the mouse wrote:I've always found this odd, and this has left folks who share the aesthetics of Carl Sagan, Neil Tyson, Dawkins, etc..., as those that seem so alien to me. And rather than sharing some half thought idea as to why I believe this is so, i'd rather confess that I don't really understand it.

Imagine, for example, if I were to say that theists were only ever moved to wonder by the contemplation of the fictional attributes of their imaginary friend in the sky and all the goodies it was going to give them after they die - that they were unable to be moved by the smile of a child, the kindness of a stranger or the weight of a friend's hand on their shoulder - then confessed that I found this tendency hard to understand.

Would you not find this a bizarre claim to make? Would you not simply respond that there was nothing to understand, due to this state of affairs existing only in my imagination?

If atheists aren't opening up to you about the personal things that matter most to them in the world, perhaps you might want to take a critical look at how you habitually talk at them.

Nicko wrote:

Imagine, for example, if I were to say that theists were only ever moved to wonder by the contemplation of the fictional attributes

I never claimed atheists were only moved by the cosmos, but appear in the various appeals to aesethics, to feel a greater a sense of wonder and awe in regards to scientific observations, the cosmos, etc... than in regards to relational aspects. This does not mean they are not moved by these things, but just not as moved as much as these other aspects they speak so passionately about.

This probably has to do with the fact, that love in essence has more to do with the subjective aspects of us, which atheists tend to short shift, in light of the appeals of thinking objectively, removing oneself as far back from the subject as possible.

The aesthetic zeitgeist of atheism is that of distance, of space, of being out there, on the outside looking in, rather than in the chaotic personal space of human life.

There are great reflective works by atheists on the sciences the splendid beauty of the cosmos, and hardly none on the profound wonder of love. Perhaps because to speak of love, as a thing of wonder, is something that sounds too religious, for a non-believers taste.

Pure weapons grade bullshit, the mouse. You are making adjudications based on absolutely nothing but your opinion. Of course you are more than welcome to show us something of substance at any time. I won't be holding my breath in anticipation of this since I'm convinced you have no interest in facts, but have already arrived at your conclusions sans support from the real world.

RS

the mouse wrote:

Nicko wrote:

Imagine, for example, if I were to say that theists were only ever moved to wonder by the contemplation of the fictional attributes

I never claimed atheists were only moved by the cosmos, but appear in the various appeals to aesethics, to feel a greater a sense of wonder and awe in regards to scientific observations, the cosmos, etc... than in regards to relational aspects. This does not mean they are not moved by these things, but just not as moved as much as these other aspects they speak so passionately about.

This probably has to do with the fact, that love in essence has more to do with the subjective aspects of us, which atheists tend to short shift, in light of the appeals of thinking objectively, removing oneself as far back from the subject as possible.

The aesthetic zeitgeist of atheism is that of distance, of space, of being out there, on the outside looking in, rather than in the chaotic personal space of human life.

There are great reflective works by atheists on the sciences the splendid beauty of the cosmos, and hardly none on the profound wonder of love. Perhaps because to speak of love, as a thing of wonder, is something that sounds too religious, for a non-believers taste.

You really don't have a clue, do you? This is nothing but biased opinion and made-up bullshit.

theropod wrote:Pure weapons grade bullshit, the mouse. You are making adjudications based on absolutely nothing but your opinion.

Of course it is my observation, based on reading the variety of works and writings of atheists, both in places like this, and else where, in various books and articles, etc., and in particularly in regards to atheists who might label themselves as rationalist, and whose aesthetic dimensions are aligned with those of prominent atheists figures, like Dawkins and PZ Myers, and Coyne, etc....

I think there might even be a reason for it. I think the more one is transfixed by the notion of love, the more he borders on the edge of becoming religious. The more one ventures from seeing love as merely a thing of pleasant feeling, to more of something of profound power and beauty, the more mystical his views of life become. An anathema to any self-respecting atheist.

More bullshit which you cannot support by evidence, reason, or proof.

I'm done with you. No need to respond.

kennyc wrote:More bullshit which you cannot support by evidence, reason, or proof.

I'm done with you. No need to respond.

One only has to look as far as your poetry, and art, whose themes are about everything else beside that, from an ode to Darwin, and the silence of death, to the pleasure of sex.

the mouse wrote:

Nicko wrote:

Imagine, for example, if I were to say that theists were only ever moved to wonder by the contemplation of the fictional attributes

I never claimed atheists were only moved by the cosmos, but appear in the various appeals to aesethics, to feel a greater a sense of wonder and awe in regards to scientific observations, the cosmos, etc... than in regards to relational aspects.

