Conjunction Junction
26 November 2006 by Bob
Nice little ditty on the Richard Dawkins site called I’m an atheist, BUT… (I can only imagine what this guy has to deal with when he goes on tour):
1. I’m an atheist, but religion is here to stay. You think you can get rid of religion? Good luck to you! You want to get rid of religion? What planet are you living on? Religion is a fixture. Get over it! [...]2. I’m an atheist, but people need religion. What are you going to put in its place? How are you going to comfort the bereaved? How are you going to fill the need? [...]
3. I’m an atheist, but religion is one of the glories of human culture. [...]
4. I’m an atheist, but you are only preaching to the choir. What’s the point? [...]
5. I’m an atheist, but I wish to dissociate myself from your intemperately strong language. [...]
I think it’s pretty interesting, especially at this stage of atheism in Amerikkka, to see what the social responses might (or should) be, and how RD’s dealing with it.
26 November 2006, on 1:02 pm
I’m in full agreement with Dawkins, that the religious are not owed any special reverence, that refusing to politely “agree to disagree” with devotees of the Adult Imaginary Friend isn’t just being civil- or making a compromise, but, rather, more akin to rolling over and presenting one’s belly.
I suppose, in one sense, the religious do deserve the kid gloves treatment, in the same way that one deals with the developmentally disabled or the otherwise mentally handicapped but that kindness, that compassion is reserved for those religious seeking to deal with their particular problem. Sort of like junkies doing smash and grabs at the local pharmacy versus those in recovery. The illness is the same, what they’re doing about it differs.
1)It only seems that way, religion will go the way of the earth-centered universe, the flat earth, and spontaneous generation.
2)Compassion isn’t exclusive to religion. In fact, it may be argued that it’s almost anathema to today’s christinsanity. We’re not guaranteed comfort, truth isn’t always pretty, we make our own purpose and, by it’s fulfillment, happiness.
3)I’ve often heard all the great religious masterpieces used as a tick on the pro side of the relgion ledger but, myself, I wonder what a Michaelangelo, a Bernini, a Titian, a Fra Lippo Lippi might have created were they loosed from the constraints placed upon them by the insidious church.
I’ll grant that, at one point, religion was probably necessary, if for no other reason than to tame the savage nomads we were into something suitable for living in close quarters with one another, for enforcing the rule of law, to terrify into line, etc. Those days have long since passed.
4)Hmm, atheists, on an atheist site, talking about atheism? Assembling in such an informal way does many things. It gives hope to those surrounded by fundies in real life just to know there are others of us out here in surprising numbers. It kind of half-assed organizes us- in so much as we can be organized, and alerts us to matters that may need our attention like attempts to fuck with the establishment clause, Rick Santorums to oust from office, the creep of ID/Creationism into our science classrooms, or, more joyfully, that a new book by a Dennett, a Dawkins, a Harris is on it’s way. Think of it as CNN for the godless.
5) Then piss the fuck off!
26 November 2006, on 1:09 pm
Thanks Bob, for posting that.
For some reason…like, I didn’t do a Google?…I didn’t have Dawkins’ Official Site on my Favs.
Just a quick perusal, makes me want to return for some ‘mining’ of a lot of lucent thinking.
It’s amazing, also, how revealing the various critical comments are to the whole spectrum of the the debate(s).
I can almost smell the ‘odor’ of brain cells at work! Sometimes it’s sweet…sometimes…what a stench!
Of course the latter never happens here at GifS…Roit?
Did I just smell a stench?
Better check mine pants!
26 November 2006, on 1:52 pm
As usual…great comment, RDZ.
Just a small point…well…than again, maybe not!:
I’ve been watching quite a few atheist author’s lectures [even debates] etc. on BookTV etc.[ala Dawkins, Michael Shermer]…and have noticed the frequent assumption, by too many various audience questioners, that atheism is a kind of religion.
Yeah…the “Duh!” factor; but that’s one of those dangerous considerations that we face in any attempt at organization. Even though atheism has absolutely no content…i.e….dogmas etc…and is nothing more than the NOT having any notions of any deities whatsoever; it seems, we can’t get that through the thick skulls of the believers.
We may be mostly consigned to what we do here at GifS and elsewhere on the Web…and, perhaps, have to be sort of like “Don Quixotes” [or Sancho Panza?] in our own personal spheres…somewhat bravely attempting to inform, thus perhaps ‘guiding’ some individuals toward enough understanding to enable them to change their OWN minds…even amongst our families…and…[Oy Vey!] ‘associates’?
