Opinion of internet atheists

[Napoleon]

This thread should've been locked with afleitch's post. Damn that was brutal and beautiful at the same time, even if I like BRTD.

[Dr. Cynic]

I'm an atheist who has never read any of Dawkins' work. I'm honestly not someone who actively seeks out atheist works just because they're atheist. Also, wasn't it earlier in this thread that BRTD was saying he finds atheists drab and boring, well, newsflash: Atheists aren't here to entertain you, nor are Christians. The only time I entertain anyone is if they've bought a ticket to a show I'm performing in.

Apart from that, it's threads like these everywhere out there that push many atheists (and Christians) to over-react so harshly. When you see people who don't know you telling you how horrible you are, I can speak for myself, it really presses my temper. I don't really get offended if someone says atheism is crap, hey, go ahead, that's fine, but when you're saying that a person is a horrible worthless sod, without knowing them, simply because of their atheism or their religious beliefs, then that really just chaps my ass. By the strictest definitions, I am an internet atheist. I am on the internet and I am an atheist. I am also a human being who has never done anything to anyone here which would give them harm. Have I ever called any of you a worthless horrible person?

So, that's my own personal insight on that.

[DemPGH]

DemPGH, what's your opinion of the late Christopher Hitchens? A lot of his broadsides make for entertaining reading and hold up decently, but they also strike me as often argued in bad faith, in this case meaning from questionable historical and anthropological angles and at times in service of the awful geopolitical ideologies that he ended up in hock to.

The gentleman in your signature is Michael Shermer, right? I've always had a good deal of respect for him. Seems like a nice, honest guy who happens to devote his time to advocacy for a cause with which I disagree.

Yes, I'm a pretty big fan of Michael Shermer - both his message and his demeanor. He's low key and even when confronted with something outrageous he very calmly replies, "Well that's not likely because of Point A, B, and so on." What I've read about him suggests he's eclectic like I always was, that his religiosity, like mine, was always very moderate, and then later he became an entrenched agnostic whose beef is more with religion, New Age philosophy, the supernatural, and so forth. That's basically where I am as well. I don't seek out people to whom I will argue against the existence of God although I'm not shy about my agnosticism if someone asks or if chance to discuss the subject comes up. I know I've dropped my share of comments that have caused a few folks to say, "what?" - but otherwise I'm not in-your-face like a Dawkins or even a Hitchens.

Speaking of Hitchens, I've frankly not read a whole lot, but what I have read suggests to me that he's a perfectly fine voice to have in the mix. One of these summers when the days are longer and my workload a little lighter I will have to pick up one of his books just so I can say I read it. In the instances that I've seen him speak I thought he was fine. But I want to echo one or two other posters here and say that I as well seldom read an "atheist book." I read Dawkins' book mainly because of all the hoopla it generated.

Dawkins always seems to be sneering and carping, even during friendly exchanges, and of course I have seen him outright belittle people. I "learned at the feet" of Carl Sagan, so to me that's unacceptable. I could write a chapter on how much Sagan has meant to me over the years.

I took "internet atheists" to be a slightly derogatory term aimed at defining the known and unknown quantities who "evangelize" atheism in pop culture.

I think your intuition is in sync with most of what I looked up.  

I also think I might be tempted to quibble with some of the rest of your post--Dawkins is a typical academic??  I certainly hope not--but I also haven't voted in this poll and don't intend to, so I won't quibble.

Just nice to learn some newspeak now and again.

Oh, I should qualify and say that I think a lot of Dawkins' internal opinions are probably shared by a lot of academics, but his delivery and demeanor are not. Dawkins is a case-in-point where the how outshines the what that's being said.

