The "New Atheisim" Classic or Dud

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/01/06/bus460.jpg

or blap

Nice t-shirt

I'd apostise it.

Pneumatic in an atheistic way

Nice t-shirt

tl; dnr

it's such a terrible slogan.

The AtheiSims

"Probably no God" = New Agnosticism, surely.

Definitely Maybe

The woman behind this campaign (possibly the broad in the photo) is a scriptwriter for Two Pints of Lager and A Packet of Crisps.

This should've been called Rolling "Humanists" Who Actively Hate Human Beings Thread.

that show really IS proof there is no god </panel>

^^^this guy brings content

sadly xpost, NRQ

</panel show writer> i mean

The thing is, religious people hold ghastly views, and they're not moderates like Richard "Jews monopolize American foreign policy" Dawkins.

that show really IS proof there is no god

On the contrary, only something beyond human comprehension and possibly divine could explain the BBC continuing to commission it

Dawkins is cleverer than you and his mum has bought him a t-shirt to prove it.

I must say he fills it out well

would blap agnostic t-shirt girl x1000

Joking aside, someone really should brutally knife-rape Richard Dawkins and then leave his dying body in a ditch somewhere.

but you have the highest testosterone count on ilx, this is established fact xpost

(she is pretty, to be fair)

Rob Daly at 10:40, on 02 January.
VERY interesting, quite a few assumptions there? Not interested how my mother votes eh? Also interesting. Oh and "true born" - good lord, I can't believe you actually wrote that, what are you, some kind of BNP nut job? And before you say I'm black, I'm black! some black people voted BNP (one of their candidates was black), they undoubtedly would spout the same bigoted nonsense about "true born" Londoners as you.

racial puppetry in right wing comments

jordan otm as hell

blappable agnostic t-shirt girl is "a television comedy writer and journalist from London. She's written for My Family, Countdown and the NME"

I got nothing.

Classic, it's a great thing, especially in America, where in many circles it's considered impolite to even say you are an Atheist or Agnostic. Now people are less afraid to say it. Funny thing is, it took two Brits to begin the mainstreaming of Atheism in America: Hitchens and Dawkins...until they showed up on the scene, a lot of Americans looked at Atheists as crazy people like Marilyn O'Hare.

Joking aside, someone really should brutally knife-rape Richard Dawkins and then leave his dying body in a ditch somewhere.

― The boy with the Arab money (The stickman from the hilarious 'xkcd' comics), Tuesday, January 6, 2009 4:15 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

This is worse than anything Dawkins has said, about Jewish people or otherwise. Oh, but you're joking! Oh wait, you said "joking aside." Perhaps you should issue a Fatwah?

yes i'm sure she is a horrible person xp

countdown is scripted?

xp

it took two Brits to begin the mainstreaming of Atheism in America: Hitchens and Dawkins

haw

Why did they attach balloons on the bus? Is this Boris braking innovation?

This is worse than anything Dawkins has said, about Jewish people or otherwise. Oh, but you're joking! Oh wait, you said "joking aside." Perhaps you should issue a Fatwah?

― thirdalternative, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 16:24 (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Hi ta! Do Jews control the world y/n? Thanks.

hawhawkins

to be fair it took two Brits to begin the mainstreaming of Christianity in America too: James I and God.

Oh wait, thirdlaternative's the dude who was arguing about why "Stuff White People Like" is the best site on the internet. Sorry, carry on.

Dawkins is great at pointing out the fallacies in arguments that no theologian has made in the last thousand years.

number of atheists vs number of people who feel that US foreign policy is monopolised by Jews

Balloons are there to help you quit worrying and enjoy your life. Also as buoyancy aid in case of great flood.

Those balloons were a gift from Will Mellor.

Dawkins is great at pointing out the fallacies in arguments that no theologian has made in the last thousand years.

yeah theology is such an advanced science these days

http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v1918/103/125/36910239/n36910239_38878062_8929.jpg

Theology is fun!

Is that what the inside of the atheist bus looks like? Cool (xp)

xxxpost

You wanna prove that people's beliefs are idiotic then starting with what they actually believe is a good idea.

yes the complexities of popular religion these days are astonishing, nothing like what those retards 1000 years ago believed in.

Ok I guess Dawkins is the number one philosophical mind of our age.

no, that is thomas sewell, remember

damn i would definitely pretend to be an atheist to mack on that chick

you'd have to pretend?

He is a Catholic priest after all

nah but philosophy of religion - especially of popular religion - is pretty fuckin' easy.

oh look i don't even wanna be mean, people can believe what they want to believe and they can have all sorts of reasons for doing so. but well-considered philosophical reasoning probably isn't behind most people's beliefs, and this idea of modern sophisticated theodicys that the dawkins and grayligns and hitchens haven't even considered, is mostly bullshit.

xp to noodle.

do you ever feel like some people are fronting with this whole 'omg would smash/blap atheist hottie' shit nowadays?

i am an atheist can i have sex with that woman now?

or do we have to be friends?

and is she too old?

and is my priesthood an issue here?

and this idea of modern sophisticated theodicys that the dawkins and grayligns and hitchens haven't even considered, is mostly bullshit.

^^ well said ideas are out there 'in action' even if they're unconsidered by the lay believer. what else are you supposed to say, 'lol u think a dude rose from the grave, r u mental?!?' over and over again?

what else are you supposed to say, 'lol u think a dude rose from the grave, r u mental?!?' over and over again?

this is pretty much their mo

yup, and balloon smuggling

lol

But whether most people's belief is thought through or not isn't the problem. Dawkins moves from saying that evolution is a simpler explanation of the physical world than intelligent design - fine - to saying "therefore there is no God and anybody who believes there is is an idiot". Issues of the reality of God aside - and I'm an atheist and have no axe to grind there - Dawkins either deliberately or ignorantly ignores all of the other aspects of what religious belief might involve and entail. Scientifically objective arguments for any ideological position are a bad idea I think.

Yeah that's regrettable but hating him still feels like far too much effort.

well said ideas are out there 'in action' even if they're unconsidered by the lay believer.

Are Dawkins et al. supposed to be addressing lay believers or theologians? Should they be concerned with what academic theologians are writing, or with the stuff that appears on the "religion" bookshelves at your local Borders? The ideas that, imo, they're trying to combat are the ones held by the "lay believers," the ones that affect the way that everyday people think and approach public life.

KIP, secularists

And just what exactly "well said ideas" have been developed by theologians in, let's say, the last 25 years (since apparently 1,000 is too large a timeframe) that have exactly one ounce of effect on anything at all?

"We know most art of the classical period depicts God as a bearded man, but we've recently begun testing the hypothesis that the Father of the Trinity is actually clean-shaven."

If he's sincerely trying to convince lay people they're wrong, he might want to reconsider his "lol you thick scum" approach.

If he's trying to say that people do a lot of shit without a logically rigorous reason, maybe there's a Nobel prize in there for him.

right, well, it's a root and branch thing -- the NA's seem more concerned with the on-the-ground considerations of politics (there are a lot of people out doing shitty things because of these beliefs!) than making sure everyone lives in the Truth or whatever

Dawkins either deliberately or ignorantly ignores all of the other aspects of what religious belief might involve and entail. Scientifically objective arguments for any ideological position are a bad idea I think.

Well he does go on about why thinks religious belief is actually harmful, so in that sense he does deal with other aspects of it. I will grant that philosophically speaking, it's not a particularly strong book. But he is a scientist, not a philospher.

Would you think that scientifically objective arguments against creationism specifically are a bad idea? Or against the anti-vaccine lobby?

I'm tempted to get into a TS: "lol you thick scum" vs. "I'll pray for you" or "there was only one set of footsteps DO U SEE?"

Classic, it's a great thing, especially in America, where in many circles it's considered impolite to even say you are an Atheist or Agnostic.

what strawhouse do you hang your hat in again?

NV, what tactics do you think would be effective at convincing lay people that their religious beliefs are wrong?

Creationists can retreat into metaphysics in a way which makes contesting them scientifically somewhat quixotic. I also seriously doubt the relative damage done to society by creationist beliefs, with the caveat that they shouldn't be taught as "scientific" and there are very few places where they are. The anti-vaccine issue is different because its potential to cause public harm is far greater. I also honestly believe that anti-vaccine magical thinking has been provoked in some part by dick-witted high-handed responses from experts - medical and governmental - with absolutely zero people skills whatsoever.

I think this current brand of in-your-face atheism is better suited for the 90s than today.

lolz

what tactics do you think would be effective at convincing lay people that their religious beliefs are wrong?

commit atrocities on a global scale, might shake their faith in a benevolent god

Do you know Pancakes, as long as the state outlaws witch-burning and the Inquisition I honestly don't think it's anybody's place to convince people that their religious beliefs are wrong.

It might be instructive to note how religions have been curbed by state persecution in the past, for example.

yeah "the power and the glory" is dope

Fair enough. I simply hope you're as pissy, then, about the ongoing "Teach the controversy!" crap (eg) as you are about Dawkins being a dick. Or about Mormon missionaries or what have you.

CLUSTERFUCK THREAD SHOWDOWN

Part of the reason the arguments of Dawkins, Hitchens, et al have traction is that religious popularizers (not theologians, per se) have for decades been attempting to move religion into the quasi-rational, pseudo-scientific mainstream. Intelligent design, the historical Jesus, etc. This gives the atheist crowd a tool with which to dismantle religious claims to validity.