“Oh no!…a Missionary agenda?…I HATE Missionary fucktards!”
Come to think of it…should we now start wearing bullet proof vests?…
Yeah, and all I have is an old [classic] ‘M1′…’BB’ gun!
“HELP!…I’m being repressed!”
26 November 2006, on 3:26 pm
To Raindogzilla: The only thing I can think of to add to your fine post is my appreciation for your fine post. Excellent stuff indeed, and I concur wholeheartedly. Religious belief does not merit any kind of respect whatsoever, and to suggest that we should show respect for any form of culturally-sanctioned ignorance or psychopathology is a complete nonsense per se.
By all means show compassion, but reserve that for those who are prepared to admit that they are using religion as a means of coping with their own psychological problems and who are prepared to seek the strength within themselves to deal with these (one of the reasons I offered genuinely helpful advice to ‘MyQuestioningMind’, BTW).
To ChuckA As you correctly point out, atheism cannot be defined as a religion since it neither recognises nor worships some form of supernatural ‘creator without first cause’.
However, religious believers normally resort to claiming that atheism is a religion only after they have failed to address the historic, scientific, rational, and logical evidence that their belief is completely unsubstantiatable on any grounds whatsoever. In other words, their refusal to countenance facts leads one logically to the conclusion that their religious belief is either a symptom of their own psychological needs or that it is simply a ‘matter of faith’ or wishful-thinking on their behalf.
Once on has forced them to face that dilemma, some of them think that they are intelligent enough to use the same argument to dismiss atheism.
It is that type who claim that atheism is a religion, since they think that enables them to dismiss the atheistic argument as simply another ‘matter of faith’, and conveniently ignore all the historic, scientific, rational, and logical evidence that the object of their religious belief simply does not exist, except in their own damaged and malfunctioning psyche!
But naturally everyone here already knew that.
26 November 2006, on 3:29 pm
Addendum: Sorry folks, the pre-punltimate paragraph should read: “Once one has forced them to face that dilemma, some of them think that they are intelligent enough to use the same argument to dismiss atheism.”
My rheumy old eyes missed that - as did my arthritic fingers, lol!
26 November 2006, on 5:01 pm
But, again especially in America, it is largely a closet choir, and it desperately needs encouragement to come out
I was recently asked via email by a pretty regular commenter here why moderator/writers on this site are so secretive about our real identities and why we don’t at least post little bios about ourselves and let people know who we are like some atheists in the blogosphere do, and like Dawkins, Dennett and Harris and others are not afraid to do.
I am openly atheist now in my real life, though I am hesitant to post my real name and details about myself on here in blogland. There are so many kooks out there that we don’t know what someone might do. However, some are brave enough to let their identities be known.
Is Dawkins saying that we should “come out of the closet” even at risk of losing jobs and risking safety and tranquility of family members? Can we hide behind code names and such and still effectively promote freedom from religion and religious oppression? I have been thinking a lot about this lately since reading that person’s email questions.
26 November 2006, on 5:23 pm
I agree that religion is very problematic, but my opinion is that your strategy against it is not an effective or sound one, as it seems to me that you are merely countering one set of dogmatic beliefs with another. I don’t think there’s anything inherently problematic about the conception of God, nor of demons or other supernatural beings for that matter; nor of course would I say that there is something problematic in the concept that there is no God. My position is that it is belief which is problematic, and to believe that there is a God or that there is no God are both ultimately harmful. I think that the best strategy against religion is to embrace contradiction and simultaneous believe and disbelieve in God, which undermines the foundation of religion as a control scheme which functions by dictating the beliefs of its constituents. I don’t think any good is done by essentially saying, you should not believe this (that there is a God), you should instead believe this (that there is no God.) This is merely my opinion.
26 November 2006, on 5:26 pm
Stardust,
There was recently a court case here in UK that is apposite to your question. I’ll try to find the full details, but from memory it went like this:-
There is a site discussing religion etc, and two regular posters have an argument over the subject. Both used pseudonyms, but No 1, the subsequent victim, gave sufficient information about himself that enabled No 2 to find out his real name and address. No 2 then posted saying that he was going to visit No 1 and attack him physically for his offensive views.
No 2 armed with a club, together with an accomplice armed with a machete, then visited No1. Foolishly he opened the front door to them. He ended up with his throat cut. No 2 then posted on the site that he’d done this!
The press called it the first case of ‘internet rage’, and No 2 was sentenced last week to a derisory 2.5 years in prison (meaning he’ll be out in about 9 months).
