Old Wine in New Bottles

[Fred]

Like others, I'm wondering why you posted using such unnecessarily metaphorical language? Why not just make your point as succinctly as possible? Then there would be no need to unpack your overly flowery prose and get to the f'n point.

Mother of Nietzsche, not only God, but art, too?

I was in the process of replying point by point, but then I decided why bother?

Cause it's easier to dismiss that way or pretend it's my fault that you misread something because I didn't spoon feed it to you in bullet points? Look, bullet points haven't been faring any better around here, let me tell ya. Reason and logic may rule, but seemingly from afar.

There are so many flawed statements in your OP, that I didn't even know where to start. But here's a few gems:

Heh. Well, thanks for sharing just a few. Hope they are good ones.

In time, the turf grab became the turf grabbed and held with the same tight grip favored by its predecessor. Evolution.

Are you saying that evolution preceded atheism?

Why, no I'm not. (But now that you mention it, uh, yeah, I'd have to say so. Billions and billions of years before.) I meant the evolution of the situation, from the mythic to the rational. Context is helpful, as we'll see.

Cārvāka, Samkhya and Mimamsa were atheistic philosophical schools that existed as early as the 6th century BCE in India.

"Mimamsa theorists decided that the evidence allegedly proving the existence of God was insufficient. They argue that there was no need to postulate a maker for the world"

Wow! 6th century BCE Indians having the same reasons for disbelieving in the existence of gods as the vast majority of modern atheists. And evolution did not appear until over 2000 years later.

Uh, that's all very interesting, but it doesn't apply to what I was saying.

I was talking about Western society, Bob. Please tell me you didn't get that lost in the daisies to have missed that.

We know what's really Real. We know the One True Way, and unless you are on our team, you are an infidel. Why? Because we say so and we are rocking and ruling the world. Empirical is awfully close to empire, and our way is the highway, because we built it. Now, all roads lead to us. Deal with it.

This a straw man. Very few atheists claim to have absolute certainty that a god or gods don't exist.

Oh, dear. No, that's part of the mythic structure. It becoming clear that the only thing you guys know about it is how to yell about it and at it.

So Mythic went Industrial Strength, snuck in under the covers with Science, and soon a new age was born; a new faith for a new day. The us vs. them dynamic, the demonization of the Other, Mythic's signature move, was quietly appropriated for use against any who might challenge the new authority

So, not believing in the existence of gods has become a new mythology?

No. It's not about a new mythology, it's about the mythic structure. It's a structure of development both individually and large scale. It has certain identifiable features. You know them all because you scream about them all the time in the culture wars; because it's the hub of the conservatives and all that family values stuff.

The demonization of the the Other (All that Chosen People stuff) is chief amongst them, and you don't just leave it behind when you move on in development. It's part of the package and comes along for the ride just like everything else.

Is that really the philosophical rack you want to hang your hat on?

Nope.

Is not believing in the existence of garden fairies also another new mythology?

Nope.

As for having a dogma, oh, yes you do. Maybe you can't see it from inside the choir room, but outside it's clear as day, and that's what this thread is about.

Did you post any examples yet?

Yup.

I'm interested in learning the atheist dogma I hold.

Wish I believed that. Far as I can see you are far more interested in insisting that it isn't there before you even know what it is.

---

Okay, no evidence for the immaterial, rgr. So, when I say that I don't feel that it would be very prudent to claim that we know that anything beyond the material exists, or even more directly, that the materials IS all we know anything about....what's the correlation to religion there? When I say that the only thing we know about god or gods is what exists here in the material world (the texts) and that those texts frequently contradict what we do know about the material world...whats the correlation to religion? When I ask for evidence (and obviously base my entire world view upon evidence)...whats the correlation to religion?

Does a rock exist? Yep here's the evidence.
Does a soul exist? Nope, no evidence.

(evidence shows up) Hey look at that I was wrong. Souls do exist.

The part in parenthesis is your responsibility.

This isn't explained, or that isn't explained is evidence of the unexplained, not the immaterial. I'm unwilling to posit dualism, or appeal to solipsism or ignorance. What we know is what can be demonstrated, end of. If you wish for your overarching spiritual truths to be taken seriously, on par with the existence of things like rocks, or human beings, then you have legwork to do. No amount of criticism leveled at materialism will change that. You want it, go get it. Magnetism was magic once upon a time, so there's hope.

Heh. Ok, Rhythm, you win. Off the reservation we go for some gameball fun. I'll move this to another thread as it's not on target with this one and get back to ya tomorrow. Remember, I did ask nice more than once and did say it might not turn out like you had hoped.