Simone de Beauvoir would be one of the first to disagree with you. Not least because she wrote novels about her relationships.

Then we have Auguste Comte, who was the first major thinker to conceive of the possibility of studying human relationships in a scientific manner. He is responsible for the modern meaning of the word "sociology".

For that matter, Jean-Paul Sartre wrote a considerable body of literature on human relations, including an attempt to analyse the emergence of hatred for "the other" that frequently manifests itself in various forms. He also gravitated more toward the humanist values of the early writings of Marx, than to the later political dialectics, and in addition to his philosophical works, wrote plays in an attempt to analyse the human condition.

the mouse wrote:This does not mean they are not moved by these things, but just not as moved as much as these other aspects they speak so passionately about.

See the above mentioned three individuals, whose collected works alone refute your assertion.

the mouse wrote:This probably has to do with the fact, that love in essence has more to do with the subjective aspects of us, which atheists tend to short shift, in light of the appeals of thinking objectively, removing oneself as far back from the subject as possible.

This is complete poppycock. First of all, I've been a passionate lover of Pre-Raphaelite art for 25 years, and I can think of few more subjective human endeavours than art. Once again, the artworks I came to love, are frequently attempts to answer searching questions about the human condition, and I can think of few artistic genres more heavily steeped in romantic love than Pre-Raphaelitism.

For that matter, my own artworks have constituted a celebration of feminine beauty ever since I first learned the requisite techniques for rendering my ideas. That I choose to do so in fantasy settings, is in part because I love a good fantasy just as much as anyone else.

the mouse wrote:The aesthetic zeitgeist of atheism is that of distance, of space, of being out there, on the outside looking in, rather than in the chaotic personal space of human life.

An assertion so manifestly and fatuously wrong, simply on the basis of the examples I've provided above, as to be beneath deserving of a point of view.

Plus, do you honestly think that gazing in wonder at the stars is something only modern atheists do? Go and re-take your history lessons, and learn how dwelling on the cosmos has been an essential part of human curiosity from the very start. Courtesy of the Babylonians, the Ancient Greeks, etc. Indeed, quite a few of the mythologies that humans have invented, have been written in part as attempts to try and satisfy that curiosity. That they are failed attempts is a separate question.

the mouse wrote:There are great reflective works by atheists on the sciences the splendid beauty of the cosmos, and hardly none on the profound wonder of love.

Hello? Simone de Beauvoir? Come over here and educate this individual.

the mouse wrote:Perhaps because to speak of love, as a thing of wonder, is something that sounds too religious, for a non-believers taste.

Poppycock. Love is a human emotion. Why would speaking of it be "religious"?

the mouse wrote:

theropod wrote:Pure weapons grade bullshit, the mouse. You are making adjudications based on absolutely nothing but your opinion.

Of course it is my observation, based on reading the variety of works and writings of atheists, both in places like this, and else where, in various books and articles, etc., and in particularly in regards to atheists who might label themselves as rationalist, and whose aesthetic dimensions are aligned with those of prominent atheists figures, like Dawkins and PZ Myers, and Coyne, etc....

It doesn't matter what you think you know. You are wrong. All atheist are not alike and you continue to lump us all together into something that does not exist. Even after you've been told this, and given real world examples that refute your assertions, you continue to make this offensive claim. This, in my opinion, is a very disturbing thing.

I think there might even be a reason for it.

A reason for what? Your empty claims? I think it's entirely something you've made from whole cloth and declare it as fact when it clearly isn't.

I think the more one is transfixed by the notion of love, the more he borders on the edge of becoming religious.

Transfixed, or obsessed? How does that emotion lead to becoming religious? Is it because you feel that your favorite sky-daddy loves you so much that love must be the key? Seriously, where are you getting this shit? You do know that some of us here REJECTED this notion of a sky-daddy when we were religious, don't you? Yep, we walked away from the love of a mythological figure that allegedly killed every human on the planet (save for 8 folks) because he was too big a jerk to just fix what HE DID WRONG.

The more one ventures from seeing love as merely a thing of pleasant feeling, to more of something of profound power and beauty, the more mystical his views of life become. An anathema to any self-respecting atheist.