Remember too, that anyone who criticises Islam - and denying the existence of god qualifies as such - is subject to the exhortation in the Qur’an that believers should kill them. I’m sure that you are aware that people have been murdered for doing just that, but what I have found is that many atheists who will criticise Xtianity and Judaism remain silent on Islam for that very reason!
I criticise all of them, but not without fear for my personal safety from fundie Muslims (mind you, soon it will be a criminal offence to criticise any of them in the UK, if our illustrious leader Toney Baloney and the religious establishment get their way).
26 November 2006, on 5:35 pm
Re my previous post (#7) here are some links to the story:-
Some background.
The sentence.
26 November 2006, on 6:13 pm
Old Git -
Holy crap! The stories you have provided are evidence enough as to why we need to keep our indenties secure on the internet. Like I said, the world is full of kooks! We do get into pretty “heated” debates (and occasionally have to “asshat” idiots) here at GifS and never know who is reading.
I guess it is easier to talk about atheists “coming out of the closet” and speaking out openly when one has enough money to hire bodyguards and other forms of protection. Fortunately, I live in Chicagoland where most people have a “whatever floats your boat” mentality, however, from the news story example you have provided, it would be easy enough for some lunatic to find their way to my house if they were pissed off enough. What a world.
26 November 2006, on 8:58 pm
C., while you’re correct that there is no definitive answer to the gawd question, the only thing resembling proof for the affirmative position in the argument, the bible, is constantly being disproven by scientific advances. What remains undecided is so naturally, physically, scientifically unlikely that it isn’t really worthy of consideration. Barring some newly discovered proof for the godbotherers’ extraordinary claims, it just makes no sense to take that position.
That said, I really don’t have a problem with the personal religion of any individual, just as I have no problem with someone who needs a couple drinks to unwind at night, or someone who needs to be wearing an animal suit to attain sexual release. As far as I’m concerned, in the privacy of one’s home- or one’s head, religion is no more or less than a psychological foible, a personal quirk.
When it reaches a mob level, when the mob attempts to project it’s collective hysteria into legislature, into the classroom, into an excuse for bigotry, then it’s fair game, it’s my business, and I say let the chips fall.
I can’t source this but it’s my opinion- and Dawkins’, I think, that a significant chunk of the purportedly religious are that way only because they’ve been brought up thusly and have never really given it much thought one way or another. It’s these people that need to hear religion taken to task- if for no other reason than to get them thinking. The really religious will basically just have to die off. They simply won’t be reasoned with- and aggressive irreverence really pisses them off(and they’re so cute when they’re mad).
Far as I can see, confrontation is a win/win. And, in regard to identifying oneself publicly as an atheist, I’m all over it in my personal life. Here, unless one of our number has an identifiable, influential real name, there’s really no point in throwing it out there for public consumption.
26 November 2006, on 11:49 pm
i got some good head thursday
27 November 2006, on 1:07 am
I suppose since I’ve started hanging out with a group of freethinkers who call themselves The Houston Church of Freethought, that really opens us up to that b.s. charge of “see, atheism is just another religion”; Uh, yeah, whatever, dude. I’ll just be quotin’ Robert Green Ingersoll paraphrasing Thomas Paine here “The world is my country, to do good my religion.”. no more, no less. Put that in your pipe & smoke it…
C says:
“…I don’t think there’s anything inherently problematic about the conception of God, nor of demons or other supernatural beings for that matter;”
Well, sounds like raving psychosis to me.
“I think that the best strategy against religion is to embrace contradiction and simultaneous believe and disbelieve in God, which undermines the foundation of religion as a control scheme which functions by dictating the beliefs of its constituents.”
To be able to believe A and ~A simultaneously means you’re being deliberately irrational and hence not worth talking to. You’re barking mad, in other words. I simply have no active belief in God or Gods. It, or they, may well exist, and I may be screwed because of my unbelief, but from where I sit it just doesn’t seem at all reasonable to adopt the believer’s position, and so I don’t. God-botherers read their bible, I prefer to read irreverant comedic novels from Eastern Europe. I like meaningful, human stories as much as anybody else, I just think it’s a little crazy to limit yourself to just one book and order your whole life around it.
RDZ says:
“I can’t source this but it’s my opinion- and Dawkins’, I think, that a significant chunk of the purportedly religious are that way only because they’ve been brought up thusly and have never really given it much thought one way or another.”
—>and more importantly, DON’T particularly WANT to either. These sorts of religious lightweights are annoyed equally by atheists like us and by fundies on their other flank.
