Old Wine in New Bottles

[The Grand Nudger]

Look, I'd have an opinion if I'd read his books, I just haven't. Really nothing else to say. You again make references to scientists and figures of religious authority. Your every post likens science, specifically materialism (is there some other form of reality that science is engaged in?) and atheism to a belief no better than any other. 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. 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.

[ElDinero]

Yo, ED, I didn't get to your last post yet, but the main line in it was this: “There has never, ever been any credible evidence to suggest that any further consciousness or life exists outside of this.”

That's going to be at the heart of all of this, and I was going to start another thread on that anyway.

Since I'm neither interested nor qualified to discuss the technical aspects of when dead is really dead, hence the NDE stuff and all that, I'm going to beg off that portion and stick with the main shot I put here. Fair?

No, not really. You said you didn't see compelling evidence that dead is dead. Now you're saying you aren't qualified to discuss it. So why make the statement in the first place? I explained concisely but I think fairly thoroughly what the evidence for 'dead is dead' is, and stated that the only reason to oppose it would be evidence for something else. So I asked you for what your reason for doubt was, and if it be based on evidence for something else, what is it?

I don't accept your decision to now evade the issue, since it was you that raised it in the first place.

[Faith No More]

The bit about being unaware of Dawkins was the tipping point that convinced me you were either uninterested or incapable of playing a straight game. For an atheist to say that he is unaware of the main hitter in your lineup is akin to a catholic saying he is unaware of the pope. It's either a bald-faced lie or displays a level of ignorance of the social context the issue rests within that is beyond my ability to suffer.

So it makes me ignorant because I don't give a damn what Dawkins has to say outside of biology?

[Fred]

Yo, ED, I didn't get to your last post yet, but the main line in it was this: “There has never, ever been any credible evidence to suggest that any further consciousness or life exists outside of this.”

That's going to be at the heart of all of this, and I was going to start another thread on that anyway.

Since I'm neither interested nor qualified to discuss the technical aspects of when dead is really dead, hence the NDE stuff and all that, I'm going to beg off that portion and stick with the main shot I put here. Fair?

No, not really. You said you didn't see compelling evidence that dead is dead. Now you're saying you aren't qualified to discuss it. So why make the statement in the first place? I explained concisely but I think fairly thoroughly what the evidence for 'dead is dead' is, and stated that the only reason to oppose it would be evidence for something else. So I asked you for what your reason for doubt was, and if it be based on evidence for something else, what is it?

I don't accept your decision to now evade the issue, since it was you that raised it in the first place.

Sigh. Ok, fine, but let's go back to the other thread, since it's off-topic here.

---

The bit about being unaware of Dawkins was the tipping point that convinced me you were either uninterested or incapable of playing a straight game. For an atheist to say that he is unaware of the main hitter in your lineup is akin to a catholic saying he is unaware of the pope. It's either a bald-faced lie or displays a level of ignorance of the social context the issue rests within that is beyond my ability to suffer.

So it makes me ignorant because I don't give a damn what Dawkins has to say outside of biology?

Uh, not at all. It would make you ignorant if, as an atheist, you were unaware of what he was saying outside of biology. I have no interest in what he says outside of biology because it's cartoonish and ill-informed. But I'm aware of it. 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. Also, it's important to the context of the issue, which is what my op is about and is so far being ignored in the rush to side issues.

[Erinome]

Richard Dawkins is bloody brilliant, and although I agree with a lot of what he has to say, "Atheist Pope" he is not.

I want to hear you explain these mythic structures you are claiming atheists live by, please.

Also, What is this discussion about? I still don't get your point. Do you have one?

[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.

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

[Faith No More]

Uh, not at all. It would make you ignorant if, as an atheist, you were unaware of what he was saying outside of biology. I have no interest in what he says outside of biology because it's cartoonish and ill-informed. But I'm aware of it. 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.

Well, I am quite unaware of what he says beyond, "me atheist, religion bad."

Also, I don't think those 'new' guys are the reason it's on the radar at all, but it is a large part of why it gets the attention it does.

Also, it's important to the context of the issue, which is what my op is about and is so far being ignored in the rush to side issues.

Well you did say the op was for gnostic atheists so I can't really comment on that, but I am trying to find any old excuse to participate.

[mhikl]

Fred, I enjoyed your piece. I found it easier to follow hitting text read and sitting back and letting the words and images do their stuff. Sometimes answers aren't the important part.

Quote:
So while the believers kept right on believering, atheism dropped the beliefs but held tightly to the well-worn, highly effective mythic structure, adapting it to the new world ordered by the evidence. Finding new bottles for the old wine and setting out the “under new management” sign was all it took before business was booming like never before.

Sort of says it all, I think.

It seems sad that we so often want to pick battles in which we feel we are right and the only ones (or one who is) right; and expect to come out on top. Disappointments then can only be angering. I try to live by the rule that to each his own with an overwhelming wish that we learn to respect the ways and means of all sentient beings as long as they don't hurt others.

Why is there this hunger to make gods of our persuasions?

[Fred]

Richard Dawkins is bloody brilliant, and although I agree with a lot of what he has to say, "Atheist Pope" he is not.

Sorry. The world had an election and he won. Sam sits at his right hand, Hitch is dealing with his illness, and poor Daniel seems to have gone off the board. Last I saw he was lobbing Dawkins quotes on FB and even one of his wags commented that if he wanted to read Dawkins quotes, he'd fan Dawkins' page. Had to laugh at that.

I want to hear you explain these mythic structures you are claiming atheists live by, please.

And I'd love to go into it, but the tangents are hanging up the process.

Also, What is this discussion about? I still don't get your point. Do you have one?

Yes, and you just said you wanted to hear more about it. So hang on and follow as best you can.

---

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.

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.

---

Uh, not at all. It would make you ignorant if, as an atheist, you were unaware of what he was saying outside of biology. I have no interest in what he says outside of biology because it's cartoonish and ill-informed. But I'm aware of it. 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.

Well, I am quite unaware of what he says beyond, "me atheist, religion bad."

Fair enough, but he's your front man like it or not, and if I was an atheist, I would hate it.

Also, I don't think those 'new' guys are the reason it's on the radar at all, but it is a large part of why it gets the attention it does.

Uh, that's what on the radar means. You are getting the attention because of the gnus. It's jumped the shark as a hot button, sure, but it's still wiggling around and as the dust settles, the gnus are the standard bearers as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

---

Fred, I enjoyed your piece. I found it easier to follow hitting text read and sitting back and letting the words and images do their stuff. Sometimes answers aren't the important part.

Well, thank you, mhikl.

Quote:
So while the believers kept right on believering, atheism dropped the beliefs but held tightly to the well-worn, highly effective mythic structure, adapting it to the new world ordered by the evidence. Finding new bottles for the old wine and setting out the “under new management” sign was all it took before business was booming like never before.

Sort of says it all, I think.

It says volumes about the development of worldviews, but it isn't something lots of folks want to hear because it's outside the box they are used to.

It seems sad that we so often want to pick battles in which we feel we are right and the only ones (or one who is) right; and expect to come out on top.

There's really good reasons why this happens, and it has everything to do with the op, which is why I want to go there.

[quote]Disappointments then can only be angering. I try to live by the rule that to each his own with an overwhelming wish that we learn to respect the ways and means of all sentient beings as long as they don't hurt others.

Right.

Why is there this hunger to make gods of our persuasions?

We see as far as we can see until we develop the ability to see further. Rinse and repeat. Consciousness. Is. Evolving.

[Simon Moon]

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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

---

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...