But it's a bad tool, and both approaches are mistaken. Religious faith is not rational, and has no basis in science. It is metaphysical, and as such, exists completely independent from the material, physical world. Science, on the other hand, exists completely and exclusively IN the material world. Therefore, the two "ways" are entirely separated from one another. Neither can debunk or even diminish the other, because there is no point at which they intersect.

The failure to aknowledge this is what bothers me about the New Atheists.

It just seems silly to me when you can go into any bookstore and find shelf after shelf of "The Purpose-Driven Life" and suchlike, plus all the evangelical-targeted "Promise Keepers" etc., along with yr various flavors of new age claptrap; and then find, what three books in recent years strongly speaking out for atheism and against religion, to get all worked up that the authors of the latter are mean to religious people. Boo hoo.

I'm not pissy, I just think Dawkins is a cock who's doing the cause of lol enlightenment more harm than good right now. I mean, if the Fundies wanted a double agent to stir some shit up and play the public Atheist Straw-man super villain, how would he behave differently to RD?

People who get converted by missionaries kinda deserve whatever they get (good or bad).

Religious faith is not rational, and has no basis in science. It is metaphysical, and as such, exists completely independent from the material, physical world.

But it continues to make claims -- even self-evidently silly ones -- about the material, physical world! How many news stories in the last five years have you seen about something related to atheism? Now how many have you seen of the type "VIRGIN MARY APPEARS IN TACO?"

not sure the taco reports really qualify as "news"

I think this current brand of in-your-face atheism is better suited for the 90s than today.

what the hell are you talking about anyway?

VIRGIN MARY APPEARS IN CUTE GIRL'S TACO

Now if we can steer this thread back towards tacos and balloons and away from Dawkins and fundies, it will be far more satisfying

I'll bet they appear on your local news broadcast more often than you think.

xxxpost

Not sure "Virgin Mary in a Taco" stories do a lot to promote religious fervour.

they do a lot to promote cute girls and their tasty tacos

I misread that as 'religious flavor'

xpost

she cant really be the virgin mary anymore if shes been in some girls taco tho, which would be a theological conundrum

Immaculate Consumption

"Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

This slogan works well for healthy people who live in enjoyable circumstances. But, in my experience, such people don't often need to be told to enjoy themselves, and if they aren't enjoying thsir life, it usually isn't because they are worried god will zap them for having a bit of fun.

If atheists want to make big inroads on religion's territory, they need to figure out a better slogan, one that comforts people who are afflicted and seek reassurance in the face of doubt or suffering. That's where the big payoff in converts lies, not among people who want to party down without guilt.

But it's a bad tool, and both approaches are mistaken. Religious faith is not rational, and has no basis in science. It is metaphysical, and as such, exists completely independent from the material, physical world. Science, on the other hand, exists completely and exclusively IN the material world. Therefore, the two "ways" are entirely separated from one another. Neither can debunk or even diminish the other, because there is no point at which they intersect.

The failure to aknowledge this is what bothers me about the New Atheists.

― good luck to you ladies--you need it (contenderizer), Tuesday, January 6, 2009 5:17 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

What you are referring to is the notion of religion and science as "non-overlapping magesteria," which is an idea first verbalized by Stephen Jay Gould, and both Dawkins and Hitchens have written about, and disagreed this notion, at length.

lol no i a richards was saying it like 80 years ago, and i'd guess he was biting it from somewhere (g e moore?).

someone in the torygraph makes the good point that 'there probably is a god. now stop worrying and enjoy your life' makes just as much sense as a slogan. if not more, because it leaves out the worrying about the sheer Pointlessness of It All that is the unspoken part of the atheists' slogan. as aimless basically says, life ain't all that enjoyable, what with all the death n' shit.

an idea first verbalized by Stephen Jay Gould

umm..

xp surely this realization is hella old

surely this realization is hella old

it's probably as old as the enlightenment tbf, but IAR is who i know about.

trying to remember what kant said.

Ok, my mistake, I first read it in Gould.

However, ― good luck to you ladies--you need it (contenderizer), watch this, the "new Atheists" have addressed this ideaover and over again:

xpost Yeah I was reading a history of 18th Century England recently where the author was discussing the way that the savvy religious believers gave ground in the face of Newtonian physics by developing this kind of "render unto Caesar" thinking.

Gould did coin the term, however, if not the idea:

Gould later developed the term "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" (NOMA) to describe how, in his view, science and religion could not comment on each other's realm. Gould went on to develop this idea in some detail, particularly in the books Rocks of Ages (1999) and The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox (2003). In a 1982 essay for Natural History Gould wrote:

Our failure to discern a universal good does not record any lack of insight or ingenuity, but merely demonstrates that nature contains no moral messages framed in human terms. Morality is a subject for philosophers, theologians, students of the humanities, indeed for all thinking people. The answers will not be read passively from nature; they do not, and cannot, arise from the data of science. The factual state of the world does not teach us how we, with our powers for good and evil, should alter or preserve it in the most ethical manner.[28]

If atheists want to make big inroads on religion's territory, they need to figure out a better slogan, one that comforts people who are afflicted and seek reassurance in the face of doubt or suffering. That's where the big payoff in converts lies, not among people who want to party down without guilt.

How about "Is this 'God' fellow going to pay your rent or put food on the table? Where is he when you need a ride home from the bar, huh?"

Oh wait, thirdlaternative's the dude who was arguing about why "Stuff White People Like" is the best site on the internet. Sorry, carry on.

― The boy with the Arab money (The stickman from the hilarious 'xkcd' comics), Tuesday, January 6, 2009 4:29 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

I said no such thing. I said I don't see a secret right wing agenda there, and also that ILXers hate it so much because, face it, the dude's kind of got your number.

Assuming the number is "Suckers for a good challoping" then this is true.

what the fuck is hitchens on about in that clip? it has nothing to do with disproving gould's theory.

it's so so lame anyway -- the kind of shit i was saying in RE classm aged 13. seriously.

"Is this 'God' fellow going to pay your rent or put food on the table?

Now tell me again, in what way would acting like a dick bring comfort to these folks? The Christians are waaaay out in front of the atheists on this one.

I don't see why Atheists feel the need to adopt missionary methods to get their point across.

joeks, bruv

Although I don't see how "Sure, life sucks now, but hey, Big Rock Candy Mountain when you die!" is supposed to be a comfort so much as an inducement to suicide.

is Gould's point really seen as that original? just seems to me like he's rediscovering the wheel there, or, rip van winkle-like, he just woke up and realized he's in Modernity.

Anyone sitting around waiting for God to put food on the table for them isn't going to be particularly helped out by atheism. What these people need is not a new belief system but rather a swift smack.

Us atheists remain unsold on missionary position, also.

Most people who claim agnosticism don't actually know it means 'not knowing'.

I don't see why Atheists feel the need to adopt missionary methods to get their point across.

― thirdalternative, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 19:02 (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

the innuendo practically slavers off this one

oh dammit suzy

i think agnosticism has sorta become a good non-threatening hey I'm cool let's not talk about it position.

Agnostics are chicken-shits.

i have been known to say "im agnostic i guess but for all intents and purposes (and temperament) im basically an atheist"

Any Atheist will tell you there may be a God, just that there probably isn't, based on the evidence.

but then arguing about the empirical existence or non-existence of god strikes me as basically the most pointless circular argument ever. read one critique of pure reason!

Any Atheist will tell you there may be a God, just that there probably isn't, based on the evidence.

uh no they won't

Best take on agnosticism came from good old Dr. Wild: who am I, this one guy, to say I know there's a god or not? And who are you, this one person, to say there is not?

If you have to cure cancer, better to believe in SCIENCE.

My atheism is more predicated on even tho I concede the possibility of the Biblical God, he comes across like too much of a dick to bend the knee to.

I should have said "Any Atheist who has done their reading..."

When it comes to changing people's beliefs and the actions which are embedded in those beliefs, then making debater's points, however snazzy, will have nil effect. You have to reach people on an emotional level to change their beliefs and behaviors, not browbeat them.

The only atheists who adopt missionary methods are those who think that religion, and the behavior it inspires, is a source of societal evil. Those who just want to walk away thinking they won the debate don't bother.

In trying to change intolerant behaviors, I personally find that it works better to speak to religious people in terms of their own religion than to try to convert them to atheism. Most major religions have benign components and dictums that contradict their more intolerant doctrines. It is easier to leverage these than to convert them to a new set of beliefs.

problem with atheists is that they think of "evidence" of god using the same criteria they'd use for evidence of Big Foot or something...kind of a slight category error there!

it's so so lame anyway -- the kind of shit i was saying in RE classm aged 13. seriously.

right, and the sophisticated theological responses are?

ah, i love this shit. never gets old!

sah, i love this shit. never gets old!

for real....it's inevitable probably...why "reason is troubled" as Kant said. we're forever tempted to make claims about the eternal, on either side, even though we can't.

problem with atheists is that they think of "evidence" of god using the same criteria they'd use for evidence of Big Foot or something...kind of a slight category error there!

So what kinds of "evidence" should we then be looking for?

well first we'd have to accept that God is not a "thing" like big foot or a chair or you and me is...so the standards of evidence are different. and frankly if you're not willing to entertain a concept of something that is not a "thing" i dont blame you! but to go around acting like there's no "evidence" of God is a bit silly to me. why is there something rather than nothing? that's all the evidence a believer would need.

i often tell my religious family and friends that try to convert me that by their own standards they should just hope and pray i have a personal revelation. there's no "reasoning" into belief in God.

like Richard "Jews monopolize American foreign policy" Dawkins.