They’re under pressure from both sides.
“…It’s these people that need to hear religion taken to task- if for no other reason than to get them thinking.”
I’ve said elsewhere that it really is interesting how we atheists do actually unwittingly collude with fundamentalists on the other side to really put the squeeze play on religious moderates/liberals and/or moderate agnostics. Both of us sort of throw down the gauntlet and sort of demand they “shit or get off the pot”. The filmmaker who put out the documentary THE GOD WHO WASN’T THERE de-converted from a fundie brand of Xtianity to outright atheism; but even as an atheist, he really had it in for religious moderates, really raked them over the coals, so to speak.
I was a little taken aback by his vehemence…I was like, yeah, yeah, your arguments are solid and all, but whatever, man, unless they go sticking their religion in my face, who gives a crap what they think, whether its internally consistent, biblically consistent, etc.
“…The really religious will basically just have to die off. They simply won’t be reasoned with- and aggressive irreverence really pisses them off(and they’re so cute when they’re mad).”
Also, this is why these fucktards have to be kept as far away from the levers of state power as possible. And why, as an atheist, living in the society I do live in, I own guns and know how to use them. Like they used to say circa 1776: “Don’t tread on me.”
Of course, to state you believe in the bible 100% already entails believing multiple contradictions, which is ipso facto irrational to begin with. One thing I like about UU’s is they’re completely up-front about their picking and choosing what they like from assorted religious traditions and discarding what they don’t like, since there’s no overarching dogma or ecclesiastical hierarchy policing them that says they can’t do that. It’s a real eclectic mix of people there…we have ex-Catholics, non-practicing AND practicing Jews, Freethinkers, etc. Some UU’s are more sincere believers in some kind of deity than others, but they seem willing to live and let live, and we all agree on some pretty basic social justice issues, so I don’t push the issue of whether or not their personal god is a reasonable or useful belief. Of course, there may be even fewer UU’s in this country than there are plain ol’ nonbelievers.
My atheism isn’t a positive belief system as C seems to imply–rather, it’s a lack of a positive belief in God or gods. My secular humanism, my anarcho-socialist politics, THOSE are positive belief systems I assert and choose to live by…they are narratives sufficiently grand enough to infuse my life with meaning, at the very least. These positive belief systems are interwoven with my atheism, no doubt, but they’re not synonymous with it…it’s like my atheism is a necessary but not sufficient (of itself) condition for my positive belief systems. I also maintain a generally rational/scientific outlook–but I hesitate to give that the misleading label “belief system”; it’s more like a structural paradigm…the *how* you think of before you think of “something”, anything.
I put up with UU’s because they’re not pushy or coercive (yet–that I can tell), whereas even the most moderate, formally Xtian sect has definitive rules of “you must believe X,Y, and Z” or you are not of the elect, or whatever pejorative they care to use. Go around quoting pluralistic stuff like my Ingersoll quote above, and even the most liberal xtian church will have to kick you out. UU’s just nod in acknowledgment, thank you for your contribution, and move on.
But I will say so far, I do laugh more and feel more comfortable around Houston Church of Freethought people, because they are, well, my kind of people, no ifs, ands or buts about it.
27 November 2006, on 2:13 am
JJR,
My position is that a belief system does not have to consist of positive beliefs to constitute a belief system. Disbelief, in my opinion, is a kind of belief- if you believe that God exists, you do not believe that God does not exist, and the same goes for lacking belief in God. My statement that I both believe and disbelieve in anything was slightly a baroque way of making the distinction between believing in nothing and disbelieving in everything.
As for your characterization of a position based in illogic as “barking mad”, I think that belief in “logic” as an unchallengable and supreme authority is a kind of dogmatic belief in itself. The language of logic itself can be used to show its inherent fallability- just look to Gödel to see logic skewered on its own sword, so to speak. Anyway, as I said, I believe in nothing, and to believe in nothing is to allow “nothing” to constitute a thing, which is inescapably, yes, mad.
But what is psychotic, and ravingly psychotic at that, about allowing the conception of God or of anything else? The point I am trying to make is that it is possible to think, to consider, without belief. The world is interesting when treated as a range of possibilities, with no compulsion felt to force any of them into actuality. It’s that compulsion that leads to the whole religion problem in the first place.
27 November 2006, on 5:32 pm
C.: The point I am trying to make is that it is possible to think, to consider, without belief.
I’m pretty sure I understand what you’re saying here, but could you please provide a concrete example of your point? Your definition of “belief” as you’re using it would also help.
