Agnostic about atheism

[N.O.R.F]

A good read

 

Agnostic about atheism

Tracy Quan guardian.co.uk, Monday May 26 2008 Article history

 

Article historyAlbert Einstein's letter, containing a short rant about God and the Bible, sold recently for 25 times its expected price - thanks, in part, to professional atheist Richard Dawkins being one of the unsuccessful bidders.

 

It's long been said that religion is a racket. Sales figures of other anti-God rants - much longer than Einstein's letter to Eric Gutkind - suggest that atheism may be catching up. But is it good for the atheists?

 

As we know, it helps to have a book in circulation. Dawkins' recent work The God Delusion is nowhere near as big as the Bible, but shifting 1.5m copies is more than respectable. Book sales have a legitimizing effect. It's not just the growing number of readers who may be converted by a polemic. Monetary success confers an impressive, almost magical, aura.

 

If atheism's a commercial success, associated with a certain kind of high-flying, worldly proselytizer, we may yet see the advent of an atheist sect - reclusive ascetics who wish to distance themselves from the more ostentatious non-believers. Atheist sects? Not as crazy a concept as you might think. In New York, there has even been talk of a "church" - a physical house of non-worship - for atheists. Start a church and, even if you remove all mention of God, a schism seems inevitable.

 

What would Einstein do? His views on religion can't be summed up in one letter. They were, in some respects, inconsistent. Religion being what it is - huge, ancient, diverse - only the fanatical or the very dim can have a consistent response to its existence. Einstein found religion "childish" but described atheists as creatures who, harboring a grudge, were resistant to "the music of the spheres." In other words, resentful puritans.

 

For it is not only Einstein's "music of the spheres" but music in general that must be tossed out when you refuse to appreciate religion. If you champion the splendors and benefits of Western culture, while claiming to oppose religion entirely, you are, metaphorically speaking, tone deaf.

 

Whether your preference is Bach, Britten, Palestrina, Kanye West or Earth, Wind and Fire, you'll find some aspect of Christianity in the details. But reggae - such as The Melodians doing Rivers of Babylon, based on a psalm of the exiled Jews - can't easily be separated from religion, either. Run from religion, if you must, but you can't hide from song, sculpture, poetry, architecture, painting, tourism or food.

 

Given that the influence of religion over the centuries has made them what they are, I can't help seeing something crude in the impulse for some to bash it. As a "cafeteria" atheist and secular Catholic, I don't share that impulse. Religion has given us some rather fabulous architecture, a lot of excellent paintings, a variety of head coverings - from yarmulkes through wimples, veils and turbans - which I , for one, find fascinating.

 

Religion has often been the engine of tourism from which the laity could benefit. All sorts of people made a good living from pilgrims traipsing through Europe to check out the relics of the latest hot saint. Today, some of these pilgrim routes attract eager non-believers, as do many cathedrals and churches. For many tourists, the Way of St James pilgrimage route across the Pyrenees is an exercise in self-improvement through education, a recreational history lesson rather than a form of piety. Religion has staying power because it can adapt.

 

I enjoy pilgrimage sites as much as I enjoy sampling the obsessive-compulsive cuisine born of a strict religious diet. (I might be wrong, but something tells me Dawkins is not a world class foodie.) When food is part of learning about the world (and how other people live), almost anything is worth trying once.

 

Take a look around New York and you'll realize that halal is the new kosher. In Manhattan, the Jewish restaurants on West 72nd Street (one for meat, one for dairy) have disappeared - while halal pushcarts, dotting the midtown sidewalks, service the city's office workers.

 

Some of my fellow atheists are to non-belief what being nouveau riche is to the traditionally rich. It's as though they've just discovered God doesn't exist, and they can't wait to tell you all about it. I cringe each time one of these noisy non-believers gets on their soap box. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have helped me to understand how a genteel Anglican must feel about some of those "other" Protestants. As athiests become more strident a new snobbery arises - or a schism, so sects aren't out of the question.

 

Some of us are too delicate for evangelical excess. Whether it's atheistic or religious, we find it embarrassing. Yes, religion can be abusive, and we're often told that religion causes war. When people kill each other in the name of religious identity, it's sickening. If I thought evangelical atheism could end violence, I would be happy to tolerate the embarrassment factor. But I'm not convinced it can.

