View Story | 272 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
the truth of atheism
whether religious or atheist, whenever anyone claims to have the truth, i tune out. if they've found a truth that works for them, fine. the truth is fundy, whether or not in the guise of religion.
now at the left coaster and docudharma
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 01:32:41 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
the Oprah-touted The Secret yet? They promised me at the bookstore that it really was the truth!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
by pico on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 01:37:56 PM PDT
i haven't even heard of it! is it anything like madonna's pop-cult version of kabbalah?
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 01:41:02 PM PDT
and weep.
by pico on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 01:45:19 PM PDT
same line of thinking that had yesterday's masters champ thanking jesus.
that's the problem with the impoverished, the sick, and the victims of violence- not enough positive thinking...
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 01:54:44 PM PDT
some of those positive thinking gurus mentioned in the DVD only acheived success after death. Apparently they didn't dream enough bread on their own tables during life.
by pico on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 01:59:25 PM PDT
made the same mistake...
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 02:02:50 PM PDT
for me. It has helped me medically and helps me understand others - put things in perspective. I have not read the book, nor do I plan to. But I have read books on visualization - and it works for me. Don't throw the nuggets out with the water. Some of them are pure gold.
I'm a Catholic, so I like ceremony but what I like most is whatever makes me live a better life - not enrichment, not goals reached. Just a well of serene happiness and an opportunity now and then to help my friends and family.
Enter stage left: visualization.
Democrats, Make it Work. You have until November to bring your electorate in.
by xanthe on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 02:19:49 PM PDT
The turning out of the physical world and getting in touch with my inner being.
There's an old Indian saying, "The body is your temple, and your spirit is the reigning deity". Maybe we are all gods and we don't know it!!!
John Mccain - The death of social security
by horatius on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:00:45 PM PDT
there is broken, but you can watch it here. Prepare to be shocked by the shocking truth in all its shockingness.
by pico on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 01:47:02 PM PDT
which deodorant you use!
Yell Louder!!! @ Docudharma
by buhdydharma on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 01:57:15 PM PDT
Say not, 'I have found the truth,' but rather, 'I have found a truth.'
by Unbozo on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 01:43:55 PM PDT
Nothing has the truth
by buhdydharma on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 01:53:52 PM PDT
Atheism has truth. Atheism doesn't claim to have Truth.
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 01:56:12 PM PDT
the diarist phrased it. buhdy put it perfectly, just above you.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 01:57:26 PM PDT
One might also say that atheism feels that nobody has truth or Truth. Atheism has fact. That's enough.
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 02:39:38 PM PDT
is limited in what it can tell us. some atheists do seem to believe they have Truth. but two more facts to keep in mind: the existence of a deity can no more be disproved than proved; and the primacy of empiricism cannot be empirically demonstrated.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 02:50:44 PM PDT
Facts may lack the comfort factor of 'truth...' but they work. Reliably. Truth... has a much less... shall we say reliable history.
Can I disprove the overall existence of a deity? Of course not, even if I happen to be right. You can't prove a universal negative regardless of whether you're right or not. By the same token, you aren't capable of proving that there are no pink unicorns dancing on the rings of Saturn, or that the universe was created last thursday and we've all been placed here with memories of earlier events that never actually happened. Should we put these beliefs on equal footing with established fact just because you can't disprove them?
I'm thinkin not.
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:18:53 PM PDT
in the realm where science is demonstrably valid, science can give us specific truths. when it comes to absolute truths, or eternal truths, we can know nothing. science is a tool, and it has many wonderful uses, but in answering absolute questions, it is no more useful than is religion.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:30:33 PM PDT
...in the first place.
They may or may not, but the assumption itself is fundamentally unscientific.
The problem is that only one side of the discussion is even offering such answers.... and the other accepts the fact (back to facts again) that anybody who offers you such answers is trying to sell you something. Historically speaking... such people don't have your best interests at heart.