C.: The world is interesting when treated as a range of possibilities, with no compulsion felt to force any of them into actuality.
I find this statement much more nebulous than your previous one without that concrete example I requested above. In particular, I feel definitions of what you’re referring to very necessary at this point. What do you mean by “world,” the actual physical planet on which we live or the human race in general or US society, for instance? And what is “interesting,” diversity of ethnicity, culture, custom, religion, etc. or something else entirely?
And as for a “range of possibilities” no one is compelled to “force” into “actuality,” I could use that to justify standing back and letting an impoverished child starve to death. After all, it’s possible that she won’t die just because she doesn’t get anything to eat ever, so why should anyone feel compelled to force me to give her food? Again, though, without any examples of what you mean I could be misinterpreting your words - although my interpretation could be equally as valid as yours given its equal possibility…
27 November 2006, on 6:56 pm
C said:
Perhaps I’m missing something here, but it seems to me that your statement has a critical flaw.
First, you claim that disbelief is a kind of belief, but I think that you would find it difficult to substantiate that logically, though I’d be interested to see you attempt to do so.
Second, whilst I do not wish to get involved in a discussion regarding the application of doxastic logic, it seems to me that your continuation is also logically indefensible. Whilst is logically correct to state, as you do, “…if you believe that God exists, you do not believe that God does not exist…” however, your next clause is not logically correct, and is actually not related to the first clause: “…and the same goes for lacking belief in God.” The “lacking of belief” to which you refer is not synonymous with the active state of “not believing” to which you initially refer, so your argument collapses immediately.
Third, you conclude by making a distinction between “believing in nothing and disbelieving in everything”, but I think that you will find that is another indefensible statement and, as such, is actually meaningless. Admittedly Eastern philosophers do recognise the mental state of wu-hsin, no-mind, which can be transliterated as “believing in nothing” but that is not to say that it is a synonym for the state of “disbelieving in everything” since wu-hsin, by definition discards even that.
In conclusion, I think your argument has no merit whatsoever, but will be interested in your response, if any.
27 November 2006, on 7:24 pm
Eve: I would define belief as the resolution of a set of possibilities in which only one is logically possible into the actuality of a specific possibility which entails the disinclusion from actuality of the other possibilities, in a sense analogically similar to the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics. The state before this happens is a state, and it’s the state where I choose to dwell.
I define “world” as the sum of that which I percieve.
I agree with you that this stance includes moral complications, such as that hypothetical child. Obviously, in practice it would be difficult and pointless to take this position to its extremes – to function in the world there is much that we accept empirically, without having a concrete reason for why we should accept it, simply because it is obvious – we don’t doubt that an egg will crack if dropped or worry that the sun will not rise tomorrow. I take this stance to realisting apply only to that which is difficuly or impossible to prove, and I take it as an ideal, not as something that I achieve completely.
TOG: You are correct that I used my terms carelessly: a lack of belief is different from disbelief. But I wish again to stress that to assume statements that are “logically indefensible” are void is to accept the doctrine of “logic” without challenging it. Logic is not universal. A logical system cannot be applied to nothing, since logic deals only with that which is or which is possible. Nor can a logical system be made to decribe itself, as Gödel proved. Yet this is all we can be sure of in the world – that the self exists, since it is our experience, and that there is nothing else. Outside of the self and nothing, we can’t be sure that anything exists - merely that it seems to exist, and that it may be possible or concievable. Based on this I think that it is erroneous to claim that anything is-this or is-that, so I choose both and neither.
27 November 2006, on 7:53 pm
I detect the stench of sophistry!
27 November 2006, on 8:31 pm
A billion words later and you’ll still be treading water.
27 November 2006, on 9:29 pm
I define “world” as the sum of that which I percieve.
You can do that? Just define words like that? And the words don’t have any real meanings prior to doing this? In that case, I’m writing now from my private jet, and Napoleon is now serving me caviar…
Obviously, in practice it would be difficult and pointless to take this position to its extremes – to function in the world there is much that we accept empirically, without having a concrete reason for why we should accept it, simply because it is obvious – we don’t doubt that an egg will crack if dropped or worry that the sun will not rise tomorrow. I take this stance to realisting apply only to that which is difficuly or impossible to prove, and I take it as an ideal, not as something that I achieve completely.
Your first sentence prompted a question (”But how is the existence or non-existence of God different from the sun rising tomorrow?”), and your second sentence answered it (”only where it’s difficult or impossible to prove”).