― The boy with the Arab money (The stickman from the hilarious 'xkcd' comics), Tuesday, January 6, 2009 4:11 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

hahahaha good to know the brits are up on who really runs the road in the usa

i've heard a rejection of athiesm for agnosticism based on the fact that the former actually incorporates the language of those they disagree with, engages them in a categorical debate in which they automatically concede the terms to the other, etc.

what's up with the British left always complaining about the Jews and Israel? They're weirdly passionate about it.

yeah i often think the best way is to reject the parameters of the discussion entirely...but then i realize we're sorta stuck in this Western Civilization thing and it's not so easy to get away, ESPECIALLY when we think we're getting away from it.

well first we'd have to accept that God is not a "thing" like big foot or a chair or you and me is...so the standards of evidence are different.

I don't take that as a given at all, so why do we "have to accept" it? It's certainly not supported by anything Biblical, if we're restricting ourselves to Christianity and Judaism. The God of the Old Testament has a (non-metaphorical) face, voice, hands, mouth and feet as written many times in scripture; Jesus Christ was assumed bodily into heaven. AFAIC, that makes them both "a thing like big foot or a chair or you and me."

Seems to me the "god is not a thing" idea came about as a bit of hand-waving excuse-making for the fact that there isn't any such evidence, a post-hoc rationalization. When people started asking where's the evidence, believers came up with, "Hey, God is, like a SPIRIT, man!"

Besides, as has been noted many times, anything that is "not a thing" as we understand it can probably have no effect whatsoever on the physical universe, so who cares whether it exists or not?

well you're free to not care!

Are ideas things?

and theology is allowed to adapt and evolve just as science is, unless we want to go back to pre-copernican or pre-heisenberg science as the more authentic variety.

i've heard a rejection of athiesm for agnosticism based on the fact that the former actually incorporates the language of those they disagree with, engages them in a categorical debate in which they automatically concede the terms to the other, etc.

― rent, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 7:25 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Oberlin senior thesis?

The idea of tolerating someone who thinks my soul is going to hell (after death!) is insane. I do not have to tolerate this person, and never will.

The worst people are the ones who say, "Well, I have problems with organized religion, but I am spiritual. I mean, there's got to be SOMETHING." Ugh.

the "god is not a thing" idea comes from a vast simplification of negative theology...so in that case god is not even an idea...like derrida's way of putting his idea of difference: the trace of the erasure of the trace...kinda slips past our ideas/concepts...

Oh! Gimme that old-time science!
Gimme that old-time science!
If it was good enough for Newton,
Then it's good enough for me.

passantino youre really being disingenuous

here's the context of the dawkins quote

"When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."

is that crazy? there's 13 jewish senators even though jews only make up 2.5% of the population. how many atheist senators are there? how many muslims? how many hindu or buddhist or unitarian? shit, there's not one black senator now that obama's gone. you dont have to be a protocols-waving jew-hater to point out that as a minority group jews have done comparatively well in american politics

kinda slips past our ideas/concepts... ... into bogosity

Are ideas things?

To the extent that they reside in people's brains or on paper, I think they are.

and theology is allowed to adapt and evolve just as science is, unless we want to go back to pre-copernican or pre-heisenberg science as the more authentic variety.

Well, sure, but there are obvious differences in how science evolves and how theology evolves that you're jumping past.

Oberlin senior thesis?

HI THIRDALTERNATIVE

worst people are the ones who say

And there is nothing worse than a paper cut. Nothing!

the best explanation of someone's idea of a non-material non-universe based god was like the author of a book. suppose the author even grants one of his characters to 'realise' he is someone's creation - where or how is he going to find his creator?

still bullshit though lol

it was from a derridean tho busted

HI RENT. Sorry, but I have very little patience for academic semantic game-playing that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

unless you find that negative or "extra" element to be kinda intrinsic to the evolution of thought and systems in general. it's always one step ahead...like "the idea of something that is not an idea" is itself an idea...etc..obviously this is a very abstract idea of God as a sort of logical placeholder.

how does science evolve different than theology? honest question.

the best explanation of someone's idea of a non-material non-universe based god was like the author of a book. suppose the author even grants one of his characters to 'realise' he is someone's creation - where or how is he going to find his creator?

still bullshit though lol

― ledge, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 7:36 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Hey, it's like "Stranger than Fiction." I liked that movie more than I thought I would, esepcially Maggie Gyllenhall's rich alterna-girl co-op tattoo'd bakery owner character.

many x-posts!

Scientific ideas are open to constant change and revision/expansion based on new evidence, theology remains static, and is hardly even a worth considering. Ever read "Mere Christianity?" C.S. Lewis, proably the most famous Christian apologist in history, actually says we know Jesus was divine because if he wasn't, he was crazy, and we know he wasn't crazy, ergo he was divine!

There's your theology.

Here's some classic Dawkins:

theology is not "static" and it's kinda stupid to say that it is. sorry no offense. C.S. Lewis is hardly the last word.

every time someone makes a post like that, Aslan dies.

But it's great, because then Aslan comes back!

I wonder how many atheists contemptuously reject the myth of religion, only to mythologize themselves?

if theology is not static then it it like alternative medicine is not static. new and exciting leaps and bounds in bullshit every year!

HI RENT. Sorry, but I have very little patience for academic semantic game-playing that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

― thirdalternative, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 1:38 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yes soz ur youtube clips of dawkins and hitchens are much more instructive and exciting.

My own objections to organized religion have nothing to do with belief (each to their own) and everything to do with the power/influence/entitlements to moral high ground being a joiner of same brings out in some people.

are you guys judging theology by the "Christianity" shelf at Barnes & Noble or something?

and seriously "lol contemporary theology" on a thread that seems to take Dawkins and Hitchens seriously is sorta ridiculous.

well if you want to recommend any new and exciting pro-god philosophy of religion books i'm more than happy to go and check them out.

i guess i'm coming from a weird place since im quite friendly with a lot of the religious studies people at my university. these are people as comfortable with heidegger as with the bible. but then "lol philosophy" right?

read some gianni vattimo. he even did a book on religion with richard rorty (in which they disagree).

Despite my atheism, I loooooove myths because of what the narratives tell us about human nature or cultural norms of the society that produces them.

how does science evolve different than theology? honest question.

Well, one evolves by forming, testing and accepting or rejecting hypotheses. The other evolves by making stuff up.

are you guys judging theology by the "Christianity" shelf at Barnes & Noble or something?

I'm not, I'm saying that Dawkins and Hitchens and whoever are the answer to the "Christianity" shelf at B&N.

connor cunningham's "genealogy of nihilism" is also excellent (and not what you think), and judging by amazon his other stuff looks pretty interesting too. but hey, im sure he's just making stuff up so don't bother!

"Well, one evolves by forming, testing and accepting or rejecting hypotheses. The other evolves by making stuff up."

this is what i was bout to say in this whole theology-evolves-too b.s. - science doesn't change based on arbitrary whims or social pressures the way theology pretends to "evolve"

science requires interpretation. we do not have immediate access to the world. interpretation takes place in a cultural and social context. science evolves EXACTLY the same way as theology.

you guys did finish your history of science textbooks right? or did you stop at newton?

ok sorry. dont mean to be snarky.

both Dawkins and Hitchens have written about, and disagreed this notion (SJ Gould's "non-overlapping magesteria"), at length.

― thirdalternative

if you're not willing to entertain a concept of something that is not a "thing" i dont blame you! but to go around acting like there's no "evidence" of God is a bit silly to me.

― ryan

^^ This is exactly my point, put very simply and elegantly. To put it a lot less elegantly, God is a thing (perhaps the thing) that is not a thing. That special status, as much as goodness, omniscience or omnipotence, is what makes God GOD. To be "of the spirit" is, more-or-less by definition, to be not of this world, not wholly in this world, and (perhaps) not bound by the observable laws of this world. That's not to say that God can't act in this world, but that he isn't contained or constrained by it. Supposedly. If you buy the God argument.

That's why I think the "non-overlapping magesteria" principle is OTM, and again, I think the New Atheists can protest it til they're blue in the face, but there really isn't a good way to refute the proposition.

anything that is "not a thing" as we understand it can probably have no effect whatsoever on the physical universe, so who cares whether it exists or not?

― Pancakes Hackman

I don't see any reason to grant this. Why not? Why place arbitrary limits on that which we, by definition, cannot know? And I disagree that the metaphysical or trans-physical nature of the divine is some recent, last-ditch band-aid concept cobbled together to combat modern scientific understandings. As long as Christian theology has existed, it has wrestled with the nature of God, always struggling to place the divine outside the parameters of the human, the physical, the knowable and even the possible. God is infinite and infinitely powerful in every sense. He created time and the world, preexisting every "thing". He is everywhere and nowhwere, spirit embodied in flesh but not contained by flesh, etc., etc. We are told from very early on that we simply cannot comprehend God, that mystery and unknowableness are inextricable from the divine. These ideas are built into the fabric of the Western conception of "true spiritual understanding".

when the catholic church suddenly decides that purgatory doesnt exist anymore or when mormons decree that, oops, black people actually arent cursed descendants of cain - how is this in any way comparable to watson & crick's double helix or pasteur discovering that germs cause disease or any other shift in scientific knowledge? is theological change repeatable or observable or any more valid than trying to figure out if picard could beat the hulk??

btw this whole sneaky po-mo "god is a concept like "love"' has nothing at all to do with what 99.9% of people who believe in "god" consider god to be

"I despise credulous frauds"

http://www.ghostofaflea.com/archives/DontFuckwithHitchens.jpg

Science has a way of telling us whether, say, Lysenkoism is true or false. (Eventually, at least, if not right away. Clearly the Soviets thought it was true, or behaved as if it was, which for our purposes are the same thing.)