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:45:38 PM PDT
but many atheists seem to believe that rationality and science are ultimate truths, or means of understanding them. i believe that there are universes beyond the ability of our comprehension.
frank egler:
ecosystems are not only more complex than we think, they are more complex than we can think
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:55:57 PM PDT
by horatius on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:03:53 PM PDT
A fundamental error you make is to think that science has the same absolute claims on epistomology that religion does. Science is a tool, but the knowledge it brings is not pre-ordained, not even in its form.
by BoringDem on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:04:14 PM PDT
and you did write:
maybe you didn't so intend, but it came across as absolutist.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:14:21 PM PDT
aspect of the article. I purposely used the language of believers just to show how irritating that can be. Atheism doesn't actually propose a truth; rather it asserts that the deists have zero proof, which means that a rational person should not believe in god.
by BoringDem on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:23:55 PM PDT
The beauty of science and reason is that our ability to comprehend expands as our knowledge does. The fact that there may be things out there that we're just not currently able to understand doesn't mean that we never will be.... and since accepting the scientific method became something that wouldn't get you burned at the stake our ability to comprehend new ideas has steadily grown. We actually do have a pretty good track record on this score.
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:11:55 PM PDT
The fact that there may be things out there that we're just not currently able to understand doesn't mean that we never will be
niels bohr believed we would never have a single comprehensible explanation for the universe. he has yet to be proven wrong.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:16:08 PM PDT
You've gone way out on a limb for no real purpose. The question of whether there are things in the universe we will not understand or perceive is quite distinct from the question of whether there is a god. You've proved nothing, even if we accept your point.
by BoringDem on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:22:15 PM PDT
we cannot prove or disprove the existence of a deity. we can disprove elements of religious texts, but not whether there is a deity. atheism can no more be proved than can religion.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:23:43 PM PDT
B.C.
When your arguments rise above the level of absurd self-parody, let me know.
by BoringDem on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:24:59 PM PDT
you can't dispute basic facts, so you resort to slurs. now, who does that remind me of?
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:27:57 PM PDT
is one i could have easily tr'd- but didn't. and that's why i'm reporting you. nice argumentation.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:57:15 PM PDT
Every god concept to date with the notable exception of Deist/Pantheist/Other concepts which are so deliberately broad and vague as to be meaningless has been conclusively disproven. They push moral codes that simply don't make sense, claim historical events that we know simply didn't happen, and exist merely to prop up an existing power structure.
I've asked before, I'll ask again: Exactly how many chances do y'all expect us to give you before we throw out the whole concept? You've had several thousand years now.... and you have yet to be right. Use of the scientific method has given us more real, useful information in the past four hundred years than religious faith got us in the previous four thousand.
Eventually 'yeah but' becomes much less compelling.
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:28:35 PM PDT
about more liberal religious trends- which are more spiritual, anti-dogmatic, and recognize that bronze age religious texts should be read as metaphors, and not literally.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:30:29 PM PDT
If the texts are metaphors, why not the deities themselves?
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:35:44 PM PDT
because many religious mystics would say that any description of a deity is necessarily flawed.
from bynner's translation of the tao:
Existence is beyond the power of words To define: Terms may be used But are none of them absolute.
i have a good friend who is a math prof and he says the same misunderstanding often pertains among his student- that math is in some way "absolute."
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:39:45 PM PDT
...that overall these same mystics don't live by the precepts of any of these gods, but rather by a moral code they've determined to be useful. Taoism is an overall atheistic doctrine, or at least doesn't require a divine being to be valid and is entirely compatible with atheism. Confucianism and Buddhism are the same way. (Note, not Way. :)) Gods in these religions range from vague, unproveable concepts on up to actual admissions by followers that the gods don't actually exist as anything more than symbols in a very Jungian sense. (The Dalai Lama refers to himself as an agnostic, and has discussed how Tibetan Buddhism doesn't have a concept of an actual, existing creator god.)
Honestly, comparisons between these and 'religions' in the western sense are basically apples and oranges.