This, I guess, is where the agnostics differ from the atheists — i.e., by importing that weird epistemology of the possible for the non-finalization of the judgment.
Funny how this reasoning begs the question when it’s (conveniently) not applied to things other than the existence of God. (I’ll leave the claim of “difficult or impossible to prove” for homework.)
I would suggest taking a look here, and the first link from here. Then you can tell me what you think.
27 November 2006, on 10:45 pm
Bob, Eve asked me to define my use of the word “world”, and because any person has access to the world only through my experiences, “the sum of one’s experiences” seems to be a valid definition of the term, although one also might use it to mean an “objective” view of the world. Such a view is nothing more than a conception, as it is not as if we can observe the world from without in discern what is real and what is not.
My argument isn’t invalidated by not being useful in day to day life in which we must assume some things, as in my example of the egg breaking, etc. That we make such assumptions does not mean that they are correct. I don’t think that correctness is a concept applicable to the universe we live in.
I looked through your links. For the first, I understand some of your reasons for opposing Christianity, or organized religion in general, and agree with some of those reasons. However, it seems that in many arguments on this site negative attributes specific to Christianity are treated as though they apply to all positions of belief in a non-materialist doctrine.
The link to the Dawkins article is broken, but I would like to read it. The quoted section of Aquinas which describes a God that contains all qualities emininently, as in a pre-eminent stinker, etc., sounds to me to be describing an inherent impossibility since this God would necessarily contain qualities which were contradictory of each other. It’s doesn’t accomplish anything to use logic to refute such a being, as it is inherently self-contradictory and so is obviously not logically impossible. What distinguishes my view from yours is merely that I am willing to abandon logic and conceive of that which is impossible, and I feel that this is fecund and not merely fanciful because through contradiction and negation it becomes possible to conceive of nothing. That is, by willing oneself into a conception that applies to no possible state of the world, one thereby conceives of nothing (indirectly, just as any conception of the world is indirect.) The materialist, logical conception of the world necessarily excludes nothing because it relates only to that which is. How is this intrinsically a more valuable view of the world? How is it not a form of dogmatic belief to accept only this view of the world and refute a view grounded in the impossible simply because it is not logical? Human beings are capable of experiencing illogical thoughts, perceptions and concepts, and I’m more interested in understanding the what constitutes those experiences than refuting them in order to prove a point of view that I believe to be valid. I understand you believe that inherent in those illogical beliefs and conceptions is a threat against your political rights and your person, but I don’t think the polemic approach of this site could possibly be a balm to that situation.
My statement of my position is a sophism insofar as I have no fixed position whatsoever.
28 November 2006, on 12:29 am
As Eve ‘brought up’…
By the way, nice ‘UPPING’, Eve! (a Young Frankenstein ref.)…
It’s philosophically important to DEFINE YOUR TERMS!
Now, don’t expect me to follow that advice!…wha!…Do you think I’m nuts?
[Internet Crowd: “YES!!!”]
A lot of the previous comment lingo, though very interesting, reminds ME of at least 2…no…3 terms:
1)Rationalism, 2)Idealism…and 3)Solipsism?
[What! Time to check Wikipedia?…my brains cells are yelling at me…”WTF?”]
Certainly Emanuel Kant struggled with that old ’sense data’ problem.
Let’s see…in my quasi-Kantian version…I only experience my own consciousness; and additionally, it’s really the ONLY truly existential ‘PRESENT’ that I experience. Of course, it all starts with–you know–the old “Cogito Ergo Sum” bit …or: “I think therefore, I am!”
[By the way, here’s my musician version:…
“I stink, therefore, I Jam!”]
Continuing…
We all have that old ‘problem’ of relying on our sense data for everything that we physically experience. It’s not only, I must assume, that my senses can be very unreliable, but the interpretation of the data [by my brain, of course] always occurs, to my ‘awareness’, as an existential ‘PAST’. As an example, even a conversation with another person, points that concept up…tiny fractions of a second separate people in ‘experiential’ time.
All the data we have from Hubble, for example, is assumed, by science, to be millions, if not billions of light years from the actual past events that occurred in the universe. We really know nothing about what’s out there in the ‘Existential NOW’; not even in our own Galaxy, “The Milky Way”…and so forth.
Back home, in our own little, subjective, ‘noggins’…that extreme example applies to EVERYTHING we experience in that assumed ‘world out there’ which we all, PRACTICALLY speaking, have a ‘need’ to accept as a reality.