How does theology weed out its wrong ideas? How does it even know which ideas are wrong and which ones are right?

xxpost

Why place arbitrary limits on that which we, by definition, cannot know?

Wait, why are they arbitrary? More importantly, who says that they're arbitrary? Let me guess: theologians?

re non-overlapping magesteria: can god act in this world? then he or his actions should be detectable, and within the purview of science. if he or his actions are not detectable within this universe, then he is a god who makes no difference, and what is the point believing in that?

Any limitation placed on something that is not or cannot be know is, by definition, arbitrary. We only know what we know.

well a more extreme postmodernist than myself might say that science CAN'T distinguish between right and wrong answers. but let's not get into that.

but i think it can, but it's evolving, and that involves some error. the standards of truth that theology is attempting to meet are different. it's, in some ways, attempting to respond to the evolution of science, art, and all that. just as they evolve to meet the demands of religion and power (galileo?)

what are the standards of truth for theology? im not sure i can honestly say. perhaps it's the attempt to make belief in god rational in our contemporary world. you can certainly disagree with that premise of course.

and let's not stack the deck against religion: what about social darwinism? race theoy?

can god act in this world? then he or his actions should be detectable, and within the purview of science. if he or his actions are not detectable within this universe, then he is a god who makes no difference, and what is the point believing in that?

― ledge

There is no reason to think that this metaphysical God can't act in this world (if, indeed, he does exist).

yeah look if theology decides it just wants to live in the realm of "superman could beat up predator" style arguments thats cool with me but instead religious ppl make testable, provable claims all the time and enforce shit that effects my right to buy contraception and marry another dude and all kinds of other shit

We are told from very early on that we simply cannot comprehend God, that mystery and unknowableness are inextricable from the divine.

man itd be great if someday the humility this key proposition demands came to the fore and was reciprocated by the strident athiest population. wow that would be awesome.

and let's not stack the deck against religion: what about social darwinism? race theoy?

― ryan, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 3:16 PM (18 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

whats the testable science that backs this shit up??

what's up with the British left always complaining about the Jews and Israel? They're weirdly passionate about it.

― burt_stanton, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 8:26 PM (46 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

british lefties tend to be anti-semitic.

How does theology weed out its wrong ideas?

Violence, usually.

hey special guest stars mark bronson did you read the full dawkins quote + my response to it? do you think thats wrong?? would you disagree with the statement, for example, "christians tend to monopolize american foreign policy"? how many theocracies are u.s. allies besides israel??

what are the standards of truth for theology? im not sure i can honestly say. perhaps it's the attempt to make belief in god rational in our contemporary world. you can certainly disagree with that premise of course.

― ryan

The standards for truth in theology lie somewhere between the divine, the theologian and the established dogma. But I reject this question on the face of it. "Standards of truth" is a scientific concept. Spiritual truth is not arrived at, it is at least in part granted, by agency of the divine. In other words, you have to meet the divine halfway, thus leaving this world partially behind, and with it rational evaluatory concepts like "standards of truth".

the humility this key proposition demands

that's not humility, that's self-imposed blindness. i can be astonished and humbled by countless phenomena in the universe, but at no point would i give up attempting to understand them.

man itd be great if someday the humility this key proposition demands came to the fore and was reciprocated by the strident athiest population. wow that would be awesome.

― rent

yup

then again, I wish the religious folks would accept it, too

you're right contenderizer...i was clumsily attempting to find a common discourse between science and religion.

man itd be great if someday the humility this key proposition demands came to the fore and was reciprocated by the strident athiest population. wow that would be awesome.

― rent, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 8:17 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Yes, it's so humble to make claims about what happens to the soul after death, and who gets to go to heaven or hell or where ever the fuck in between Catholics like to send the souls of aborted babies. Oh wait, they just took that back a couple of years ago didn't they? Aborted babies can now ascent right to heaven! Hurrah!

religious ppl make testable, provable claims all the time and enforce shit that effects my right to buy contraception and marry another dude and all kinds of other shit

― and what

Yeah, and that's exactly what non-asshole atheists should be spending their time and effort on. Not on some bullshit, egocentric quest to "disprove God and religion".

how many theocracies are u.s. allies besides israel??

According to Wikipedia, 3:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

leave behind standards of truth of you like, if you don't mind also waving goodbye to any claim of credibility.

Sorry I can't read, 2.

certainly we're willing to admit that there are some scientific orthodoxies that may prove to be false somewhere down the line? of course....but it's dangerous to assume that science is some kind of super-discourse that can police itself on it's march to absolute truth.

(I'm assuming Andorra isn't an official ally of ours.)

'i am above your standards of truth' = 'i can spout any old bullshit i like'

hey special guest stars mark bronson did you read the full dawkins quote + my response to it? do you think thats wrong?? would you disagree with the statement, for example, "christians tend to monopolize american foreign policy"? how many theocracies are u.s. allies besides israel??

― and what, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 9:19 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

that last one's a difficult question. depends on the when. saudi arabia, f'rinstance.

but otherwise i hear you but there are also probably (lol) proportinately more jewish professors and lawyers and the like and the reasons are complex etc.

i didn't really have dawkins in mind when i said the brit left was anti-semitic, though i do think he's a dick, more stuff like this:

http://www.honestreporting.com/images/newstatesmankosherconspiracy.jpg

i get that americans will have a very diff perspective on this because their public debate is more religious-y than is britain's, to put it mildly.

Dan FTW.

Any limitation placed on something that is not or cannot be know

Back up here, now I'm going to see that "cannot be known" is also arbitrary! Who decided that one? Let me guess: theologians? Besides, people claim to know God all the time, especially the people who Dawkins et al. tend to be concerned with.

and let's not stack the deck against religion: what about social darwinism? race theoy?

I honestly wasn't trying to do so -- Lysenkoism was the first dumb thing that popped to mind. I'm certainly not going to try to gloss over the sad history of wrong scientific ideas. But that's just it: We know now that they are, and anyone trying to seriously advance those ideas today would find them career-enders. (Charles Murray notwithstanding.) Meanwhile our mainstream Christian denominations still can't come up with an answer as to whether you're supposed to baptise infants or not.

Yeah, and that's exactly what non-asshole atheists should be spending their time and effort on. Not on some bullshit, egocentric quest to "disprove God and religion".

From the Department of You Can Only Ever Do One Thing At A Time.

Many xxxposts

apparently i've been misunderstood.

British lefties are more often anti-Zionist. Magazine above nonwithstanding.

but it's dangerous to assume that science is some kind of super-discourse that can police itself on it's march to absolute truth.

I don't think science is on a march to "absolute truth."

i should stress i consider myself an atheist! somehow i've roped myself into cap'n save a theologian.

are the pro-Science people pro-science because you see it as a possible universal discourse? that everyone can agree on?

British lefties are more often anti-Zionist. Magazine above nonwithstanding.

― choomescent (suzy), Tuesday, January 6, 2009 9:28 PM (3 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/77/196245676_67b35415f1.jpg?v=0

i was just saying that it'll be nice when people realize that humility seems the only honest response to the ineffable, and that the bible hammers this home even though everyone ignores it. the peeps u mentioned ta are the worst offenders in terms of filling this absence with their own twisted agendas, so idk what you read into my post.

it's ok! they're just anti-zionist is all.

xpost to self

leave behind standards of truth of you like, if you don't mind also waving goodbye to any claim of credibility.

― ledge

Gah, that's the scientist speaking again. Religion shouldn't worry about whether or not it has any credibility in rationalist/scientific circles. It doesn't and more to the point, it can't. It has staked its claim outside that territory. And maybe that means it really IS doomed, fated to a slow death in the modern world. And maybe that's why religious folks grasp at absurd straws like "intelligent design", paradoxically hastening the demise of their meme by abandoning its core precepts in favor of something scientific-y (and easily debunked). I dunno.

rent OTM fwiw. humility strikes me as the key in general.

also contenderizer OTM! religion is attempting to evolve but it's splitting into fundamentalism and a hyper-academic negative theology or phenomenology...it's probably doomed either way. not to say that all will be well in the coming scientific utopia, power is still power.

"cannot be known" is also arbitrary! Who decided that one? Let me guess: theologians? Besides, people claim to know God all the time, especially the people who Dawkins et al. tend to be concerned with.

― Pancakes Hackman

Sure, theologians in conference with God and the divinely "inspired". What's wrong with that? How is it any different from the scientific precept that the world is entirely physical and knowable? Science only touches the physical, after all, so isn't science's claim that the physical = ALL equally arbitrary? How would science ever know any different?

The British left really get bent out of shape over this Jewish stuff. I mean, there's definitely sympathy for Palestine among the lefties here in the US, but it's more based on the premise of "the US should remain neutral and not support either side" rather than the British left wing "Jews are committing genocidal terror against helpless Palestinians!!!" That's a way extreme view in the US, but seems pretty mainstream for the UK.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/249190,british-group-reports-rise-in-anti-semitic-incidents-over-gaza.html

"god does not exist" as an actual belief system is trying too hard. if you need to define yourself by opposition to religion then you are a washout. create something interesting or oppose something more tangible.

xpost the US has its share of loonies too:

Socialist Action has never recognized the legitimacy of the Zionist State of Israel just we reject extending any legitimacy to nations conquered and occupied by imperialist colonizers anywhere in the world, past and present.

http://middleeast.change.org/blog/view/what_is_the_revolutionary_left_saying_about_gaza

we reject extending any legitimacy to nations conquered and occupied by imperialist colonizers anywhere in the world, past and present.

good luck with that.