[afleitch]

To add to DemPGH, Dawkins is a fantastic writer. He writes absolutely beautifully but he can’t argue without coming across as snippy. Hitchens on the other hand only really got into the debates with which we now associate him towards the last few years of his life. It’s not a subject that really drives him (he was still an old socialist soak at heart) but he made money from it. He never actually initiated most of the debates. Instead he was invited, most frequently by evangelical colleges and universities to put on a show. So he did. If you’ve ever seen him argue against awful theologians like Lane Craig and D’Souza who invited him to debate to essentially be baited by them, he tended to be the one that kept his demeanour and kept things civilised. He often delivered the same sort of argument but the argument against religion or against Christianity isn’t a particularly complex one, nor is it particularly novel. Very few atheists claim that it is. While Dawkins talked about science, Hitchens deferred to enlightenment philosophers, stoists and contemporary thinkers he could get drunk with in his arguments and rebuttals. He used to invoke Celsus. I love Celsus actually, though much of what we have from him is second hand often cited by his critics, because he encapsulates early criticism of the Christian story.

Indeed, given how some people seem to be categorising ‘internet atheists’ then Celsus can be considered 1900 years ahead of the game

"Many of the ideas of the Christians have been expressed better, and earlier, by the greeks, who were however modest enough to refrain from saying that their ideas came from a god or a son of god. The ancients in their wisdom revealed certain truths to those able to understand: Plato, son of Ariston, points to the truth about the highest good when he says that it cannot be expressed in words, but rather comes from familiarity, like a flash frOm the blue, imprinting itself upon the soul... But Plato, having said this, does not go on to record some myth to make his point, nor does he silence the inquirer who questions some of the truths he professes; Plato does not ask people to stop questioning, or to accept that god id like such and such...Rather, he tells us where his doctrines come from; there is, in short, a history to what he says, and he is happy to point to the sources of his knowledge, instead of asking us to believe that he speaks on his own authority. Not only do they (Christians) misunderstand the words of the philosophers; they even stoop to assigning words of the philosophers to their Jesus. For example, we are told that Jesus judged the rich with the saying 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god.' Yet we know that Plato expressed this very idea in a purer form when he said, 'It is impossible for an exceptionally good man to be exceptionally rich.' Is one utterance more inspired than the other?"

Here is Celsus as Dawkins;

‘Christians at first were few in number, and held the same opinions; but when they grew to be a great multitude, they were divided and separated, each wishing to have his own individual party: for this was their object from the beginning. Being thus separated through their numbers, they confute one another, still having, so to speak, one name in common, if indeed they still retain it. And this is the only thing which they are yet ashamed to abandon, while other matters are determined in different ways by the various sects. Their union is the more wonderful, the more it can be shown to be based on no substantial reason. And yet rebellion is a substantial reason, as well as the advantages which accrue from it, and the fear of external enemies. Such are the causes which give stability to their faith. Christians weave together erroneous opinions drawn from ancient sources, and trumpet them aloud, and sound them before men, as the priests of Cybele clash their cymbals in the ears of those who are being initiated in their mysteries. The following are the rules laid down by them. Let no one come to us who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let them come with confidence. By which words, acknowledging that such individuals are worthy of their God, they manifestly show that they desire and are able to gain over only the silly, and the mean, and the stupid, with women and children. Nay, we see, indeed, that even those individuals, who in the market-places perform the most disgraceful tricks, and who gather crowds around them, would never approach an assembly of wise men, nor dare to exhibit their arts among them; but wherever they see young men, and a mob of slaves, and a gathering of unintelligent persons, thither they thrust themselves in, and show themselves off.’

Here is Celsus as Hitchens;

‘Christians assert that God will be able to do all things but He will not desire to do anything wicked, even if one were to admit that He has the power, but not the will, to commit evil…Their God, like those who are overcome with pity, being Himself overcome, alleviates the sufferings of the wicked through pity for their wailings, and casts off the good, who do nothing of that kind, which is the height of injustice…You mock and revile the statues of our gods; but if you had reviled Bacchus or Hercules in person, you would not perhaps have done so with impunity. But those who crucified your God when present among men, suffered nothing for it, either at the time or during the whole of their lives. And what new thing has there happened since then to make us believe that he was not an impostor, but the Son of God? And forsooth, he who sent his Son with certain instructions for mankind, allowed him to be thus cruelly treated, and his instructions to perish with him, without ever during all this long time showing the slightest concern. What father was ever so inhuman? Perhaps, indeed, you may say that he suffered so much, because it was his wish to bear what came to him. But it is open to those whom you maliciously revile, to adopt the same language, and say that they wish to be reviled, and therefore they bear it with patience; for it is best to deal equally with both sides,although these (gods) severely punish the scorner, so that he must either flee and hide himself, or be taken and perish.’(The part in bold above was actually the straw that broke the camels back for me after a conversation with a Christian preacher)