If I don’t trust and accept my own sense data, that I’m hammering on something called a computer keyboard, and using something else called a “Mouse”…I might as well just curl up in an imaginary corner; perhaps in a fetal position…sucking away at one of my thumbs; assuming that even THEY are real.
I’ll grind this little ‘College Philosophy’ reminiscent notion of mine to a halt, with that little old extremist Idealistic notion of Solipsism.
The…you know…maybe I’m ‘Gawd’…and everything really only exists in MY mind. All youse guys are just characters in the computer that I dreamed up for my amusement. I, however, must somehow have an extreme fetish for mental Sado-Masochism; and love to play games…of course…it’s ALL with myself. Now, this shtick is starting to bore me…maybe its time to ‘go’ DO something…like…ooooh, I dunno…Masterbate?…Hmmm…there’s a combination of word elements. Master…and bate! As in: I’m the Master…now, “Where’s the bate”?
[The imaginary stomach: “Yeah…AND the Beef!”]
Or ala Homer Simpson: “Mmmmm…masterbate!” Wasn’t that just too creative of me to dream all that animation stuff up!
I’m KIDDING, my fellow GifSters!!!…as is my wont!…aren’t I?…
I guess my point in all this is…we never seem to admit, even to ourselves, how ridiculous many of the intellectual game playing arguments, that we all get into, end up. They almost always end with a sense of incompleteness; perhaps suggesting a final statement like:
“You know something?…I really DON’T ultimately know all the answers!…
and that’s OK!”
At the same time, folks, I’m not one to disparage intellectual inquiry…just pointing up that we need to retain some sense of humor along the way.
Yeah…and of course…Skepticism!
After all…in a hundred years [certainly much less for ‘Moi’]…we’ll all most probably be gone from this ‘Little Blue Dot”…and SO WHAT!
Who’ll be here…if humans even survive the effects of climate and other ‘Earth’ changes, etc…that will have the faintest memory of all this?
But then…that reminds ME of the Buddhist’s:
“EVERYTHING IS…ultimately?…ILLUSION!”
Yeah…so, what about humor?…
Laugh it up?…Gather ye rosebuds? How much toilet tissue am I allowed to use?
Have a nice life? Get the hell outa here?
Should I use a Smiley?
No?
28 November 2006, on 12:38 am
Chuck, your point of view is refreshing
28 November 2006, on 1:32 am
5. I’m an atheist, but I wish to dissociate myself from your intemperately strong language.
As long as there are people out there who believe a god instructs them to mutilate little girls and boys, engage in unprotected sex, bomb neighbors, stone women to death, reject scientific evidence, etc., an atheist’s language can never be
intemperately strong.
28 November 2006, on 5:14 am
Lynda said:
Tsk, tsk, Lynda, don’t you know that you’re supposed to respect, all those despicable religious beliefs.
Why, only the other day I was sacrificing 32 small children as part of my prayer ritual to Coatlicue, the Mother of the Gods, when some ignorant law-enforcement type ‘dissed’ my religion and dragged me off to jail. Fortunately, the judge upheld my plea that under the European Convention on Human Rights I have the unfettered right to practise my religion without criticism or interference.
28 November 2006, on 5:20 am
Chuck,
I always maintained that Descartes got it the wrong way round. Instead of ‘cogito ergo sum’ it should be ’sum ergo cogito’; I am therefore I think.
But then Descartes got other things the wrong way round too, like his pathetic arguments to prove that god exists.
He didn’t have much of a sense of humour either!
28 November 2006, on 8:30 am
Hi
From now on AD means After Dawkins.
It is very easy to slander liberators
28 November 2006, on 11:14 am
Oh, dear, have I been disrespectful again?
Will I get an all expenses paid vacation at a government institution if I continue to insult the beliefs of the religiously insane?
Tsk, tsk to the prophet (shit be on his head) who instructs women to wear clothing that covers their bodies from head to toe and does not allow sufficient exposure to the sunlight causing vitamin D deficiencies, resulting in all sorts of physical ailments.
28 November 2006, on 12:59 pm
Yes, Old Git…good ‘points’…as usual!
Your comment: “I always maintained that Descartes got it the wrong way round. Instead of ‘cogito ergo sum’ it should be ’sum ergo cogito’; I am therefore I think”
You mean…in a sense…
he had Des cartes before the horse(s)?
[Drummer: badumbum!].
28 November 2006, on 4:11 pm
Thank you very much for replying, C.