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 05:28:56 PM PDT
now, we get into definitions of religion- which is another important point. i adhere to more mystical interpretations of religion- and mystics within western religion are very similar to mystics in eastern religions. that's what i consider to be one of the fundamental misunderstandings about religion, among some atheists- they interpret religion through the warped prism of the dogmatic, right-wing interpretations; and just as the bastardized right-wing definitions of "america" and "patriotism" have nothing to do with liberal understandings of them, i consider those definitions of religion to have nothing to do with what religion should be about.
i was raised a reformed jew, and our conception of god has nothing to do with the theistic male figure seated on a throne. in fact, most reformed temples no longer even use prayer books that refer to god as "he," because that's not how the original hebrew words are literally translated. from what i've read (pagels, robinson, etc.), the gnostic interpretation of christianity- which seems to be a more historically accurate representation of how it was originally taught- is also very different from the common conception.
i've also previously quoted bill moyers:
Joseph Campbell believed that everything begins with a story, so we begin this series with one of his favorites. He was in Japan for a conference on religion, and he overheard another American delegate, a social philosopher from New York, say to a Shinto priest, "We've been now to a great many ceremonies and have seen quite a few of your shrines. But I don't get your ideology. I don't get your theology." The Japanese paused as though in deep thought, and then slowly shook his head. "I think we don't have ideology," he said. "We don't have theology. We dance.
Joseph Campbell believed that everything begins with a story, so we begin this series with one of his favorites. He was in Japan for a conference on religion, and he overheard another American delegate, a social philosopher from New York, say to a Shinto priest, "We've been now to a great many ceremonies and have seen quite a few of your shrines. But I don't get your ideology. I don't get your theology."
The Japanese paused as though in deep thought, and then slowly shook his head. "I think we don't have ideology," he said. "We don't have theology. We dance.
that's part of what i consider religion to be.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 05:41:16 PM PDT
It's not that we misunderstand religion. Even the more 'feel good' mystical religions enable the more hellfire and damnation irrational religions by using the same terminology, the same concepts, and promoting the idea that unproven and unproveable revealed knowledge is somehow superior to demonstrated scientific fact, and that this unproven and unproveable revealed knowledge is somehow actually useful.
We understand just fine. We're just not willing to deal with the threat anymore. The hellfire and damnation types know your kind very well. They privately call you 'cafeteria christians' (at least the christian version... I'm not sure what they'd call you) and while they're entirely willing to use your tacit endorsement of the same theology they draw from as a tool to push their own agenda, they'll abandon you in a heartbeat as soon as you're no longer useful to them.
What the religious left still fails to understand even after all this time is that while the religious right may share theological background with you, and while they present a kinder, gentler face these days to seem more palatable and more compatible with your kind.... they're still the same vile, hate filled fascists underneath it all. They want power, they want control, and they'll do whatever they have to do to get it.
And if that means using your kind as a tool to make themselves seem less dangerous than they are, and then abandoning you when they don't need you anymore.... don't think for a minute that they'll hesitate to do so.
Gnosticism was dead by the second century btw.... the Paulites pretty much massacred them. Just sayin. :) In addition, christianity as the world understands it has been Paulite, or basically antignostic for about 1800 years now... which comprises most of christian history... so the fact that the gnostics were very different doesn't really mean much. We have to live in the now, and in the now, religious doctrine (specifically abrahamic) is about the biggest threat we as a species currently face. It enables or prevents us from dealing with all the others that are looming.
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 06:30:37 PM PDT
that non-rational (as opposed to irrational) forms of experience (as opposed to understanding) have their uses. i don't think most mystics would call such experiences superior to anything- different, unique, and invaluable- yes.
as for the fundy christians- or fundy anythings- they have no use for us, as is, because we have such wildly different interpretations of religion. most liberal religions have a completely different understanding of theology. technically, i'm not even a theist, because i don't buy the theistic concept of god. the theofascists have nothing to do with liberal religious beliefs, and that part of why we exist in completely different political and religious paradigms. they can't use us for anything, because we agree with them on pretty much nothing.
and, yes- the gnostics were treated the way religious fundies would love to treat all religious liberals. but i think you greatly misunderstand the role religious liberalism is playing, and has played, as we move forward. just as monarchies were overthrown and undermined, after millenia of predominance, religious liberalism, however much it has been suppressed, ignored, or misunderstood, perfectly fits the multicultural liberal democratic future. and atheists need to understand that religious liberals are every bit as essential to the mix as are atheists and agnostics. to think otherwise is the same type of exclusivity that characterizes religious fundamentalism.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 07:00:52 PM PDT
What you don't realize is what you're up against.