Here I suppose is Celsus as me;

'Irrational animals are more beloved by God than we, and have a purer knowledge of divinity. A common nature pervades all the previously mentioned bodies, and one which goes and returns the same amid recurring changes. No product of matter is immortal. There neither were formerly, nor are there now, nor will there be again, more or fewer evils in the world (than have always been). For the nature of all things is one and the same, and the generation of evils is always the same. It is not easy, indeed, for one who is not a philosopher to ascertain the origin of evils, though it is sufficient for the multitude to say that they do not proceed from God, but cleave to matter, and have their abode among mortal things; while the course of mortal things being the same from beginning to end, the same things must always, agreeably to the appointed cycles, recur in the past, present, and future. Neither have visible things been given to man (by God), but each individual thing comes into existence and perishes for the sake of the safety of the whole passing agreeably to the change, which I have already mentioned, from one thing to another. Although a thing may seem to you to be evil, it is by no means certain that it is so; for you do not know what is of advantage to yourself, or to another, or to the whole world.… If one were to call us the lords of the animal creation because we hunt the other animals and live upon their flesh, we would say, Why were not we rather created on their account, since they hunt and devour us? Nay, we require nets and weapons, and the assistance of many persons, along with dogs, when engaged in the chase; while they are immediately and spontaneously provided by nature with weapons which easily bring us under their power. With respect to your assertion, that God gave you the power to capture wild beasts, and to make your own use of them, we would say that, in all probability, before cities were built, and arts invented, and societies such as now exist were formed, and weapons and nets employed, men were generally caught and devoured by wild beasts, while wild beasts were very seldom captured by men.”

[Franzl]

This thread should've been locked with afleitch's post. Damn that was brutal and beautiful at the same time, even if I like BRTD.

^^^^^^^^

Indeed.

[angus]

that was brutal and beautiful at the same time,

That's what I thought as well, but I'm glad no one locked the thread.  I haven't voted in the poll.  Probably won't.  The atheists on this forum are far more preachy, in general, than any of the mono- or polytheists here, but they're just as preachy about everything else as they are about their atheism, and anyway the thread has the potential to generate an interesting discussion. 

DemPGH, I don't know much about Dawkins other than he coined the term meme, but I'm assuming he's not what is meant by the phrase "internet atheist."

[opebo]

BRTD, you treat religion worse than even the most annoying atheist of Christian fundie does. Because you treat religion as an accessory.

You’re the one who takes a two storey high dump on people’s beliefs

You know what? I’m pretty sure Opebo thinks you’re a dick.

As a matter of fact I don't think BRTD is a dick, just poorly accessorized.  I have high hopes he shall soon drop the religion thing (and to be fair I don't believe he really 'believes in it' now).  Certainly, if one is going to be religious it is better to approach it for the silly fad it is rather than with some pretense of seriousness - it is entirely possible he's 'wearing religion' ironically, like the thrift-shop hipster.

And I rather like that he takes that two-storey dump on some folks - its good for a chuckle.

[WMS]

Oh no, there won't be any of this self-congratulatory back-slapping BS amongst the anti-theistic bigots here...

In the words of The Mikado, Part 1:

My current identification is "none," not atheist.  Atheist is so constraining, leaving atheism was like taking off a straitjacket.

I would be interested in "hearing" more about your personal story as to the bolded part, if you are willing Mikado.