 

Christopher Hitchens, declaring that "god is not great," seems to have designed this phrase expressly to piss off the worshipful. Religion may be childish but so is a show of disrespect.

If we're so comfortable in our non-belief, do we need to go around nettling the believers?

 

While finishing my third novel, I faced a dilemma: whether to capitalise the G in God when referring to the Christian deity. God is more of a concept than a being to me, but the lower case "god" suggested by Hitchens just didn't look right. If Nancy, Allison, and Jasmine (fictional prostitutes in my novel) require the upper case treatment, it seems democratic to do likewise for God, who is also a product of the imagination.

 

As a central character in so many other stories, God has legs, but I am not here to defend God's greatness. Or legs. I prefer to say that God ... is just OK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/26/agnosticaboutatheism

[EndSIT_Now]

Is he calling for co-existence between the religious and the non religious? I think the religious would have a bigger problem with that than the non religious. I am surprised no one called for his death in this forum. (We'll wait and see)

[rudy-Diiriye]

this is not pakistan, so we dont call for ppls heads. dont belive everything u read... be a skeptic.

 

hmm, wait i gotta letter from pakistan yesterday about a medical center..

how fing do they have my address... i havent even travelled out of usa for 20yrs..

 

next, i will get a donation call from Yeey.

[Johnny B]

As a "cafeteria" atheist and secular Catholic, I don't share that impulse.

Such words are the music of the theists.

 

The intellectual dishonesty among the theists has no boundery, how often have we not seen theists getting out of thier way blostering irrational religious commandments.

 

Its not about nettling the religious, it has always been about the religious people's attempts of shoving questionable Axioms down people's throats, getting 'nettled' if and when questioned.

 

That people like Al Burcaawi(Norf) rejoice the Article's futile hint of Atheists too not beeing comfortable in thier non-belief is but expected for the simple reason that the theistic stance is in dire need of constant approval from Reality which it lacks, so poisoning the well and accusing the Atheists of discomfort in their non-belief is a psycologically must do thing.

 

EndSit, He's not calling for co-existence, he's accusing Atheists of beeing snobs.

[N.O.R.F]

^^Oh I love the endless use of ‘irrational’ and such words as if it brings some sort of comfort to them whilst totally disregarding their own reluctance (or inability in most cases) to comprehend the issues/concepts/methodologies involved in belief in the first place. Thus leaving them forever chumping at the bit.

 

A good read still.

 

So what do you 'believe' JB? We all came to being from a puff of smoke?

[Johnny B]

^And where is the issue/concept/methodology in believing on a Spagahetti monster?

 

So what do you 'believe' JB? We all came to being from a puff of smoke?

I believe in many things, but unlike you i know a belief is not an action, it cannot be attained by command and most importantly,belief is based on evidence, with some amount of intuition, it is not a matter of will or cost-benefit analysis.

 

Becouse that we all did not came to being from a puff of smoke, you can't just choose to believe that yo're created by an unknown power and then attribute to it all the things you find suitable.

 

A Belief based on choice such the above leaves much to be desired, so does Credulity based on choice.

 

To believe in things much too easily or much too readily than reason or logic can justify 'almost' borders a deficiency in Sanity woulden't you say my credulous Al-Burcawi?

[N.O.R.F]

JB,

 

Pointing at other people’s beliefs and dismissing them is all well and good (and expected) but by using such reasoning (there being a lack of evidence) one is expected to apply the same thought process when making his/her views clear to others on their own beliefs or lack thereof. Or is it a one way street? There are many ways of conducting research and results either point to a ‘likely’ outcome or make recommendations on something absolute. In this case (is there a creator?) we are dealing with the former. We will get onto that later (God willing )

 

Back to my earlier question. I did ask you how we (humans) came into being. Now, without the usual merry dance routine, can you answer the question?

 

Enlighten us

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi:

JB,

 

Pointing at other people’s beliefs and dismissing them is all well and good (and expected)

No,it is not well and absolutely not good, actually the whole Article you posted is about just that, namely, dismissing credulous beliefs equals nettling the religious, which in turn means a discomfort in non-belief.