C.: The quoted section of Aquinas which describes a God that contains all qualities emininently [sic], as in a pre-eminent stinker, etc., sounds to me to be describing an inherent impossibility since this God would necessarily contain qualities which were contradictory of each other. It’s[sic] doesn’t accomplish anything to use logic to refute such a being, as it is inherently self-contradictory and so is obviously not logically impossible.
I agree, and if other human beings wish to believe that such a being exists, it’s their prerogative to do so. Most of us here at GifS could care less if our kooky neighbor next door swears that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that he worships him with a home-cooked pasta dish every Friday night. I personally wouldn’t mind being a guest at those meals; I’ve been invited to Jewish seders as well as Easter Sunday dinners in my life so far.
C.: What distinguishes my view from yours is merely that I am willing to abandon logic and conceive of that which is impossible, and I feel that this is fecund and not merely fanciful because through contradiction and negation it becomes possible to conceive of nothing. That is, by willing oneself into a conception that applies to no possible state of the world, one thereby conceives of nothing (indirectly, just as any conception of the world is indirect.) The materialist, logical conception of the world necessarily excludes nothing because it relates only to that which is. How is this intrinsically a more valuable view of the world? How is it not a form of dogmatic belief to accept only this view of the world and refute a view grounded in the impossible simply because it is not logical?
Concrete examples, please; I did ask for them before, as well…
C.: Human beings are capable of experiencing illogical thoughts, perceptions and concepts, and I’m more interested in understanding the [sic] what constitutes those experiences than refuting them in order to prove a point of view that I believe to be valid.
Again, some specific instances would be helpful…
C.: I understand you believe that inherent in those illogical beliefs and conceptions is a threat against your political rights and your person,
Excuse me, but how is someone’s belief that it’s OK to kill me unless I convert to his particular illogical belief system a “belief” of mine? How can I not view someone actively seeking to force me to live according to his illogical conceptions even though I disagree with them as a threat to my political rights and person?
C.: but I don’t think the polemic approach of this site could possibly be a balm to that situation.
We don’t intend it to be; if anything, we offer a “balm” to other freethinkers like us who at the very least need a place to let off steam. Since you say you’re more interested in understanding what constitutes our experiences than refuting them to prove your point, you might want to read more of our posts and comments, and get to know us better. After all, we could always argue that you’re trying to validate your point that illogic and logic constitute equally valid foundations for belief systems by attempting to refute our point that logic constitutes a better – and the circle jerk would go on…
28 November 2006, on 5:42 pm
Lynda said:
You will indeed get such a vacation if our Illustrious Leader Toney Baloney Blair gets his way and manages to force through his pet legislation making such criticism a crime ‘if a religious believer is offended by those remarks’ - note the entirely subjective test that is proposed!
Over here the religious loonies are becoming so worried about atheism that they have formed an alliance between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church to pressurise the government and the establishment to stand up against atheism and atheists. This bunch of delusional psychopaths and manipulative sociopaths have the temerity to call atheisism “an intolerant faith position”!
As if that onslaught wasn’t enough, we now have a group of academics and clerics who call themselves ‘Truth in Science’ who are actively trying to discredit evolution and to bring the idea of ‘intelligent design’ into our science lessons in schools and universities. I wrote a brief piece about them here but more needs to be done to expose these fraudulent charlatans for what they are - mendacious, duplicitous, utterly contemptuous shitheads!
Maybe it’s about time I ‘conceived the impossible’, as C would have it, or imagined the unimaginable, and called upon Cthulhu and the Elder Ones to demonstrate to all these morons which god really is the ‘first cause’?
28 November 2006, on 6:43 pm
BTW, anyone who doubt that the people behind the ‘Truth in Science’ movement are completely ‘off their rocker’, to use a professional term, and lying bastards to boot, need only watch the interview between Professor Andy McIntosh (one of the Xtian leaders of the movement) and Professor Lewis Wolpert (a highly respected Humanist). The video can be found on the BBC’s Newsnight website and it is approximately 20:00 minutes into the tape and lasts for about 8 and a half minutes.
28 November 2006, on 6:45 pm
Sorry folks, my formatting went wonky, but the link does work and takes you to the BBC video player.
29 November 2006, on 11:41 am
The Old Git wrote:
Call us gun nuts over here in the US, but No 2 and his cohort would have met with me and Mr Ruger had they showed up at my house after making threats online. And personally, I’d rather be shot than beaten and hacked to death.
29 November 2006, on 1:18 pm
Eve wrote:
I’m guessing you meant “couldn’t care less”, since “could care less” means you do care to some degree.
29 November 2006, on 1:52 pm
Revenant, good point!