Atheists tend to be impossible to talk to regarding everything I'm interested in and passionate about.  I love to debate theology, but (afleitch and Dibble are good examples) tend to always go "that never happened," which is totally a nonstarter and besides the point of what I'm trying to talk about (I always approach works from an in-universe analytical point of view, and "God doesn't exist" is frustrating in the same way as "Raskolnikov doesn't exist").  If I want to discuss whether Krishna's argument with Arjuna that he is a divine, all-seeing entity is an appropriate backing-up for his claim that Arjuna, as a Kshatriya, has to follow his Dharma to go into battle (is "I'm Vishnu and you're not" an argument with legitimate moral force?), I'd always get a response of "Krishna/Vishnu and Arjuna never existed."  If I'd try to talk about the ethics of Jesus' pronouncements on divorce, I'd get some "Jesus never existed/didn't say that" response, which is basically the reason I stopped going into the Religion and Philosophy board.  It's intellectual sophistry of the first order on the part of the atheists to dismiss arguments from Sacred Texts as illegitimate because they weren't authentic: that doesn't address the actual meanings of the words at all.  I've read the Bible (Old and New Testaments), Koran, Bhagavad Gita, and the Dhammapada, as well as extensive works by Augustine, Aquinas, some Schleiermacher, some Kierkegaard, etc. and anytime I try to talk about them I get a "God doesn't exist," followed by the person going to talk about the new Batman movie.  I've refrained from posting "Batman doesn't exist" over and over again. 

The existence/nonexistence of God is utterly irrelevant to the validity of religion and its study and the contemptuous dismissal of it leads to social diseases like positivism, the utter contempt for the past, and the slavish worship of the new God Science that are endemic in certain well-educated parts of modern society.  Michel Foucault writes in The Birth of the Clinic in specific and throughout his works in general how the medical and other scientific institutions have assumed the language and rhetoric of Truth from religion and have attempted to invalidate all truths other than the materialist, physical "reality" they peddle in order to enhance their own power, and its worked stupendously.  Foucault's "biopower," the power that physicians and scientists have gained through their obsessive categorization, classification, and prying into the most private and intimate aspects of human life down to our cells, nay, down to our DNA, has led them to have an amazing degree of control over all aspects of our lives, and the destruction of the substitution of religious truth and power with theirs is one of the key aspects of that rise.  His History of Sexuality Part I, Civilization and Madness, and The Birth of the Clinic in specific and his entire works in general have shown the huge disadvantages of accepting scientific truth as a cultural replacement for religious truth, and is one of the big reasons why he ended up fanatically supporting Ayatollah Khoemeini in his last days despite clearly not believing in God himself.  In many ways, Science is a far more dangerous master than Religion ever was, and the twentieth century has already clearly demonstrated that the road to Progress leads straight into the gates of Auschwitz.  "Modernity" and "Civilization" are orders of magnitude more gruesome and morally repugnant values than anything "Savagery" ever offered.

TL/DR I have no problem with the disbelief of God, I have a problem with the summary dismissal and rejection of religion and the blind worship of the false gods of Science and Progress, and that's what modern atheism entails.

One short question Mikado before we go further. Are you conflating philosophy with religion? One can discuss  ideas (whatever their provenance, say about the ideas of Jesus, even if some of them may have been put in his mouth later to meets the imperatives of those that did it at the time, or even if Jesus did not exist at all, although the historical consensus is that he certainly did) from a philosophical perspective, sometimes productively, without having to argue about leaps of faith, no?

We need to get past this point, to go much further. As a functional atheist, what you say does not ring true at least for me. I am happy to discuss ideas, even those that emanate from a religious provenance. The provenance is less interesting than the ideas themselves.

And yes there is more to life than science and "progress," whatever the latter means, which for purposes of exploring ideas is probably counterproductive. I think you may be stereotyping atheists. Is that possible?  And do you think one needs religion to have a moral compass? As you got passionate there, you may have got close to implying that. If so, in my opinion, that is just wrong. But then I am biased. The most admirable man I have ever known from the standpoint of simply good character and courage, was my Dad, and he was an atheist. He is long dead, but he sets the standard for myself - and will until my final exit.

I absolutely do not think that religion is necessary for a moral compass.  What I do think is that too often people dismiss "religion" as old, musty, and not for them, then promptly embrace a different set of ideas with the same sort of religious fervor that are often far more dangerous and problematic than the religious ones, all while patting themselves on the shoulder about getting rid of God.  My problem's not with the irreligious: I'm one, as is my father (and I think my mother's moving in that direction).  My problem is with secularism as a value with inherent worth, of people thinking that opposed to religion=good any more than other people think divinely ordered=good.