That's a way extreme view in the US, but seems pretty mainstream for the UK.

― burt_stanton

The British-style view seems to be pretty mainstream in Seattle.

Yeah, and that's exactly what non-asshole atheists should be spending their time and effort on. Not on some bullshit, egocentric quest to "disprove God and religion".

Religion and the belief in a supernatural guiding force in the universe is wicked, and until these ancient superstitions fall by the wayside, humankind will continue to suffer. Every day we American Atheists have to watch our leaders, etc., give lip service to their imaginary unicorn in the sky. For the last 8 years we've been hearing about our dimwitted president taking advice from said supernatural being. So there is some levl urgency here. But I agree with Einstein, in the end, it's too much a part of human nature. But we're getting smarter over time.

"I cannot accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I was to speak of him I would be a liar."--Albert Einstein

Religion shouldn't worry about whether or not it has any credibility in rationalist/scientific circles.

Scientific circles, fine. There are plenty of discourses that are more or less outwith the purview of science - moral philosophy, say, or music criticism. But rationalist circles? Even music criticism has to be rational, if it is to be a discourse and not just one person's subjective internal monologue.

Objection granted, ledge. Should have said "materialist", rather than "rationalist".

Even music criticism has to be rational, if it is to be a discourse and not just one person's subjective internal monologue.

― ledge, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 9:39 PM (0 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

open goal for a zing here

geirhongro.jpg

It's also important to bear in mind that for the last several thousand years of human history, religion had absolute power over humankind. You could not question it. It simply wasn't safe. And it still isn't in many, many places. However, nowadays religion is justanother idea in the vast marketplace of ideas, and is hence subject to as much scrutiny as any other idea, which is a wonderful, and recent, development.

Religion and the belief in a supernatural guiding force in the universe is wicked, and until these ancient superstitions fall by the wayside, humankind will continue to suffer.

― thirdalternative

Yeah, I'm an atheist, and this is the kind of talk that infuriates me.

However, nowadays religion is justanother idea in the vast marketplace of ideas, and is hence subject to as much scrutiny as any other idea, which is a wonderful, and recent, development.

― thirdalternative

This OTM, and yes, awesome.

science's claim that the physical = ALL

That is a bogus conception of naturalism/physicalism. Yes physical matter (or energy) might be all that exists, but trying to explain morality, or music theory, or economics, in purely physical terms is obviously a non-starter.

It's also important to bear in mind that for the last several thousand years of human history, religion had absolute power over humankind. You could not question it. It simply wasn't safe. And it still isn't in many, many places. However, nowadays religion is justanother idea in the vast marketplace of ideas, and is hence subject to as much scrutiny as any other idea, which is a wonderful, and recent, development.

― thirdalternative, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 9:42 PM (26 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

get real.

every epoch has its myths, including ours, but the idea that "religion had absolute power over humankind" doesn't bear scrutiny for a moment. "absolute power"? and how was this exercised? as for people not questioning it... how come so many people questioned it?! like, you know, the early settlers.

marketplace of ideas ugh

i think that you are all missing the more important point here, and that is that i would have sex with that young woman standing by the bus upthread.

Yes physical matter (or energy) might be all that exists, but trying to explain morality, or music theory, or economics, in purely physical terms is obviously a non-starter.

Classical music theory is basically applied physics and post-tonal music theory is basically applied math.

"psychology is not applied biology nor is biology applied chemistry!"

Objection granted, ledge. Should have said "materialist", rather than "rationalist".

so how about your claim to be above or beyond my 'standards of truth'? They are not materialist standards.

Yes physical matter (or energy) might be all that exists, but trying to explain morality, or music theory, or economics, in purely physical terms is obviously a non-starter.

― ledge

Yes and no, ledge. The scientist/materialist will insist that these things are all products of discrete, measurable physical processes in the brain, and the truly hardcore will insist that they follow patterns predetermined (without intent) from the birth of the universe.

To Dan, just for the record: that list of countries in the "Theocracy" article isn't exhaustive (if we assume that having a formal state religion is enough to get on it): other allies of the US with such include Denmark, Iceland and Greece.

I have been looking for an opportunity to share this photo of about.com's Atheism Guide, and here it is!

http://z.about.com/d/g/5577.jpg
http://z.about.com/d/g/5577.jpg
http://z.about.com/d/g/5577.jpg

Mark Bronson: I read thirdalternative's "absolute power" as "something like absolute power", cuz, you know, ABSOLUTE POWER doesn't seem to exist (outside God, of course). Religious authorities have exercized something like absolute power for much of human history, and in many times and places, to question this power was to court terrible consequences.

Religious authorities have exercized something like absolute power for much of human history

yeah, sure, if you think humans have existed for FOUR THOUSAND YEARS or something.

third alternative is fuckin bogus

The scientist/materialist will insist that these things are all products of discrete, measurable physical processes in the brain, and the truly hardcore will insist that they follow patterns predetermined (without intent) from the birth of the universe.

Colour me truly hardcore. But a workable physicalist explanation of social/psychological/mental phenomena is a total and utter non-starter. And yes of course there's still a huge philosophical and scientific problem of how to get from brain to mind. But it's not one that I consider insurmountable.

^^ this shit is weirder to me than jesus freaks.

the idea that "religion had absolute power over humankind" doesn't bear scrutiny for a moment. "absolute power"? and how was this exercised? as for people not questioning it... how come so many people questioned it?! like, you know, the early settlers.

― special guest stars mark bronson, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 8:45 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Surely you've heard of the Vatican, the Mullahs, the Mormons? And so and so, on back to Aztec Priest death cults, who controlled their populations with fear and human sacrifice. And you did hear about how those early settlers, fleeing religious persecution, delivered their own version of it here in the USA?

And you did hear about how those early settlers, fleeing religious persecution, delivered their own version of it here in the USA?

― thirdalternative, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 9:55 PM (10 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

they were over-egging it, but lincolnshire *is* a pretty rubbish place.

yo dude u are basically really bogus and a terrible poster, please never post to ilx ever again

"psychology is not applied biology nor is biology applied chemistry!"

If you take some music theory courses, you're going to learn about how sound waves function in determining pitches and which ratios between frequencies create consonance as opposed to dissonance, forming the basis for the octave-based scale. You'll also get into how other musical scales are built off of applying different formulas to these frequencies and how all of this plays into how different notes relate to each other and why some chord transitions "work" and others don't, and why some pieces sound "pretty" while others sound "ugly", as well as the systems people put in place to write more complicated pieces of music with several concurrent melodies working across the same framework that could still be relatively easy to pick up for the people playing them and listening to them. There is a reason for all of this stuff that is grounded in both math and acoustics (except for the parallel movement nonsense, that's just politics).

By "human history" I mean the portion of humanity's existence regarding which we have good records. I.e., that which is well-documented. And over the course of this recorded history, TA's argument is valid: religious authorities have exercised a great deal of control. Before that, who knows?

It's also important to bear in mind that for the last several thousand years of human history, religion had absolute power over humankind. You could not question it. It simply wasn't safe.

― thirdalternative, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 9:42 PM (26 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

wait a minute hold on who the hell is this "vatican"?

Max is like a white, upper middle class kid who went off to college and then returned home at Xmas break and then, at dinner with the family, accused everyone of being oppressors. Nothing like the zealotry of the newly radicalized. Enjoy it while it lasts, kid.

take one (1) course on "the dark ages" at your neighborhood community college holmes

But a workable physicalist explanation of social/psychological/mental phenomena is a total and utter non-starter.

― ledge

I'd say it's more of an infant science...

There is no shame in Adult Education my friend!! xp

here's some modern religious thinkers adapting and evolving theology right before our eyes

btw for the record would blap nice lady in t-shirt at top of thread all right yall have fun

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

― stop HOOSing a boring tuna (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Tuesday, January 6, 2009 8:57 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

Hey, ask anyone from Galileo to Theo Van Gogh.

why some pieces sound "pretty" while others sound "ugly"

Hey now dan what about that radical subjectivism that we all so cherish over on ilm? :)

Is anybody really questioning the idea that, for much of recorded history, religious authorities of one sort or another, have exercised a great deal of control over human society? Really really? I mean "absolute power" is hyperbole, sure, but the basic idea seems like History 101.

(yah i know, music crit is different from music theory, xp)

If you look at these sections of history where it wasn't safe to question religion, you notice that the average standard of life was difficult enough such that the average person didn't actually have the luxury to question their belief system, what with the all-consuming struggle for food and shelter (sometimes clothing); furthermore, the violence often came about once societies crossed a particular comfort threshold that allowed them to impose their will upon the people around them.

xp: I was using vernacular for consonant and dissonant, but still lol.

The thing is, religious people hold ghastly views, and they're not moderates like Richard "Jews monopolize American foreign policy" Dawkins.

― The boy with the Arab money (The stickman from the hilarious 'xkcd' comics), Tuesday, 6 January 2009 16:11 (4 hours ago) Bookmark

http://images.buycostumes.com/mgen/merchandiser/27257.jpg

thirdalternative i want u to know i mean this sincerely--you are literally one of the 10 worst posters ever on this board and that is saying a lot--please go away, forever

if this was old ilx i would start a thread on a sub board about how weird and hilarious you are but we dont do meta anymore so im pleading you directly--i think something awful would be a good fit for you--or maybe fark

boys, boys

Max, everytime I post every few months or so, you are on my case pretty hard. When did I get so far under your skin and, if so, why don't you just ignore me, or go back to the co-op and eat another hummous pita?

oh shit that's cold, max

you told him to fark himself

WHY SO MAD AT THIS DAWKINS CHICK SHE IS FUCKING HOT WHTHER SHE RIDES THE BUS OR NOT.