See, here ya go with the same old song and dance. You, and your fellows in faith, do not have a corner on the market of love. You might like to think you do, but that would just be something else you are wrong about. Bullshit assertions based on absolutely nothing but prejudice. You'll have to provide us something besides your say-so that love on the deepest levels leads to more mystical views. I'm betting you can't and won't.

You have no idea how much I love my wife, children and many others. You have no idea why I love these people, or the suffering I would take upon myself from them if I could. You have no idea as to what any other human being is capable of feeling.

You aren't displaying much love for your fellow man in labeling atheists as lesser beings than you because they lack the ability to love on the same level as you. How do you know that some of us are not capable of greater love than you? You don't. You're making up bullshit in order to prop up your empty assertions, and apparently attempting to make yourself feel good for not being the empty shells that are atheists.

Oh, BTW, I was an atheists before I ever heard of the folks you mention above. What does that tell you? Did I fall out of love with god, or did I come to realize there is no reason to accept this god exists? I hate myself for ever falling for the lies that is theism, but I love the fact that I can now live a love filled life without worrying about whether I'm doing it right. The way I love is the right way for me to love, and I'll be fucked if I'm gonna let someone else tell me how much my feelings are worth, or if they have any validity.

I don't need to attribute anything greater to my love than the love itself. If it isn't good enough for those I love they will let me know. If it is good enough for them they will love me back. There's bloody little hate in me, and it's reserved for folks that tell me my life is lessened because of what they think of the emotions I hold and how I display them.

Here's the killer for your silly argument. I would lay down my life to protect your right to make these silly statements. The Bible says that man has no greater love than to lay down his life for his fellows. How does that compute in your fact generator.

RS

the mouse wrote:

theropod wrote:Pure weapons grade bullshit, the mouse. You are making adjudications based on absolutely nothing but your opinion.

Of course it is my observation, based on reading the variety of works and writings of atheists, both in places like this, and else where, in various books and articles, etc., and in particularly in regards to atheists who might label themselves as rationalist, and whose aesthetic dimensions are aligned with those of prominent atheists figures, like Dawkins and PZ Myers, and Coyne, etc....

I think there might even be a reason for it. I think the more one is transfixed by the notion of love, the more he borders on the edge of becoming religious. The more one ventures from seeing love as merely a thing of pleasant feeling, to more of something of profound power and beauty, the more mystical his views of life become. An anathema to any self-respecting atheist.

Damn, found out AGAIN, hate-filled baby eating atheists are just not capable of loving properly, we're missing that unquantifiable and unqualifiable something that makes us human. Love is just anathema to us. Je dois détester tout et tout le monde.

the mouse wrote:The more and more I hear from unbelievers, the more and more I become aware that our differences are more than just one party believing in God, while the other does not. I believe there is a considerable difference even in our aesthetic sentiments. Most of the time when an atheist shares something they find sublime and beautiful, it's typically something in regards to the cosmos, or the sciences, like Dawkins "moved to tears" by the Hadron Collider.

One sentiment that's very rare among atheists, is that they rarely ever raise anything human to this level of wonder, no act or action of man, of love, of motherhood, of friendship, is ever raised to the point of overwhelming us like the stars do. And it's not they don't find these human things beautiful in their own way, but they rarely ever raise it as a source of wonder and awe to the extent of the cosmos.

I've always found this odd, and this has left folks who share the aesthetics of Carl Sagan, Neil Tyson, Dawkins, etc..., as those that seem so alien to me. And rather than sharing some half thought idea as to why I believe this is so, i'd rather confess that I don't really understand it.

It's called humility. Something theists have made a big deal about but don't seem to grasp.

Aside from that this is a bit of a strawman argument.

the mouse wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Lol! I assure you humans are a source of awe and wonder to me every day. I'm awed by their potential, creativity and brilliance, and shake my head in wonder at how wrong-headed and destructive they can be.

Are you able to provide an example of an act of love, not necessarily something personal, and preferably not so, that filled you with a sense of awe and wonder, equivalent to what might be felt in contemplating the majesty of the cosmos?

Carl Sagan's Cosmos brings me to tears every time. So yeah, Sagan. What a brilliant humble creature he was!

Animavore wrote:

the mouse wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Lol! I assure you humans are a source of awe and wonder to me every day. I'm awed by their potential, creativity and brilliance, and shake my head in wonder at how wrong-headed and destructive they can be.