Atheism and atheists tend to have this real "No, f**k you, Dad!" vibe to them in their vehement rejection of what has gone before as tainted by the Invisible Sky Wizard.  As someone trained as a historian, that dismissive attitude towards the past and towards the many, many aspects of "pre-modern" (I hate that word so much) civilizations' moral codes that are in my view superior to our own.  It also leads to a teleological view of history as uncivilized brutes who didn't know better worshipping "God," while we moderns can be smug and condescending.  This is A. a vicious crime against history in a vain attempt to make contemporary civilization feel better about itself, and B. baldly inaccurate.

It chills my blood when I hear atheists campaigning to end the teaching of the Bible or of comparative religion.  There are very few books that have aided my academic career more than my backwards and forwards knowledge of the Bible, and I can't imagine having gotten where I am without a solid academic classroom-setting background in it.  This attitude that knowledge of the Bible or other holy books is somehow poisonous actually seems to reflect more the attitude of the Scopes Trial to evolution than to the sort of open pursuit of knowledge atheist education activists usually claim to advocate.

In short, Torie, maybe I am stereotyping atheists, but I've had enough annoying encounters with atheists who find my entire field (history) an unwanted obstruction to their propagandistic teleological tale of progress from superstition to wisdom and who advocate against any sort of religious instruction at all to not view them with skepticism and distrust.  Advocates for Secularism as an inherent good that should be mandated on society are one of the most pernicious and anti-thought forces out there today, and I tend to associate the word "atheist" with militant opponents of religion rather than the simply nonreligious.

[WMS]

In the words of The Mikado, Part 2:

snip

Let's look at your response to the Life of Brian thread:

It is 'blasphemous', funny and satirical. That therefore makes it excellent.

Not only is that movie about the least blasphemous depiction of Jesus put to film in the last fifty years (he only says stuff that he is supposed to have said and comes off quite well compared to everyone else), liking something specifically because it's blasphemous is pretty incredibly juvenile and actually harmful.  Taboo-breaking for the sake of breaking a taboo actually reinforces the taboo because people are doing it for the thrill of doing the forbidden.  If people like you owned up to the fact that there is nothing particularly taboo or thrilling about the criticism of religion for the sake of criticizing it, maybe you'd realize that all you're doing is making the thing you've embraced for shock value more taboo by the expectation of shock value.  

I recommend the first chapter of Foucault's History of Sexuality Part I in which he lambasts the modern culture of open, frank discussion of sexuality as a backfiring attempt to break the taboo around the act because people do said discussion seeking the perverse thrill you feel about breaking the taboo in the first place, which only reinforces it.  Atheism is the same way: people love to say "God doesn't exist" or "the Bible is a collection of myths" over and over again because of the thrill they get for violating a taboo around what is actually a fairly bog-standard and dull, entry-level observation.

A better example is PioneerProgress' valiant attempts to describe the rituals, practices, and beliefs of the LDS church.  He specifically asks that there be no discussion about the truth value of Mormon doctrine (for good reason, that takes away from all of the discussion about the interesting ins and outs of the modern Mormon church).  What's Dibble's response?

One thing I will ask, however. Please do not dismiss my faith as "impossible"

Ok. It's implausible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can't ask people to discuss your faith and then restrict the mention of facts that are in contradiction with the claims of that faith. Real discussion of an idea involves potential criticism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I will promise to treat your ideas on the same basis as I treat any other ideas - based on their merits.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If someone has legitimate historical evidence for that claim then you have no basis on which to report them. In regards to the Mormon faith however it has little relevance as it doesn't reflect on the truth of the claims he made, so using it to demonstrate that the Mormon faith is false is merely an ad hominem fallacy. At worst such a claim just shows he had a poor moral character, though considering that the marriageable age for girls was much younger during his era it may be more of a reflection of the ethics of that time than on one man.

