Old Wine in New Bottles

[Fred]

Look, I'd have an opinion if I'd read his books, I just haven't. Really nothing else to say.

You don't even need to read his books. The only important point is that he is something of an expert in one domain pontificating about another domain he has been repeatedly shown not to understand beyond the simplest level. When called on such, he happily concurs, and has a nice little speech about leprachaunology or some other glib bullshit. And nobody seems to be bothered by that, even though the same kind of thing coming the other way brings out the long knives in a trice. It's inconsistent, but it's the way it goes.

You again make references to scientists and figures of religious authority.

When they are germane to the topic, yeah, I do that. I'm a fucking nut that way. Wish I had more company in that regard.

Your every post likens science, specifically materialism

Stop right there, Rhythm, as you just stepped into exactly the pile of shit this is all about. My posts don't liken science to anything. I have no kick against science in any way.

Materialism is not the same thing as science and the fact that it is seen as such is exactly what I do have a problem with and this thread is meant to get at that issue.

(is there some other form of reality that science is engaged in?) and atheism to a belief no better than any other.

Materialism is a philosophy, and a highly problematic one at that. I want to discuss those problems because they bear greatly on future development in a way that is every bit as fucked up as the fundies in the legislature.

You'll have to forgive me when i read lines like

"atheism dropped the beliefs but held tightly to the well-worn, highly effective mythic structure"

"We know what's really Real. We know the One True Way, and unless you are on our team, you are an infidel"

"So Mythic went Industrial Strength, snuck in under the covers with Science,"

"a new faith for a new day"

and feel that you're likening science, materialism, and atheism to a religion. If that's not your intention, then fine, but it very much appears to be the case.

What I am doing is seeking to show how materialism and atheism are as faith-based as a religion and how it got that way. It's a common charge and for good reason, and I'm happy to explicate it.

I don't need a gameball, I have no one here to impress. Since I'm so obviously incapable of interpreting the things you say correctly I ask for clarity.

Fine. When you don't understand what I say, asking for clarity is all good. Assuming what I'm saying before doing so is all bad. Let's stick with the former.

As for the gameball, good to hear because I make a really, really poor one, as folks often learn a little later than they might have wished.

So let's take a look at this and again, please quote me when you respond to a point so I can keep track.

[The Grand Nudger]

Glad to see you're all for science, excellent. So, scientific evidence of the immaterial is forthcoming?

[Fred]

Glad to see you're all for science, excellent. So, scientific evidence of the immaterial is forthcoming?

No, dude. I'm not going off the reservation. Man up and deal with the topic or go kick a fundie.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

I absolutely hope that you do more than bitch about materialism, so you're probably right.

[Jackalope]

After all, the gnu atheists are why atheism is on the radar at all, so it would be odd to not know what the main cheerleader for your team was up to.

I realized this wasn't directed at me, but I feel it's my duty to point out that atheism isn't a team sport. What Richard Dawkins is up to has so little relevance to myself and what I think that said relevance can't even be measured in nanogiveashits.

For you, perhaps, maybe not. But just as gnus go on about moderate religionists being enablers for the extremists by their very existence, that works for your team too. You can protest all ya like, and if it bothers you to be lumped in with them, maybe you can go ask a moderate religious person what that's like because they have ample experience with the dynamic.

Atheists don't have dogma. We don't have or need a fucking pope.

Whether you need one is debatable, but whether you got one is not. You let those gnu guys muscle their way to the head of the table and whether you like it or not, those outside the choir room are quite happy to do that lumping, just as you guys are quite happy to lump all religious folks together. (emphasis added)

Oh, the delicious irony. Pot, meet kettle.

I'll reiterate. We (atheists) don't need a fucking pope. We're people bound by only a single common denominator: We don't hold beliefs in the existence of deities.

You are making the error of conflating atheism with a host of other ideas. While it may be true that many atheists share similar views with respect to cosmology, evolution, etc, there are many more who do not. That those views are held in common does not make them part of atheism. I'll say it again - we share a single common denominator: We don't hold beliefs in the existence of deities.

Dawkins, Hitchens, et al do not speak for me, and I doubt that they would want to. They are merely professing their own learned opinions, nothing more.

But hey, don't let me interfere with you arguing against your own strawman. Have at it.

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?

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

Please go on...

Despite what he claims, no he did not, unless he did it elsewhere.

[Fred]

Atheists don't have dogma. We don't have or need a fucking pope.

Whether you need one is debatable, but whether you got one is not. You let those gnu guys muscle their way to the head of the table and whether you like it or not, those outside the choir room are quite happy to do that lumping, just as you guys are quite happy to lump all religious folks together. (emphasis added)

Oh, the delicious irony. Pot, meet kettle.

I'll reiterate. We (atheists) don't need a fucking pope. We're people bound by only a single common denominator: We don't hold beliefs in the existence of deities.

Yo, you can reiterate all ya want, but you are missing the point. You are talking about correctness of terms. I'm talking about the sociological aspect, the view outside the tent. Two different things.

You are making the error of conflating atheism with a host of other ideas. While it may be true that many atheists share similar views with respect to cosmology, evolution, etc, there are many more who do not. That those views are held in common does not make them part of atheism. I'll say it again - we share a single common denominator: We don't hold beliefs in the existence of deities.

See? Nobody gives a figleaf for bald is a hair color lines and all this. You lost them and you aren't getting them back. And you know why?

Dawkins, Hitchens, et al do not speak for me, and I doubt that they would want to. They are merely professing their own learned opinions, nothing more.

Here's why. Oh, yes they do speak for you and there isn't a fucking thing you can do about it. Your protestations are useless and unheeded. They won, and the "atheist, buts" lost. Deal with it, because while you got lost in the definition thickets, the gnus grabbed the ball and ran.

They took the Bright spotlight and having gotten used to it, they aren't going to give it back. So like it or not, as far as the outside world goes, atheism is now them. They're your poster boys whether you buy one or not.

You enjoyed the attention they brought you, so now you gotta pay the piper and it isn't at all your call any more than the moderate religious get to decide whether they will be lumped in with the extremists. Others make the call for themselves, and have. Sorry. Wtf did you expect them to do after all that pounding the gnus put on them? You poisoned your own well, or let the gnus do it for you.

I'm not aligned with them and not aligned with you guys, so standing on the outside it's not hard to see it play out. It's right there to watch.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think everyone here understands by now that you dislike "gnu atheists". I still haven't seen any substance.

[KichigaiNeko]

Here's why. Oh, yes they do speak for you and there isn't a fucking thing you can do about it. Your protestations are useless and unheeded. They won, and the "atheist, buts" lost. Deal with it, because while you got lost in the definition thickets, the gnus grabbed the ball and ran. ...........

You enjoyed the attention they brought you, so now you gotta pay the piper and it isn't at all your call any more than the moderate religious get to decide whether they will be lumped in with the extremists. Others make the call for themselves, and have. Sorry. Wtf did you expect them to do after all that pounding the gnus put on them? You poisoned your own well, or let the gnus do it for you.

I'm not aligned with them and not aligned with you guys, so standing on the outside it's not hard to see it play out. It's right there to watch.

And still YOU will be labeled and filed Fred... what's the big deal?? Categorising, Pattern recognition, Judgmentalism and Decision making are all human "skills".

No matter what you say or don't say, "others" will judge you and lump you in with a demographic that suits their ego. Why should this be a point of angst for you??