This is something I've tried to explain to religious liberals for a while now... we know you're here and we know you're trying to do something, but we kinda have to ask exactly where y'all have been for the past few decades. I mean don't get me wrong, we appreciate the help here... but the religious right is in power now partially because the religious left let them get there, or at least didn't do anything to stop them other than handwringing and backhanded rationalizations for their actions.
We in the secular and scientific communities have been a pretty much lone voice for some time now... and the lack of involvement from the religious left has made the right's attacks even more effective. If, for example, the leaders of the Friends, UCC and Episcopal Churches would have stood up in the 80's and stared down Falwell, Robertson and Dobson things would have been a bit easier.
I mean better late than never, sure. But like I said... I'm not convinced that y'all know exactly what you're up against the way we do.
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 07:13:35 PM PDT
Sorry, couldn't resist. The self-proclaimed "religious left" these days too often sound like Pat Robertson wannabees.
by BoringDem on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 12:03:10 AM PDT
Just thought you'd like to know that:)
by BoringDem on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 12:01:36 AM PDT
...pink unicorns don't exist either. Meanwhile we're closing in on a Grand Unified Theory every day. (Which would largely prove Bohr wrong...)
This isn't 'faith' in any religious sense of the word. This is based on actual precedent... something religious faith eschews in favor of childlike trust without any kind of track record.
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:24:46 PM PDT
is an article of faith. adherence to positivism and empiricism do, with some people, have much in common with religious faith. that's part of why there are still serious debates about the meaning and philosophy of science. many people still accept the cartesian/newtonian philosophy, even though the physics has moved past it.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:34:18 PM PDT
...on the scale it's taught at. Einstein refined Newton, he didn't actually disprove him. The differences don't come into play until you start moving at some substantial fraction of C... likewise QM doesn't actually disprove Relativity. The differences don't come into play until one gets to the subatomic level.
Newton, Einstein, and Shroedinger are all basically right, it's just that none of them are universally right. And we're ok with that.
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:38:35 PM PDT
they each have specific and important uses. but the philosophical underpinnings are often misinterpreted. that's part of bohr's explanation of complementarity- different theories and equation complementing each other, but none encompassing all. if a unified theorem ever comes to be, i would bet that within a decade it will be proved to have missed something. either, way- it is, at this point, only a belief that such a theory will be found.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:43:51 PM PDT
...with prove in quotes because it doesn't mean the same thing in science as it does in common usage is that there were questions we didn't think to ask... and given how long we've been looking and how much data we've been looking at, that area of unknowledge is vanishingly small.
To put it another way, the points you're worried about us having missed are part of the theorem.... so we really can't miss them and still have the theorem in the first place. In order to get the GUT, we're going to have to answer those questions first... but the good news is that we're well on our way to that goal.
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 05:32:04 PM PDT
and holds- over time. there have been plenty of times when science thought it was on the verge of explaining everything- including at the end of the 19th century...
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 05:59:31 PM PDT
...was one of the things we learned from that period. Science was still fundamentally Aristotlean back then in a practical sense, even while it claimed to be otherwise. We've since learned that while thought experiments may be interesting from a philosophical perspective, from a practical perspective you just end up with a bunch of dead cats.
These days we know enough to know what questions to ask, and what questions we don't know how to ask yet. And we know where to look for that information. Finding it is simply a matter of time and work.
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 06:35:04 PM PDT
had been burned, we might have had men on the moon 2000 years ago. Fascinating and brilliant as he was, his anti-empirical analysis of nature was very damaging.
by BoringDem on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 06:39:11 PM PDT
i think that's presumptuous. time will tell. what we do factually know is what we now factually have, and everything else is speculation. part of the fascination of science is that so many answers lead to new questions.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 06:44:38 PM PDT
...does not discount the validity of the answers we already have. Something which I've noticed even liberal religious types tend to try to do.