That was the first post on that thread and it cast a pall on the entire thing.  The truth value of whether or not Native Americans are descended from Nephi or whether Joseph Smith actually saw tablets is irrelevant to discussion of the rites and practices of the LDS Church as it now exists, yet Dibble insists on dragging that out as a way of delegitimizing the conversation before it even began!  How are we supposed to have reasonable discussion like this?

Afleitch, Dibble, and memphis, you are bigots. And what's worse, you think you aren't bigots. You are the epitome of what the OP was getting at - those pricks who can't just be atheists like Torie, but who go out of your way to snidely attack anyone who isn't like you. You are every bit as bad as the fundies you decry.

[opebo]

opebo clearly does care about poors and union members if you read his posts...

I don't really 'care about' other people in the sense of.. well actually to be honest I can't even imagine what that means: 'caring'.  (at least about some one you don't know).

The reason I post as I do is more in the interests of accuracy than 'caring' - I like to tell the poor (and really that includes almost everyone here in a functional sense, even if few of you will really suffer) what is happening to them.  Amazingly, they often do not know!

[John Dibble]

Afleitch, Dibble, and memphis, you are bigots. And what's worse, you think you aren't bigots. You are the epitome of what the OP was getting at - those pricks who can't just be atheists like Torie, but who go out of your way to snidely attack anyone who isn't like you. You are every bit as bad as the fundies you decry.

We're bigots? You don't know what bigotry is. We're just as bad a folks who often think we shouldn't be allowed to be citizens of this country purely on the basis of our non-belief and that we deserve eternal suffering and torment in the fires of hell, even though we don't think that of them? Or how about that something is horribly wrong with afleitch because he is attracted to the same sex and that his loving relationship with another man is an abomination? Or going even further how about those ones that think they should be taken to the town square and have rocks thrown at them until they expire?

THAT is bigotry, WMS, and having arguments on the internet isn't. When is the last time any of us three you mentioned advocating doing horrible things to religious people purely on the basis of their religion, or supporting laws that discriminate against them? Can you even name one instance of it happening?

[angus]

I don't find Dibble or memphis particularly hackish or preachy with regards to this particular issue, although to be fair they're both preachy on a number of other issues.

Afleitch didn't used to be, but he's on a roll lately.  It's as if the Archbishop of Canterbury took a shit in his cornflakes and he didn't discover it till he got to the bottom of the bowl.

[John Dibble]

I don't find Dibble or memphis particularly hackish or preachy with regards to this particular issue, although to be fair they're both preachy on a number of other issues.

I will readily admit to being preachy about it, actually. Maybe even insensitive, though that's kind of my general nature as an INTJ.

[angus]

I don't find Dibble or memphis particularly hackish or preachy with regards to this particular issue, although to be fair they're both preachy on a number of other issues.

I will readily admit to being preachy about it, actually. Maybe even insensitive, though that's kind of my general nature as an INTJ.

Now are you the quintessential internet atheist?  I'm still trying to sort this all out.  I generally find atheists to be at least as insufferable as the Jesus people, but so far I've only read your reasonable and logical responses in this thread.  Also, your rebuke of BRTD was not nearly as poetic as Afleitch's.  Internet atheist seems like a euphemism that must be earned, not bestowed.  You'll just have to turn it up a notch.  Then again, I skipped a couple of debate threads.  For all I know, you might have been calling Joseph Smith a pedophile. 

[Marokai Backbeat]

Oh look, this thread was going just fine enough until WMS had to go and repost that goddamn awful Mikado post that makes me so angry. I'm going to be on blood pressure medicine before I'm 25 at this rate.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Obviously I don't agree with memphis or John Dibble on the religion issue, but John is clearly better at conveying his ideas respectfully and maturely than memphis is.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Straha just sent me the perfect image to sum the whole thing up (remember that Straha is also an atheist):

[fezzyfestoon]

Oh look, this thread was going just fine enough until WMS had to go and repost that goddamn awful Mikado post that makes me so angry. I'm going to be on blood pressure medicine before I'm 25 at this rate.