 

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi:

but by using such reasoning (there being a lack of evidence) one is expected to apply the same thought process when making his/her views clear to others on their own beliefs or lack thereof. Or is it a one way street?

What is not so clear about not believing in things so easily or readily? Are you asking for evidence that Superstition is wrong?

 

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi:

There are many ways of conducting research and results either point to a ‘likely’ outcome or make recommendations on something absolute. In this case (is there a creator?) we are dealing with the former. We will get onto that later (God willing

)

Does your religion allow the conducting of researchs,normally religious dogmas forbid questioning,but encourage what we normally refer to 'baking the result'.

 

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi:

Back to my earlier question. I did ask you how we (humans) came into being. Now, without the usual merry dance routine, can you answer the question?

 

Enlighten us

Are we loosing some cincerity here?, you did not ask me that question, you asked me

if i do believe that We all came to being from a puff of smoke.

 

Now that you single handedly decided to abandon the original topic and turn this into Q&A about existentialism, i'm satisfied having countered the original topic about Albert Einstein's letter, namely 'Agnostic about Atheism'.

[N.O.R.F]

JB,

 

A little slow on the up-take I see. It’s always a sight to see someone blow their own trumpet long before a debate has started let alone ended (reminds me of my teens). I’m not interested in quoting you one line at a time ya JB as it can get very tedious and tends to divert the topic. Your ever predictable comments about religion/belief have been noted along with your urgency to try and divert it towards such a debate. But, this is not about MY beliefs and how I came to such a conclusion Johnny, its about YOUR beliefs and how YOU reconcile them with what you (and many of your Atheist friends) have been shouting off the rooftops all along ie ‘research’, ‘findings’, ‘empirical data’ etc etc. Is there a chance that this same methodology you champion when questioning a believer is not being used by yourself when making such decisions as there being no deity? Is there only one form of research result you’re willing to accept (the absolute form I mentioned earlier)?

 

I have been asking you a question which can easily be reconciled with the article. The title being ‘Agnostic about Atheism’. When I asked you if we were created ‘from a puff of smoke’ I was pulling your leg (with the ‘puff of smoke’ bit) but I still expect you to answer the question on what you believe is how we were created. If the answer is you don’t know then don’t you think you’re having your cake and eating it?

 

Think long and hard now,,,,,,,,,,,

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi:

JB,

 

A little slow on the up-take I see. It’s always a sight to see someone blow their own trumpet long before a debate has started let alone ended (reminds me of my teens). I’m not interested in quoting you one line at a time ya JB as it can get very tedious and tends to divert the topic. Your ever predictable comments about religion/belief have been noted along with your urgency to try and divert it towards such a debate. But, this is not about MY beliefs and how I came to such a conclusion Johnny, its about YOUR beliefs and how YOU reconcile them with what you (and many of your Atheist friends) have been shouting off the rooftops all along ie ‘research’, ‘findings’, ‘empirical data’ etc etc. Is there a chance that this same methodology you champion when questioning a believer is not being used by yourself when making such decisions as there being no deity? Is there only one form of research result you’re willing to accept (the absolute form I mentioned earlier)?

Of course everybody who thinks Superstition is wrong is little slow on the up-take, what can i say?

Are you telling me that i've a belief in another God-like figure, becouse Atheism is lack of belief in Gods?

 

Your meager knowledge about Atheism is suffocating you, so much so you think it's another sort of Belief.

 

The idea of an existing Deity is a possitive claim made by the Theists,and that they fail to support their claim is a universal reality.

 

You haven't been debating Al Burcawi, you posted a "good read" Article, and we're done with it.

What is the debate that haven't started that you talking about?

 

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi:

I have been asking you a question which can easily be reconciled with the article. The title being ‘Agnostic about Atheism’. When I asked you if we were created ‘from a puff of smoke’ I was pulling your leg (with the ‘puff of smoke’ bit) but I still expect you to answer the question on what you believe is how we were created. If the answer is you don’t know then don’t you think you’re having your cake and eating it?