If you look at these sections of history where it wasn't safe to question religion, you notice that the average standard of life was difficult enough such that the average person didn't actually have the luxury to question their belief system, what with the all-consuming struggle for food and shelter...

― ^likes black girls (HI DERE)

Sometimes true, but sometimes not. Depends on the society and the degree of heresy involved in the questioning.

Is anybody really questioning the idea that, for much of recorded history, religious authorities of one sort or another, have exercised a great deal of control over human society? Really really? I mean "absolute power" is hyperbole, sure, but the basic idea seems like History 101.

― good luck to you ladies--you need it (contenderizer), Tuesday, January 6, 2009 10:02 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

tbh im more concerned with the arrogance of this kind of statement, that thinks we're all freethinkers now the blinkers are off or some such shit.

but also the question is... too fuckin complicated to get into. basically: "of course there was 'free thought' before the enlightenment. it just had to be framed in religious language!"

KANTLIPS otm as usual

who could have foreseen this thread would decend into pita & hummus

Max is like a white, upper middle class kid who went off to college and then returned home at Xmas break and then, at dinner with the family, accused everyone of being oppressors. Nothing like the zealotry of the newly radicalized. Enjoy it while it lasts, kid.

― thirdalternative, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 2:58 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

omg except this is exactly you

sorry i dont really mean to be rude thirdalternative? i guess i sort of do? but seriously, you are terrible. i guess jokes on me for reading this thread.

Jokes on you for being an ILE stalker, stalker. Every time I show up, which is rare, you follow me around for hours. It's kind of werid.

eat another hummous pita?

― thirdalternative, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 9:05 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

misread this as 'humorous pita'

tbh im more concerned with the arrogance of this kind of statement, that thinks we're all freethinkers now the blinkers are off or some such shit.

but also the question is... too fuckin complicated to get into. basically: "of course there was 'free thought' before the enlightenment. it just had to be framed in religious language!"

― special guest stars mark bronson

I think the "arrogance" is some kind of perceptual phantom, a projection. As a whole, we Westerners really are freer now to think as we will than we ever have been. This is not mere arrogance, as things really do change, sometimes for the better (or at least the "freer"). Recognizing this would only be arrogance if we were, you know, arrogant about it.

Nobody's arguing that free though is impossible under even the most draconian religious control. It is, of course. Difference is that, in such circumstances, one has to be very careful about how such "free thoughts" are expressed. This is where "something like absolute power" comes in.

There's probably no internet beef. Now stop worrying and enjoy your lives.

And now all we need Tuomas to bring up the gender/sexuality angle and we're all set...

Actually, that does bring up an idea: are there any prominent black voices of Atheism? It seems to be all white Englishmen.

I would like some internet beef on my humorous pita.

can we delete the back and forth btween and max and 3a plz?

i think you can buy beef and pita in the marketplace of ideas

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Harrison

I agree. Sorry. Dude stalks me.

http://www.junkfoodnews.net/baconator.JPG
the whirlwind of beef i inhale it

Do you know Pancakes, as long as the state outlaws witch-burning and the Inquisition I honestly don't think it's anybody's place to convince people that their religious beliefs are wrong.

― Birth Control to Ginger Tom (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, January 6, 2009 11:11 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

if i lived somewhere like the modern day UK i would likely agree with this 100%, but over hyeah in the good ol u.s. of a. tens of millions of folks still use religion to do cool things like trample on civil liberties, teach magic in science classes and inaccurate/ ineffective sex-ed in health classes in state funded schools.

WHY ARENT THERE MORE JEWISH VOICES OF ATHEISM THINK ABOUT THAT THEN HUH ILL BE RIGHT OVER HERE

Oh man, thirdalternative, C.S. Lewis's trilemma got picked to pieces after he presented it, to the point where he was so embarrassed by the whole ordeal that he said it was impossible and foolish to use logical proofs to show the existence of god. Which is one of two reasons I thought it was hilarious I got thrown into the first ten minutes of the Narnia movie (the other being it showed up nowhere in the Narnia books).

fwiw

GIVE ME YOUR FUCKING BEEFWICH TUNA BORER

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Jew

you're all fucking nuts

Actually, that does bring up an idea: are there any prominent black voices of Atheism? It seems to be all white Englishmen.

― thirdalternative, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 4:15 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

xp with dan was about to post hubert harrison

also butterfly mcqueen - GA represent-

http://www.ffrf.org/awards/heroine/1989_mcqueen.php

She told Gayle White, a reporter for the Atlanta Journal and Constitution (Oct. 8, 1989):

"As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of religion."

"As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of religion."

oops

And they ban/challenge books, happens every year in schools.

The great thing baout being Jewish is that you can be both Jewish and an Atheist. There are tons of Jewish Atheists. WWII helped create an entire generation of them.

I just watched the second Narnia flick. Nowhere near as good as the first. Then I watched the first one again. Still rad.

WHY SO MAD AT THIS DAWKINS CHICK SHE IS FUCKING HOT WHTHER SHE RIDES THE BUS OR NOT.

Oh man does riding the bus make you not hot? :(

;_;

I ride the bus and I am ridiculously gorgeous.

3A, everybody bans fucking books, its a grand cross-section of the american way.

Dan I will get on the gorgeous people bus with you.

Now I'm gonna tell the truth, we ain't got to fuss
I don't own a car, pimpin ride the bus

Oh my god it's a sexy haggis bus.

bus hottness was covered on the bone a friend thread i beleive

3A, everybody bans fucking books, its a grand cross-section of the american way.

― virgin mary on the halfshell (John Justen), Tuesday, January 6, 2009 9:24 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Ask any teacher, or better yet, check with the organization Banned Book Week -- it's almost always on religious grounds that books are challenged.

Like the most banned book series of all time, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark? uh?

oh how we enjoyed the 'Harry Potter encourages witchcraft' thing

Top 20 of past decade:

# Scary Stories (Series) by Alvin Schwartz
# Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite
# I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
# The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
# The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
# Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
# Harry Potter (Series) by J.K. Rowling
# Forever by Judy Blume
# Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
# Alice (Series) by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
# Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
# My Brother Sam is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
# The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
# The Giver by Lois Lowry
# It's Perfectly Normal by Robie Harris
# Goosebumps (Series) by R.L. Stine
# A Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Newton Peck
# The Color Purple by Alice Walker
# Sex by Madonna
# Earth's Children (Series) by Jean M. Auel

Abbott OTM. Was gonna say. Seems like books are most often banned or opposed on "objectionable content" grounds. Bad language, sex & violence, sexism/racism, "adult themes" (the homosex), etc. Sometimes the objection is explicitly religious, but oftentimes it's not.

Agree that if you threw in objections that aren't explicitly religious, but were brought by religious people, based on religion-inspired standards, then yeah.

someone start a poll!

The banning is about sex, the root fear of which is found in religion. The parents who challenge books in schools are overwhelmingly Christian.

how shocking that people who ask for books to be banned in a nation that is overwhelmingly Christian would overwhelmingly be Christian

Lots of great books too. Except that Earth's Children series, it's terrible caveman soft-porn. But fuck, Chocolate War, Huck Finn, The Giver.

I have a copy of Madonna's Sex right here. It's not that good, actually, but boy did she look good back in the day. See what the Kaballah did to her?

Christians are terrified of sex, they can't even stand the idea of their messiah being begat by a nice healthy fuck.

uh

The parents who challenge books in schools are overwhelmingly Christian.

― thirdalternative

Yeah, probably. After all, people are overwhelmingly Christian in this country, so it stands to reason. Most hot dogs are eaten by Christians. Most back rubs are given by Christians. Most elected officials are Christians. And most books are banned by Christians. (That's flippant, 'cuz there obviously IS a puritan, censorious impulse built into American Christianity, but we shouldn't be surprised that Christians take the majority position in anything.)

oops, HI DERE beat me to it...

Given their relatively small numbers, I'm tempted to say it's the atheists that seem disproportionately inclined to ban things: Christmas displays, prayer in schools, etc. Aggrieved liberals do a lot of it too, for seemingly non-religious reasons (to "protect the children", to stop racism & sexism, that kind of thing).

oh man stfu

they can't even stand the idea of their messiah being begat by a nice healthy fuck.

― thirdalternative

WTF? Are you trying to be "deliciously daring" here? I've got nothing against you, but I'm beginning to see where max was coming from...

oh man stfu

― and what

^^^ worst ilxor, so...

Oh, you guys!

Religion never ends well... Apologies to all!

i often tell my religious family and friends that try to convert me that by their own standards they should just hope and pray i have a personal revelation. there's no "reasoning" into belief in God

Completely OTM. My baptist theologian ex-boyfriend, with whom I had all of the theoretical arguments above, immediately recognised that when it came to the personal, there was no point in hoping to convert me and therefore he'd just have to hope I had a vision.

Boring though negotiated consensus is, can we acknowledge that religion makes some daft claims that take it beyond what it can hope to deal with, but that Aimless is still otm about the damage that atheist fundies like Dawkins can do to any prospect of serious Christians taking serious atheists seriously?

sorry, not 'religions' but 'many aspects of what many religious people claim is mysterious/unknowable, which often isn't at all'
oh, I should have weighed in before the Laphroiag, not after.

oh man, came too late to such a fun thread. would've argued all day, but for work. responding to the posts that caught my attention most, though:

Are Dawkins et al. supposed to be addressing lay believers or theologians? Should they be concerned with what academic theologians are writing, or with the stuff that appears on the "religion" bookshelves at your local Borders? The ideas that, imo, they're trying to combat are the ones held by the "lay believers," the ones that affect the way that everyday people think and approach public life.

