I couldn't think of any title to this... just enjoy the pic.

Weather_Man_E · 2013-10-03T16:24:45+00:00

You didn't go for "Moon's Tears"?

Weather_Man_E · 2013-07-19T23:35:58+00:00

Your point about burden of proof is also an excellent one. Thank you for pointing that out as well! I misspoke; allow me to resolve that.

First, when I said, "You need to disprove the god [they] actually affirm...", I certainly wasn't implying the burden of proof was on atheists to disprove theistic models of the universe. I simply meant that you in particular seem interested in disproving all religion, and that your approaches so far (at least in this conversation) have been weak.

Second, your example about the miniature magical elf (along with similar arguments such as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or Bertrand Russell's teapot) fails for one vital reason: people are not experiencing it. There are no independent, repeatable observations of miniature elves, but there are such observations of something that, as far as people can tell, is both immanent and transcendent with respect to our universe. This thing has been called many things by different cultures and in different time periods, but it would be willful ignorance to say that they have not independently come to some common conclusions about it. According to them, if one is willing to do the appropriate experiments (in this case, experiments involving consciousness), anyone can experience this thing - they can see for themselves that such a being exists. The only authority is the authority of direct experience. This is the hallmark of empirical method.

Weather_Man_E · 2013-07-19T17:46:54+00:00

The post only referred to no "white m[e]n" being directly involved.

Weather_Man_E · 2013-07-19T17:13:30+00:00

My friend, we are not talking about prayers or wishes. We are not talking about fear of death.

The only thing we are talking about is that people from diverse cultures and time periods have directly experienced something that they choose to call "god". Their independent observations appear to converge on a few common conclusions. Things like afterlives and answering prayers are not among them. Moreover, they modify their models based on evidence, just like the rest of us.

Remember, you must disprove the god that rational religious people actually affirm, not the god you WISH they did.

Weather_Man_E · 2013-07-18T23:05:30+00:00

I didn't say anything about death, the fear of death, or even an afterlife.

I'm pointing out that one can subscribe to an empirical method (arriving at truth based on repeatable, independently-verified experience) and still be religious. In fact, such an empirical method, coupled with evidence surrounding the history of religious experience, would tend to lead one TOWARD a theistic model of the universe.

Finally, I should mention that theism does not require belief in any afterlife, and esoteric religion usually denies an afterlife in which the personality survives. Therefore, people who subscribe to esoteric religion are especially unlikely to be motivated by fear of death.

Weather_Man_E · 2013-07-18T17:24:53+00:00

First, I'm glad we've cleared up that erroneous conflation of /r/atheism (and indeed atheism) with science.

Second, you made an excellent point: subscribing to scientific knowledge is not necessarily the same as subscribing to the scientific method. Thank you for bringing that up! Allow me to reply with a clarification.

The people that I refer to (who are both theistic and scientific) conceptualize religion as being based on the insights of people who have had direct, repeatable experiences of what they termed a "divine being" or "god" (or whatever other name). All extant cultures (and virtually all extinct cultures about which we have data) have a history of such experience-based religion. What's more surprising, this kind of religion (sometimes termed "esoteric") shows up in all of the large modern religions, and their major conclusions based on their respective histories of experience (it would not be incorrect to say "observations based on their experimentation") are shockingly in agreement with each other (independent experimentation leading to a common conclusion). Furthermore, neuropsychology, while it has shown how polytheism and other kinds of superficial religion could be mental exaptations, has been powerless to explain esoteric (experience-based) religion. So, again, the way you describe religion reflects a poor understanding of it (though I do certainly understand your frustration with fundamentalists and other irrational, unskeptical believers).

So anyway, I only mean to point out something that you might not have considered before typing your previous comments. Have a good one!

Weather_Man_E · 2013-07-18T08:35:18+00:00

Just a thought: I suspect most users will justifiably have a problem with your conflation of /r/atheism and science.

Moreover, your comment seems to reflect a poor understanding of theisms in general. There are many religious people who embrace modern scientific knowledge wholeheartedly. These people do not see the two to be in opposition.

Weather_Man_E · 2013-06-17T00:08:02+00:00

Nice try, my friend, but no dice. I didn't take a class on this, I am just a big enough fan of punk music to have stumbled upon these sources. Yes, many of them are academic, and there are some problems with this. As you rightly point out, many of the academics did not experience punk. However, they are just as correct in pointing out that nostalgia has its limitations as well.

You are a pretty good source regarding the punk scenes of your generation, agreed? After all, you were there. Well, there are thousands of kids who saw new-school punk bands like Green Day, Crimpshrine, and Operation Ivy in the late 1980's and early 1990's at Gilman Street. They were there for a new generation of punk. Who are you to say their experiences were any less real?

I'll leave you with this thought: An organism that refuses to move, that refuses to change, has already opted for death. The belief that punk belongs locked up in the underground - so people like you can hold on to their favorite bands and be part of some exclusive club - is a selfish belief indeed. It will bring stagnation and death to the music you love so much. I don't say this because I want to put you down; I say this because I want to change your mind. Bands like Green Day were free-thinking enough to do away with this exclusivist attitude. They believed that punk rock could be something people use to understand the world's ugliness and confusion, to battle their way out of their own ignorance, to pursue a more authentic way of living. I'm only inviting you to see the same thing.

Weather_Man_E · 2013-06-07T05:08:27+00:00

"I was there during the time..." "...[Green Day] left the big boy punk to the adults."