 

Think long and hard now,,,,,,,,,,,

Again, you haven't asked me if we were 'created' ‘from a puff of smoke’ as there is a slight difference between coming into beeing and beeing 'created', and you can't expect me to answer the question on what i 'believe' on how we were created, becouse i don't share with you the assumption that we're created in the first place.

 

What is worth rediculing, but i however won't,is your conclusion that if a person doesen't know how human-beeings were 'created', s/he must accept the idea that Human-beeings are created by God(Allah) from a peice of mud that 'S/He' blowed life into, otherwise s/he will be eating his/her cake and keeping it at the same time.

 

And there you've your exit-point.

[N.O.R.F]

I see you're quoting me a paragraph at a time now

 

You’re just being obtuse. You’re correct in that my knowledge of Atheism is not great (nothing to be ashamed of) but one can throw that back at you (including the suffocating part) with regard to Theism and especially Islam. You’re jumping all over the place without comprehending (some would call it a total avoidance to comprehend) what it is I’m asking you. I have already said that your constant mocking of belief has been noted but you need to realise that dance stopped being fashionable a long time ago.

 

We haven’t been debating because you chose not to. Now, without any wriggling, without any dancing and certainly without any mocking (your reliance & ‘strength’) can you answer the question? If you don’t know the answer (excuse my lack of Atheism understanding here) then just say so. If you feel you need to spell something out to me then please feel free to do so.

 

In the mean time let me simplify it for you.

 

My original question was:

 

So what do you 'believe' JB? We all came to being from a puff of smoke?

 

Note the key words ‘came to being’ and ignore the ‘puff of smoke’ bit (I was taking the Mickey there).

 

The same question I asked later on reads:

 

I did ask you how we (humans) came into being.

 

Disregard the third time I asked but you still haven’t answered the two above.

 

Is xeji saaxib.

[Johnny B]

^Much do i feel to spell out on you but then how do i avoid that trap of 'nettling' you?

 

You post an Article, you even 'highlight' what you find outstanding in the Article, called it " a good read" but end up with having a question. How so?

 

Of course i knew you were pulling my legs,with the puff of Smoke,that was so obvious one'd be extremely retarded to miss that, but what i diden't know was that you're stuck there, pulling my legs , that is, by shifting your question to how we were 'created'

[N.O.R.F]

^^I shall take that as 'I don't know the answer'.

 

You post an Article, you even 'highlight' what you find outstanding in the Article, called it " a good read" but end up with having a question. How so?

I would have thought you of all people would be familiar with such actions JB

[Johnny B]

^Of Course the answer, the only plausible answer is Human-beeings evolved to their current state of beeing from another less-fit state of beeing, but then that is not something you're ready to rationally counter or intellectually consider, becouse it's not what you were indoctrinated in.

so let us for arguendo say, you're right and we don't know the answer.

 

Now,I assume your answer to the question is 'Allah' created human-beeing,as is, from a mud that he blowed 'life' into,'poooooof' right? you may correct me if i'm wrong here.

 

Now, please,help us Atheists/Agnostics get enlighted.

 

A: Help us define 'Allah',help us answer the question 'what is an Allah?', since you claim to know that its HIM that is behind our 'creation', don't you dare back off now, go the straight line with us, don't you dare tell us that you don't or can't know him/her, remember the agnostic stance of " we can't know about God " is not your stance.

 

By answering this you'll probably once and for all understand why its the religious that developped facial hair and willingness to easily get 'nettled' than its out of discomfort among the Agnostics/atheists.

 

 

the floor is all yours.

[N.O.R.F]

Again, you have understood wrong. I’m not here to tell you who created you and how (that’s not what this thread is about). As I’m ‘Agnostic about Atheism’, I would like for you to expand on your following statement;

 

the only plausible answer is Human-beeings evolved to their current state of beeing from another less-fit state of beeing

* what was the less fit state of being?

* how did we evolve?

* how long did it take?

* why is this the only 'plausible' answer? (are you merely opting for this because you have no other 'agreeable' alternative?)

 

ps I'm assuming you can 'rationally' and 'intellectually' explain away the above

 

Don't disappoint now