— ^likes tilt-a-whirls (Pancakes Hackman), Tuesday, 6 January 2009 16:57 (4 hours ago)

I don't think this is nearly as strict a divide as you make it sound. Almost all of the lay believers I know who make efforts to read theology don't limit themselves to the poppy Rick Warren type stuff, but make efforts to read stuff written by (and often for) educated people. Also, a lot of Catholic theology bridges the gap quite well. So yes, Dawkins et al. should be concerned with both, given that their criticism is aimed towards all religious people, without exceptions for the well-read ones.

basically: "of course there was 'free thought' before the enlightenment. it just had to be framed in religious language!"

OTM! And is that really so awful? The language we use isn't independent of our social surroundings either.

The banning is about sex, the root fear of which is found in religion.

Actually I'd say the root fear is found in societies that value biological paternity over social, so sex is a huge deal with lots of taboos, and it manifests itself through religion in most of the societies we're familiar with. But that's nitpicking.

I think this current brand of in-your-face atheism is better suited for the 90s than today.

― burt_stanton, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 17:09

http://photosthatchangedtheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/9-112.jpg

Maria OTM, though I'm not so quick to discount the difference between then and now, re: religious control vs. freedom of thought. Good point about our "social surroundings" though, especially given that we live in this weird post-Freudian, post-PC bubble, where every stray thought or utterance has to be vetted for acceptability/correctness. Maybe it's better to say that we now enjoy more freedom of religious thought.

I'm really glad someone did the smart thing and posted a 9/11 jpg. Go internet guy!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/Retroid/2exy3rb.gif

everyone of these selebrity atheists uses 9/11 as an example of why they're against religion. "this current brand of in-your-face atheism" wouldn't have really made anywhere near as much of an impact 10 years ago.

c

burt's point just baffled me, that's all.

baffled + jpg = winner!

I don't think this is nearly as strict a divide as you make it sound.

Since this was in response to my question about whether Dawkins et al. should be concerned w/lay believers or academic theologians, I'll just point out that I didn't propose the divide in the first place, Noodle Vague did, way up top. It's a rather tricksy way of constant goalpost-moving: When you respond to academic arguments A, B and C, someone says "But that's not even something that most religious people believe!" So when you then respond to lay beliefs D, E and F, they respond, "But that's not even part of X-ist theology!"

I'll also point out that, for all the freedom of thought and expression we now enjoy, saying publicly that you're an atheist in the United States is pretty much guaranteeing you will never hold public office at any level. Just as an example of how things aren't quite that free yet.

^^ troot

Girl = Classic; "Probably" = Dud; "Enjoy your life" = Classic.

Is that "goalpost-moving" or "arguing with different people who are talking about different aspects of the same thing"?

Some of the more literal-minded scientific types on this thread would do well to check out this book, about the Greeks' attitude towards their own mythology. Keep in mind that the nature of belief and truth were much less clearly defined before the scientific method and empirical observation became established as the way to understand "objective reality".

As someone earlier in the thread pointed out, one of the scary things about modern fundamentalism (arising as it has in response to modern science) is how it transforms religious propositions into purely empirical/falsifiable statements. Of course, the other religious response to the rise of science has been "postmodern" religious thinking, negative theology, NOMA, etc. The latter is really no more or less rational of a position than "new" atheism; both are based on certain metaphysical and ethical systems (materialism/secular humanism in the case of Dawkins-style atheism) that are ultimately unjustifiable on the level of pure scientific/empirical falsifiability.

Anyway, the point is that rationalist attacks upon religion should only, and can only, focus on fundamentalist religion, which is ultimately the real problem anyway. If atheists want to criticize religion on a deeper metaphysical level, they'd have to do so on the level at which the deeper truths of religion are posited: i.e. using the terms of the humanities and metaphysical/ethical philosophy rather than science per se.

By the way, to the person who was asking about black atheism upthread: I give you... Greydon Square.

C.S. Lewis's trilemma got picked to pieces after he presented it, to the point where he was so embarrassed by the whole ordeal that he said it was impossible and foolish to use logical proofs to show the existence of god. Which is one of two reasons I thought it was hilarious I got thrown into the first ten minutes of the Narnia movie (the other being it showed up nowhere in the Narnia books).

um, i'm pretty sure it's in the first book!

(BTW, when I mention more "metaphysical" criticisms of Christinaity, I'm talking about something like Nietzsche. As annoying as faux-Nietzschean atheists can be sometimes, I'd still take them over Dawkinsian aspie-atheists.)

Greydon Square is awesome name.

Of course, the other religious response to the rise of science has been "postmodern" religious thinking, negative theology, NOMA, etc. The latter is really no more or less rational of a position than "new" atheism; both are based on certain metaphysical and ethical systems ... that are ultimately unjustifiable on the level of pure scientific/empirical falsifiability.

― i fuck mathematics

Dislike the suggestion, implicit, that religious thinking cannot be rational. Assuming that one arrives at gnosis (spiritual truth) either by one's own doing or by agency of the divine, there's no reason to think that one can't then proceed rationally from that point forward, integrating this understanding with other forms of rational/empirical thinking/knowing.

i.e., "the level of pure scientific/empirical falsifiability" is not the only level on which rational thinking may take place.

wow a bunch of motherfuckers on this thread really ought to read themselves some epistemology like right now before they go wandering into these dark murky waters FFS

Directed at me, John? If so, then no.

There are different forms of "rationality," though. All I'm claiming is that religion, atheism, and any other metaphysical system can only justify itself on a "fuzzier" level of rationality: i.e. the sort of reasoning used in the humanities.

xpost

Assuming that one arrives at gnosis (spiritual truth) either by one's own doing or by agency of the divine...

Sorry buddy, lost you there.

nothing personal but you really dont want to start working the rationality angle on either side while tossing tabula rasa/breath of god origin of "knowing" around willy nilly. wasnt directed at anyone in particular.

All I'm claiming is that religion, atheism, and any other metaphysical system can only justify itself on a "fuzzier" level of rationality: i.e. the sort of reasoning used in the humanities.

Sure, because gnostic "truths" themselves are not arrived at rationally, and cannot be effectively critiqued rationally. Therefore, even if they are subsequently integrated into/with rational & empirical understandings, they still exist on a different plane, and are not subject to the rules that govern the rest of the rational architecture. I grant that, but deny that one can't make rational use of such truths, once they arrive (or whatever it is they do).

I guess my main point is that the complaint that gnosis is, at it's core, not rational is a moot point because duh. Spiritual enlightenment may not be rational, but the religious thinking that applies it certainly can be.

Scientific hypotheses are not arrived at rationally.

yeah, i wouldn't read "use the terms of humanities and philosophy" as "do not apply rationality." this is actually one of my "arguing about atheism" pet peeves that comes up quite a lot, which is why i feel the need to comment instead of just letting it slide after the original poster clarified. (xpost)

I mean, unless you at least grant the possibility of gnosis (TRUE knowledge of the divine arrived at non-empirically), there's no reason for you to participate in a debate like this. If your basic precepts insist that gnosis is categorically impossible, then there's no room for further consideration or discussion. You've ruled out almost all forms of spiritual understanding before the conversation even starts.

How do you distinguish TRUE knowledge of the divine arrived at non-empirically from FALSE knowledge of the divine?

Scientific hypotheses are not arrived at rationally.

― ledge

I'm not sure about that, but even if I grant it, they're concretized and tested rationally. Not sure how this applies.

It applies because how truth is arrived at is irrelevant, it is how it is tested and discovered to be truth or not that is important.

How do you distinguish TRUE knowledge of the divine arrived at non-empirically from FALSE knowledge of the divine?

― ledge

That's a scientific question, not a gnostic one. Gnosis is often thought to be self-justifying, incontrovertible (esp. in the Christian tradition). Scientific understandings are arrived at by testing, comparison, refinement, etc. Gnostic understandings are simply arrived at -- or, rather, they arrive at one.

how truth is arrived at is irrelevant, it is how it is tested and discovered to be truth or not that is important.

― ledge

That, again, is only how truth is arrived at scientifically, or rationally if you prefer. Gnostic truths and understandings arrive by a different mechanism (if mechanism is the right word). And again: if you flat-out deny the possibility/validity of real, capital-T-true gnosis, you've written most religion entirely off the table before the debate even begins.

Ok so what if I have a sudden spiritual revelation about the existence of the almighty Ptharglfrzzzkr to whom all must bow down and tremble? To me it would be incontrovertinle gnostic truth. You would judge me (rightly) as a lunatic.

And yes if there is no means of distinguishing between gnostic truth and lunacy, I do write it off completely and utterly.

Ok so what if I have a sudden spiritual revelation about the existence of the almighty Ptharglfrzzzkr to whom all must bow down and tremble?

― ledge

That's gnosis.

if there is no means of distinguishing between gnostic truth and lunacy, I do write it off completely and utterly.

― ledge

That's fine, but you have to accept that you therefore have little to contribute to debates such as this beyond, "your shit's impossible and irrational."

That's fine by me. Anyway I must to bed, I wish you goodnight and may you have many mutually contradictory gnostic revelations!

unfortunately, Jesus doesn't seem to want me for a sunbeam

Yeah, rereading my post, it was a big mistake for me to use the term "rationalism" there.

Point is, I really think the theism debate is much more interesting on the level of Nietzsche vs. Kierkegaard rather than Hitchens vs. LaHaye or whoever.

