesn't mean I don't want answers; it means I DO want answers. You just gave them, for the first time, and I thank you.
I like the thread. If I didn't, I wouldn't have read it and written in it. I don't understand (sheesh, there it is again) why you got mad at me for asking an elementary question. But that is OK, because it forced me to think about what I asked, and made me refine it until I made it clear. I think you maybe thought it was more complicated than it was. It's not that I don't have any curiosity at all, after all.
Since this is a literary forum, I will say that an article about atheism and football might be very interesting, I think. The culture of Christianity is so deeply ingrained in that sport. I would read that, as an article about modern culture. I wonder if theism and atheism clash in the locker room? I know that the mainstream press certainly dances around that clash in the military.
Sometimes, though, the whole thing reminds me of Marquez' dilemma, should we choose the tyranny of the Liberals or the tyranny of the Conservatives? Of course, he solves it (fictionally) by having them sell out to each other....
Last edited by Mosca; 08-21-2008 at 03:42 PM.
"The culture of Christianity is so deeply ingrained in that sport."
This brings to mind Arnold at Rugby, and the whole Victorian movement sometimes called "muscular Christianity." Hughes in Tom Brown's Schooldays exemplifies the fushion of Christianity with sport in public schools in England. Eventually it made its way across the pond and resulted in the YMCA.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Actually, it disappeared from rugby many years back, but has made a storming recovery over here with the influence of Polynesian players, who are almost exclusively christian.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
One thing that is very striking in this thread is the near perfect symmetry between the arguments for atheism and those for belief in God.
Both sides claim an inevitability that their side is correct, and base that on what they view as incontrovertible evidence.
Both sides tend to focus on what they believe to be the damage to society caused by the others' beliefs.
Both sides tend to see their opposite as in some way defective. In other words, both sides assume that they have indeed come to a correct and 'obvious' answer.
Also, what both sides neglect to acknowledge is that they are both derived not from an absolute truth but rather from a tradition.
Frankly I agree with J. S. Mill that it would impoverish us immensely to lose either the religious or the atheist traditions in our discourses. However I doubt sincerely that anyone has or can produce so much as a proof that a proof (that would be both logically valid and have premises that could not be legitimately questioned) for or against God's existence can be formulated.
aude sapere
"why atheists need to fear *giving offense* to believers"
You don't have to have any such fear, especially in the USA which believes in and practices disestablishment.
When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent
~ Isaac Asimov
I do not think it is the end of history on the matter, however. It may never be possible to prove or disprove deity as an ontological reality, but even though I never took my doctorate, I think it is safe to say that I am an issue writer, in theory a revisionist too, and I keep looking for things I might get paid for outside of medical/disability activism and culture.
Not that anyone here cares, but I no longer submit material other than poetry, occasionally weaker fiction, for contributor copies. I stopped working for a few months because of xxx with public housing, and xxx with my four year old Quickie--and have I solved xxx? No, but this is where in anger I feel if Protestants really practiced what they preached, I would not always be fighting back against my country's unforgiving and punishing social system for the poor and the disabled like myself who matriculated up but fell back into the rabbit hole.
I know--I am posting about my own experience and that may breach etiquette, but stuff etiquette.
I agree with you though that after a bit of bush-whacking, the thread has an informative palette--but I've run dry on framing issues in such a way so that they do not cause indignation.
Hopefully there may be more fruitful fields to harvest in the future.
Odd you should see that, I haven't noticed any particularly strong atheists here.
I think the biggest thing you've missed, and I know this applies to almost all of the atheists I know - we are open to any and all evidence which leads to a different conclusion than "not god". I find that attitude extremely rare amongst theists.
Understanding the difference between faith & evidence would lead you to think differently as well.
Now I see your mistake.
I don't see atheists claiming inevitability of correctness, and in terms of incontrovertible evidence, I have never seen an atheist claiming evidence of their atheism, since it isn't something requiring evidence of any kind. Exactly the opposite in fact.
You appear to be indulging in the theists' favourite strawman of atheism.
Godwin et al & see below.
See above.
Again, this smacks of a simple strawman. Where does this happen? Can you show examples? You must know some peculiar atheists.
I'm personally all in favour of retaining religion and couldn't give two hoots about proof. The only problem I have with religion is when certain cults and sects choose to indulge in lying and abuse - creationists trying to have Genesis taught as fact, telling kids the Grand Canyon was formed 6000 years ago, not allowing children to have life-saving blood transfusions because it's an affront to their god, forcing women to wear burqa - those kind of things make my blood boil. I'm sorry, if you want to accuse me of putting the knife into the opposition, so be it. If theists can show any way atheism/humanism does any harm at all, I'd love to see it.
I correspond with lots of christians whose brains and attitude I have immense respect for and I certainly accept that christianity does far more good than harm. (nowadays)
What I won't stand for is bible-literalist idiots who would shut the door on science to preserve their money-raking church congregations, oppressive societies and other human rights abuses in the name of a myth.
If that makes me a zealot, I'll gladly hold the torch for zealotry.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Atheist: I think the problem with seeing strong atheist posts is that if strong atheists wrote them, they would be deleted. By way of example, even though I dislike all of Christianity, including Roman Catholicism, Mormonism is a particular U.S. brand, and I have been fairly amazed at its success, and most intellectually hostile to it, since my upper track history classes, where I did a term paper on Joseph Smith.
It is a rare and lucky feature writer--and I know of one or two--who can get away with deconstructing The Church of Latter Day Saints.
But believers get their feelings hurt and take on the role of *victim*, which is amazing, because to my mind, much of Smith's prophecy is about degradation and bigotry.
I am more zealous against religion than what you read here--but the problem lies in the forms of engagement we can apply. On boards like these, mocking doctrine leads to flaming leads to moderator admonishment and greater disciplinary measures.
Mainstream media will only allow a push back against mainstream established churches to a degree; magazines like DoubleTake, which allow more, as well as having been beautifully produced, fail, which is a shame. It was a fantastic product, a cut above the mindlessly boring literary journal, and yet willing to take more chances than inane commercial WI like Woman's Day. (WI =woman's interest markets).
I really need a community of published writers to engage with again, damn it. (Growls) But what can I do? I can't replace what I've lost, merely adapt, and LN certainly has diversity but not the professional class of authors who taught me so much.
In theory, censorship on the non-believer is decried, but in practice still rather effectively enforced, and that is not another way of saying I think flaming should be allowed, simply that examining anything in depth is nearly impossible in an almost universal-access public domain community like this.
Probably true - I know I can't keep it together for long.
Couldn't agree more, and I know a couple of ex-Mormons who were traumatised by their time in the church.
Correct, but then this is a board for a specific purpose and I think we should probably be glad to have your little corner to come and chat in now! The atheist v theist battle isn't a literature one, although I'd like to think the side I'm on is at least literate.
No surprise there - that's just ensuring you don't upset your largest market in USA. Even in heathen places like NZ, churches aren't attacked, but it's more to do with preserving other sacred cows than religion itself. In times where universal culturalism is seen as desirable, attacking the christian churches leaves the door open for attacks on islam and native culture and that's a definite no-no.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Ah, but it has philosophical implications that do spill over into literary engagement, which is a nice justification for not making the thread vanish
Re:
http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.c...wn-on-pbs.html
Here is the actual site.
Duh
I saw parts of this series in the U.S. and would pay money to see it again; it was a very well done historical summary and had a thesis of its own brewing.
Last edited by Jozanny; 08-23-2008 at 05:32 AM. Reason: graphics
Looks an interesting one. Getting air time is the important thing.
Small steps...
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Posting Permissions