Are you able to provide an example of an act of love, not necessarily something personal, and preferably not so, that filled you with a sense of awe and wonder, equivalent to what might be felt in contemplating the majesty of the cosmos?

Sure. Check the last few minutes of the first episode of the new Cosmos where Neil Tyson talks about his time spend with the Sagan family at their house in New York when he was just a teen.

Or just watch this.

Oh damn. You covered that one. Just reading through.

the mouse wrote:

Fallible wrote:

I don't understand where you're coming from with this thread. Where on earth did you get the idea that atheists don't find this kind of thing awe inspiring or moving? How about this? Is this moving enough?

I think you're mistaken. I never claimed atheists don't find these sort of things moving or even inspiring, but these sort of things rarely ever make it to a form of high aesthetics, as might be associated with how some atheists speak of the makeup of the universe, of space and the cosmos. This doesn't mean that I consider atheists to be apathetic regarding these things.

In fact I understand it as sort of an inversion of how I feel about the cosmos. While I may find something like the Large Hadron Colliderm, interesting and beautiful in it's own unique way, it doesn't move me to tears as it does Dawkins. While I can appreciate the aesthetic, I don't feel it as profoundly as Dawkins might, hence why it's unlikely for me to talk much about it, or post articles about it, or ponder it more deeply. While something like the relationship between the father and his son, is something that lingers, and i think of all the time, and share with others.

The whole idea of love, for me, is more profound, vast, and mysterious than every image, or thought, or reality of whatever has and will be said about the structures of the universe, and I don't find this to be shared sentiment among most unbelievers, who seem less interested in the beauty of the relational, and more interested in beauty of forms and structures and the magnificent workings that underly them.

Well. While I am in awe of the cosmos it doesn't move me to tears. It takes some sappy human stuff to do that. Rationally, however I would hold the intricate workings of the universe and biology far above anything human. Our humanity is a simple and plain result of that compared to it.

Taking our humanity too seriously, in such a way as to put it above nature, is what leads to something we call in-humane. Inhumane behavior is just a class of human behavior.

Also I am never appalled by say a rock crushing a human but I am appalled by humans crushing humans. So no, the atheist has the same tear jerking human emotions as you do for much the same reasons.

One more curious thing. I have seen people weeping about the glory of god. WTF? Isn't that kind of on the same level as the cosmos in your view?

The greatest wonder, is that there is an entity/enitities which are moved [by wonders]. The end. Stop focusing upon the object of wonder… the subject thereof is the only real thing of significance.

Now that David is dealt with, my focus will turn next to the mouse. Please, don't ban him before I have time to pick over what the Blue Flutterby and others have left me.

Oh, and James, your 'predictions' thread will follow. Don't run away now...

hackenslash wrote:Now that David is dealt with, my focus will turn next to the mouse. Please, don't ban him before I have time to pick over what the Blue Flutterby and others have left me.

Oh, and James, your 'predictions' thread will follow. Don't run away now...

Welcome back!

Welcome back Hack. Did you tire of the FB chewtoys?

As to the OP - stop being so goddamned narrow minded and fucking condescending. Who the hell are you to decide what "atheists" think and feel? You don't know me, you don't know anyone here, yet you wander in, spouting utter bollocks without a shred of evidence and expect to be taken seriously and treated politely.

the mouse wrote:
I never claimed atheists were only moved by the cosmos, but appear in the various appeals to aesethics, to feel a greater a sense of wonder and awe in regards to scientific observations, the cosmos, etc... than in regards to relational aspects. This does not mean they are not moved by these things, but just not as moved as much as these other aspects they speak so passionately about.

How moved does one have to be to be sufficiently moved, in your opinion?

This probably has to do with the fact, that love in essence has more to do with the subjective aspects of us, which atheists tend to short shift, in light of the appeals of thinking objectively, removing oneself as far back from the subject as possible.

The aesthetic zeitgeist of atheism is that of distance, of space, of being out there, on the outside looking in, rather than in the chaotic personal space of human life.

There are great reflective works by atheists on the sciences the splendid beauty of the cosmos, and hardly none on the profound wonder of love. Perhaps because to speak of love, as a thing of wonder, is something that sounds too religious, for a non-believers taste.

Thanks for that bulletin on the view from Planet Mouse. I'll try and remember that the next time I start feeling all subjective and squishy about love