Some people on this thread seem to have a really hard time understanding that some truths are outside the purview of scientific inquiry. Try to prove, for example, whether material objects outside the mind exist, or whether killing people is wrong, or what bands are "truly" metal/punk/pop in spirit, using the scientific method. You can't.

it is almost as if a whole discipline within philosophy could be created to describe this conundrum.

Some people on this thread seem to have a really hard time understanding that some truths are outside the purview of scientific inquiry.

I certainly don't think that. I do think that when it comes to discovering those truths, religion doesn't get us there. I also think that "do deities exist?" is one of the truths within that purview.

Well, I think it's more complicated than that. Some "truths" in non-scientific, dialectical thinking can take the apparent form of falsifiable propositions, but treating them as such is missing the point. To run with an example I used above, if I claimed that Magma is punk rock and the Clash are not, to respond to this by pointing out that the former conforms less to the musical definition of punk than the latter is missing the point. Although the statement takes the form of ((Band)) is ((musical style with empirically definable qualities)), it's not actually functioning on that level, and to treat it as if it is is making the same mistake that the Dawkinses of the world are making when they respond to the statement "Christianity is true" or "God exists" in the way that they do. (Again, none of this applies to attacks on fundamentalist-style Christianity in particular, because fundamentalists actually do treat the Bible as a sort of scientifically-valid history book.)

My basic point is that the concepts of God and Punk are similar in that, while they were originally created as specific, empirically definable things, most people who take the terms seriously enough also imbue them with a metaphysical/dialectical power that transcends their concrete reality. So basically old-skool medieval Christianity is like '77 punk (characterized by both a metaphysical meaning and an empirically-definable style), postmodern/existentialist-style Christianity is equivalent to all the underground styles of rock that trace their ethos back to punk, and fundamentalism is basically mallpunk (clinging to the outer empirical qualities of the idea at the expense of its metaphysical power).

I don't believe in punk.

(...re-reading what I just wrote, I'm beginning to think that studying Comp Lit has permanently destroyed my ability, in discussions like this, to not sound like a total chode to anyone without an extensive background in Weirdo French Bullshit.)

Nah, I see where yr. coming from, IFM.

Thing about arguments like Pancakes' and Ledge's is that they seek to define spirituality and divinity according to strictly materialist/scientific terms, and then challenge the validity of these straw-man material gods on similar terms. Which works, of course, but is so far removed from the actual underpinnings of religious belief as to be irrelevant as an argument against it. All that kind of anti-religious thrashing does is to suggest that "the Real God" is invisible and perhaps incomprehensible to the strict materialist, and TBH, I suspect intelligent believers are more bemused than convinced.

When I said earlier that Gnosis can't be evaluated for validity, I was wrong though. It can, but only by gnosis itself (other gnosis, higher gnosis, whatever). If I were a religious man and someone presented me with his Great Revelation concerning Pthargglh, there are a number of ways that I might evaluate the claim. I could compare it to the dogma of my faith, and accept or reject it based on how well it seems to square with that knowledge-set. This isn't a gnostic approach, but it is a religious one, based more in doctrine than divine guidance. Depending on how I made my comparisons and drew my conclusions, this could be a strictly rational approach. I could also simply decide for myself, independent of fixed doctrine, whether or not I thought this prophet's claim was likely. Does he seem insane in other regards, or does he seem like a sensible person? Has his new faith brought him happiness or suffering, riches or poores? This isn't a gnostic approach OR a religious one, but it, again, could be quite rational. Finally, I could compare his gnosis with my own. Does his story square with what the divine seems to reveal to me? This approach might or might not be religious (i.e., doctrinaire in its spirituality) but it is spiritual and is also essentially irrational.

I like the God/Punk analogy a lot. It's taking off from a totally different direction than "you can't scientifically prove murder is wrong," which is the kind of thing people do try to make evolutionary psychology arguments about.

A religious person might also argue that gnosis can be evaluated, or at least interpreted, in terms of the traditions and scriptures of the faith and how it actually works in the world. You get to keep your mind and eyes and conscience.

so when is New Atheism gonna be discontinued so we can have Atheism Classic

we need Crystal Atheism first

A religious person might also argue that gnosis can be evaluated, or at least interpreted, in terms of the traditions and scriptures of the faith and how it actually works in the world. You get to keep your mind and eyes and conscience.

― Maria

Yes! I was thinking the same, but couldn't finish the thought due to cooking spadgetti and telephone calls. Gnosis isn't necessarily incontrovertible (though I've been kinda suggesting that it is). While one type of believer is said to be more-or-less possessed by a revealed awareness of the divine, without recourse to doubt or denial, others simply seem to have "experiences" of varied sorts - experiences which they can embrace, deny, interpret, etc. So although gnostic awareness arrives by non-empirical, seemingly non-rational (arational?) means, it's reasonable to think that believers might make rational use of such knowledge, once it arrives.

Hey, anybody know anything about "bad gnosis": incorrect, though authentically spiritual, forms of knowing? Is this something theologians or spiritual types talk about? I mean, gnosis is often thought to be a form of insight, inspiration or higher understanding, therefore intrinsically valid. But what of the idea that Satan might whisper in one's ear? Isn't Satan a spiritual being, just as God is (though of course of a lower order)? And if so, then isn't the misleading "insight" offered by Satan and his like an authentic form of gnosis that is nonetheless pernicious, false, misleading? Anti-gnosis? Is there an accepted term for falsehoods from beyond the pale?

Gaaah. This is starting to sound like a billion angels dancing on pins. Everything depends on the nature of this probably imaginary thing I'm blithely dissecting without understanding at all...

Would be nice to hear from a few believers here, if only to tell me that I'm full of shit.

Atheist bus adverts could lead to watchdog ruling on God's existence

Awesome headline. Very dull story (if the ASA bothers its ass about this, I will eat a Bible).

"this current brand of in-your-face atheism"

This should be called "in-you-faitheism"

Joining Christian Voice will help you to:

Watch, and be a Watchman
(Isa 6:8; Ezek 33:1-9, Mark 13:37)

i bagsy rorschach

lol nerd

would make a change from my usual hobby of noodle vague cosplay

yo whoever linked to that Did the Greeks Believe in their Myths? thing upthread, thanks a lot; it looks way interesting and right up my alley. possibly the only thing of value that has come out of this otherwise terrible thread.

well actually everything since the last thirdalternative post was pretty good. and "faux-Nietzschean atheists vs. aspie atheists" made me lol

Hey, anybody know anything about "bad gnosis"

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41PZ805QP3L._SS500_.jpg

more to your point anecdotally i've heard people say something to the effect of 'the devil was trying to trick me'. you're dancing around it and i don't know why i want to throw a bone to some of the shitheads on this thread but...doubt is still the atheist's best friend, and it's built in to the gnostic experience for all but the most certain/credulous

doubt is still the atheist's best friend

Please explain further.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/mar/11/god-advert-christian-complaints

i didn't read it twice but lol at the graun's po-facedness over this. oh my god, 1,000 people complained. idk what they complained about the xtians' ad makes a lot mroe sense than the atheist original. saying there was 'probably' no god was an epic fail, but THEN saying 'enjoy life' was even worse. kierkegaard was right.

*what they complained about FULL STOP.
*more sense.

What are the other three most criticised ads of all time?

They had to put "probably" to get round some advertising rules. Which seemingly don't apply to xtians.

I'm confused, is there a God or not?

what are they advertising?

Cold logical existence :(

What are the other three most criticised ads of all time?

New Labour New Danger? that one that used a newspaper story about some guy dying (insurance thing?) maybe

that one where the kid says he wants to do a poo at his friends house.

pepsi max

lust for life insurance

pepsi max

entirely deserved any derision it received, IMO

Speaking as an athiest myself, there is something a bit smug and obnoxious about those bus ads.

can't believe i only learned the other day that some of the christian bus ads were paid for with the royalties earned by the guy who co-wrote "so macho" for sinitta.

BTW, I was talking about the original 'No God' ads in my last post. The xtian ones it goes without saying I object to.

They are a bit smug but I still liked them - if it only succeeded in winding up Stephen Green for five minutes it would have been worth it.

doubt is still the atheist's best friend

Please explain further.

i guess i meant "evangelical atheist's" first of all, or whatever someone like that calls themselves. and i meant that rather than attempting to snark away or dismiss someone's experience, the most effective 'tactic' would probably be to get someone to doubt the exact nature of those experiences. omgscience can be and is continuously squared with all manner of belief anyway, outside of an inordinately vocal segment of the religious population, and it kind of irks me that the oil and water relationship between the two is considered such a given in pop discussions. i don't remember why i thought it necessary to say anything on this thread but i don't feel like rereading it, so forgive any whiff of 'challenging opinion', hope it makes some sense.

It's not about dismissing anyone's experience, it's about confronting that "God says so" argument.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/01/06/bus460.jpg

"There's probably no bra"

it's about confronting that "God says so" argument

oh i don't have any answers for this, wait for them to experience brain trauma. don't pray for it though.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/01/06/bus460.jpg

Well, right, if you think you've got an immortal soul, you've got to ask why that should be so badly affected by any minor injury to the big poke of mince between your ears.

Bottom line, is what's the problem about asking people why they shouldn't at least consider coming over to the side of the tent where "god says so" doesn't apply?

People need to put their complaining general annoyingness into a good cause, like those fucking ads everywhere telling the world that they are a bit uggo and the world hates them until they get plastic surgery.*

*might be a bit of an overstatement but they piss me off.

you've got to ask why that should be so badly affected by any minor injury to the big poke of mince between your ears

^ somebody is listening