Eugh, that really was terrible, wasn't it?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Oh look, this thread was going just fine enough until WMS had to go and repost that goddamn awful Mikado post that makes me so angry. I'm going to be on blood pressure medicine before I'm 25 at this rate.

Eugh, that really was terrible, wasn't it?

It don't see how it was 'goddamn awful' or 'terrible' in any objective sense, but it was obviously by a very angry humanities academic with postmodern leanings, which I guess for some or even most people might not and shouldn't be expected to have the desired effect.

[DemPGH]

Not that it really needs to be refuted, but I find the WMS stuff amusing, so I'll go. I've been called an off-the-charts, out-of-control egomaniac before, and now Afleitch (whose posts about religion are among the most insightful on the page), Dibble (who is among the most detached and logical posters), and Memphis (who is refreshingly direct, but IMO not disrespectful) are bigots. I suppose that comes with the terrain of daring to have the shocking audacity to talk about our non-belief. In WMS's handwringing and in Mikado's rant I see a breathtaking level of anxiety, angst, and uncertainty regarding faith - to a degree that their own fear of their own potential disbelief could be the source. But that's only speculation that to me makes sense. "Let us have our myths!" appears to be the cry. Well, no one wants to take anyone's myths. It's just that for the non-believer, casting doubt on "the sacred stories" is a significant part of the journey to non-belief that current knowledge demands. And for most atheists, the journey to non-belief is a rich, fulfilling cognitive awakening. You can't tell them to shut up about it or take insult when they do talk about it. Doubt is a way of life, not always a weapon.

So to say, for e.g., that it's not physically possible for someone to rise from the dead, or to work marvels, is 1) "eff you, dad!!XX111" or 2) breaking a taboo just for the thrill of it. Spare me. That displays a breathtaking lack of understanding of the atheist movement. I get no thrill out of saying it's not possible for a body to rise from the dead, e.g. It's more like if I had to give rational reasons for why Santa Claus does not exist to a group of adults who believed in Santa Claus. That would frankly not give me any pleasure. So there is not a thing wrong with expressing doubts over mythological story-telling, calling religion mythology, or embracing disbelief. People are not going to to simply shut up about their disbelief because someone dislikes having their sacred stories challenged.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You know that Mikado, at least, doesn't believe in God, right?

[The Mikado]

People are posting me like I'm Scripture now?

Anyway, the point I was trying to make in that post was that I fundamentally reject the entire "Rationalist" ethos of the supremacy of, superiority of, and triumph of science.  Scientific thought, like any other school of knowledge, is fundamentally ideological, but science's advocates make claims to objectivity.  There is far more complexity and emotional depth to the human experience than Reason and Logic can ever plumb, wild waves of profoundly irrational emotions, forbidden desires, dark lusts, and crazed cravings that torment and madden us.  The Romanticists knew it and the ancients knew it, but modernity tries to reject it and compartmentalize and explain everything about us and the world we live in. 

Mystery, grandeur, the graceful, moral highs and the wicked, murderous lows of the human condition reduced to diagrams and technical terms in an attempt to crush the colorful fables and fascinating origin stories of yore.  I don't agree with "Christianity" on too terribly much, but on a sentimental level, its recognition of human wickedness and human divinty, of the chaotic, dark mess of the human spirit, is far more compelling than the vision of crushing us into mechanistic contraptions  of pumps and joints and electric signals and chemical triggers.

In other words, what I oppose isn't atheism, it's Rationalism and the scientific paradigm itself.  It refuses to keep to itself and expands into fields it can't comprehend, intruding on and smashing literature, music, philosophy, history, economics, and others beneath its weighty models.  I wish to keep that which I prize most out of the hands of the Rationalist Positivist ideologues.

I've become quite fond of William Blake lately.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

People are posting me like I'm Scripture now?

I was surprised too, although I very clearly remember the discussion that we had when you made those posts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, Blake is fantastic.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Mikado, I don't think rationalism seeks to crush or negate the importance of human emotions. I think the need for rational thought is perfectly compatible with acknowledging that the human mind is much more complex than what science can describe of it. And I consider myself a hardcore rationalist.