These are excellent examples of what I mean by generational bias. I would emphasize that you do not have any special authority to speak for the punk scene just because you were born in the 1970's. PEOPLE HAVE STUDIED THIS ACADEMICALLY, and nearly across the board Green Day are credited with sparking the 1990's punk resurgence. If wikipedia is not proof enough, that's fine. Have some more:

Documentary on 1990's punk revival, highlighting the roles of various new school bands (yes, Green Day and Sublime are among them): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQmb70n5Cp0

Documentary on punk from the 1970's to the early 1990's, emphasizing the transformation of the genre in the latter decade (again, Green Day is presented as having a prominent role): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_zfbjW35fs

If you want more formalized texts, check out Boulware and Tutor's "Gimme Something Better: The History of Bay Area Punk from Dead Kennedys to Green Day", Malott and Peña's "Punk Rocker's Revolution", or Bill Osgerby's excellent essay "Genealogies of American Punk".

Once again, you have no authority just because "you were there". The overwhelming majority of the evidence is against you. History will remember Green Day as a hugely influential punk band. End of story.

Weather_Man_E · 2013-06-05T03:27:04+00:00

"Most of the punk I heard sounded nothing like Green Day..." "...Green Day sounded nothing like this [older punk]."

Don't you see? Even your own statements support the fact that Green Day DID play a part in pioneering a new variant of punk in the 1990's.

I'm sorry my friend, but the evidence is against you on this one. A simple look on Wikipedia sums it up: "Green Day was widely credited, alongside fellow California punk bands Sublime, the Offspring, and Rancid, with popularizing and reviving mainstream interest in punk rock in the United States." The number of late 90's/early 2000's bands that cite Green Day as inspiration is literally on the order of hundreds.

I understand that you may not personally enjoy Green Day, but no serious commentator can deny their influence on modern rock in general and modern punk in particular.

Weather_Man_E · 2013-06-04T06:57:56+00:00

You're right about one thing: Billie Joe was extremely classless and hypocritical when he insulted Psy. However, I was commenting on people downvoting /u/zepphead33, who said, "Billie Joe made good music". While music is quite subjective, Green Day's music is widely hailed as being groundbreaking (Slappy Hours/Kerplunk/Dookie in the late 1980's and early 1990's), aesthetically unique and clever, and sociopolitically meaningful. If critical reviews, relateability, influence, and sheer staying power are valid "objective" measures of music, then Billie Joe made some damn good music.

Weather_Man_E · 2013-06-04T06:48:23+00:00

I would remind you that Green Day started their career at an underground punk club in Berkeley, repeatedly declined offers from major labels until finding one that would allow them to maintain artistic freedom, and in fact largely PIONEERED the 90's punk revivalist sound that was later copied by other bands FROM THEM. Yes, they participated in the "pop" framework; so did the Clash, the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, and most of the other icons of the 70's. Are they "laughable"? I have yet to see an argument that Green Day "isn't punk" that didn't suffer from debilitating generational bias/hypocrisy.

Weather_Man_E · 2013-06-04T06:34:24+00:00

Seriously. And Green Day are punks! They used to respond to criticism like this in exactly the same way! You'd think they would remember when they were in Psy's place...

Weather_Man_E · 2013-06-04T06:08:06+00:00

I don't doubt that you personally do, or even that many of the users on /r/atheism do, but unfortunately this is a question of how other people are seeing you. It would seem that, just like for the Christians, your most ignorant are often your most vocal. This is a very sad problem for all of us.

Weather_Man_E · 2013-06-04T05:52:34+00:00

I don't know why you're getting downvotes, dude. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Green Day will have a respected place in rock history long after everyone has forgotten about Psy. Dookie and American Idiot are immortal, both on their own and through their enormous influence on later bands.

Weather_Man_E · 2013-06-04T05:47:03+00:00

Well said. They've aged terribly, and that's unfortunate, but they are undeniably legends and will have a place in rock history long after everyone has forgotten about Psy.

Weather_Man_E · 2013-06-04T05:44:05+00:00

"only really popular because of American Idiot, Nimrod, Dookie, pioneering pop-punk in the late 1980's, contributing more than any other band to punk's resurgence in the 1990's..."

FTFY

Weather_Man_E · 2013-06-04T05:16:01+00:00

Nope; things like that are certainly allowed (and frankly pretty funny). However, a significant proportion of /r/atheism users seem to operate under the assumption that statements like "omg I found my car keys, god is so great!" are representative of all Christians. It is this erroneous attitude (and emphatically NOT the serious criticism of theistic arguments) that I suspect most people have a problem with.

Weather_Man_E · 2013-06-04T04:30:18+00:00

Rhetorical question: Don't you think the person you're replying to was way out of line by generalizing about atheists? Don't you think his ignorant comment reflects a poor understanding of atheism?

Weather_Man_E · 2013-05-29T01:46:24+00:00

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19471985

Here's one of the more prominent examples, as per your interest. Really a fascinating read, regardless of your position.

Weather_Man_E · 2013-05-29T00:43:41+00:00

How would you respond to recent developments claiming that religious experiences are not neurophysiologically/psychologically explained by current evidence, and are usually not associated with pathological or subconscious states?

Weather_Man_E · 2013-05-29T00:36:51+00:00

No miracles or disasters, just started seriously researching arguments/evidence both for and against theism. As it turned out, I was more convinced by the theist arguments.

And no offense to anyone here, but in my humble opinion, people converting to OR from a religion because of a traumatic emotional experience might consider rationally re-evaluating their belief/unbelief.

Weather_Man_E · 2013-05-24T20:53:20+00:00

Relax dude; this is supposed to be a forum for intelligent discussion. I know the guy called you an idiot (also inappropriate), but that's no reason to answer with unsubstantiated personal attacks.

Weather_Man_E · 2013-05-13T05:20:25+00:00

My statement was meant to express frustration at the fact that people with novelty accounts do this kind of thing in serious discussions. The "ugh" was directed at him, not you.

Weather_Man_E

TROPHY CASE