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 06:55:54 PM PDT
i accept what we have. i don't know any religious liberals who don't.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 07:01:59 PM PDT
It's actually quite common even among religious liberals to discount what we do know because it lets their religious beliefs still seem technically plausible in the face of scientific evidence. It's called 'God of the Gaps' and while it's pretty innocuous on the surface, the general acceptance of that meme is something the religious right pounces on and uses to terrifying effect.
It's one of those things that religious leftists generally don't even realize they're doing. Innocent enough, except that the right is all too willing to take advantage of it.
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 07:07:04 PM PDT
and i'm not saying "god is in the gaps," or whatever; but an honest assessment of that for which we do and do not have scientific explanations is simple fact. we have different types of metaphors, that have very different purposes, but they complement each other. fundies call that moral relativism or whatever. i call it an honest apprehension of where we stand, today.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 07:12:01 PM PDT
...frames would be irrelevant. Framing doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's a misrepresentation of existing fact.
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 07:15:55 PM PDT
and to whatever degree the fundies try to drag us into their game, they're misrepresenting our understanding of religion. there's not one aspect of scientific proof that i discount; i simply don't project what might, eventually, be proved.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 07:19:29 PM PDT
...of scientific thought. That's a pretty big one right there. Prediction is a pretty major component.
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 07:33:00 PM PDT
but predicting the discovery of a major theory that has yet to be discovered- that's a pretty big one.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 07:49:49 PM PDT
...of the data they need for the theory, and know enough to know what else they need to find out. Especially in light of the track record of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Not a huge stretch, really.
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 07:53:00 PM PDT
the record, thus far, has confirmed bohr.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 07:54:09 PM PDT
...lack of complete knowledge doesn't put some divine power into the gaps.
by Corwin Weber on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:41:09 PM PDT
of the divine.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:50:07 PM PDT
You want the concepts to fit into your false equivalencies (belief in god, or "belief" in no god).
by BoringDem on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:19:46 PM PDT
empirically prove the primacy of empiricism. just because you believe it does not make it so.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:28:39 PM PDT
by BoringDem on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:15:12 PM PDT
who understands the semantic tricks that underlie absolutism.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:20:26 PM PDT
i'm going to report that. after all the abusive things you've just said to me, you tr me for that comment? wow.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:55:47 PM PDT
your own terms. Atheism is totally distinct from absolutism.
by BoringDem on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 06:46:51 PM PDT
i think you ought to reconsider your abuse of ratings.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 07:13:49 PM PDT
for weeks Your feigned offense at one minor little tick is telling.
by BoringDem on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:30:45 PM PDT
your resorting to personal attacks, then tr's. classy.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:51:07 PM PDT
language is not a personal attack. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, as evidenced by almost any of your comments about science, empiricism, reasoning or faith. Equating atheism with a form of absolutism was just the last straw for me. Buh-Bye.
by BoringDem on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:55:47 PM PDT
If I cared, i would report you now. HAHAH.
by BoringDem on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 09:05:20 PM PDT
of the other commenters though.. really.
by BoringDem on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 09:16:32 PM PDT
The comment is clearly not one that needs to be hidden, and since you're fully taking part in the hostility of the discussion, introducing troll-rates into it just invites a ratings war - and that's no good for anyone.
by MissLaura on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 05:15:18 PM PDT
existence of deities. It's called Goddell's theorem or something.
by horatius on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:02:24 PM PDT
has to do with mathematics.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:22:15 PM PDT
Gödel's ontological proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
by horatius on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:58:26 PM PDT
to prove god's existence- an interesting idea, but no more valid than the traditionl ontological, teleological, and cosmological "proofs." thanks for the link- hadn't seen that.
by Turkana on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 05:22:57 PM PDT
disproof. Maybe all this discussion will actually lead us umm.... nowhere.
by horatius on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 07:24:30 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 272 comments