[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[Sean LeBlanc]

On 09-29 19:03, David L. Willson wrote:
> > And last, the world becomes more numinous to me, not less, as I learn
> > more about how things work, and how unlikely they are to have just
> > happened to work.
> 
> I think it's more satisfying to hike a mountain, saying, "Oh my God,
> thank you for this mountain and for my eyes and my ears and my nose and
> my legs and my feet with which to enjoy it." than to hike up the same
> mountain, thinking, "Oh my, I sure am glad this mountain and I happened
> to happen."

Although I don't consider myself an atheist any more, I was one most of my
life. I don't think it makes that much of a difference when it comes to the
experience you describe; it could be either a literal "miracle" from the
eyes of a theist, or it could be "miraculous" in the eyes of atheist.  

Let me explain: I rejected god, and certainly dogma, pretty early on, though
my parents were theists (but not dogmatic ones). I distinctly remember
watching Sagan's Cosmos with my dad on TV at a very young age, before my
parents got rid of television for a few years. And I remember the awe at how
big and complex things were.  No god or gods was needed for that awe...it's
incredible and beautiful and terrifying and darn near mystical anyway. 

The sheer chances of life arising, evolving into the complex lifeforms, one
species surviving until hominids were formed - staggering. The timescales
are staggering, too. Then when humans arose, the staggering chances that
going back those millions of years, your ancestors all had to survive and
pass on their genes. And for all the sperm that could have fertilized the
egg that made you, even that's huge odds.

It's the what happens after life and what is the rock that you use for moral
standards part that really trips up some people, and I guess I understand
the first part confusing theists as to how atheists get by assuming there is
no afterlife. That confusion is understandable, and I think a common atheist
explanation is that they didn't remember not being here before being born,
why would they mourn not being here after? The second one is unfounded and
the tropes surrounding that still bug me - e.g. claims that atheism ==
amorality, a claim I cannot believe is still being made in the modern age,
and one I find totally unsupportable. Otherwise places like Japan, Sweden,
Denmark would be a total free-for-all. 

> One more round, I ~really~ like that Jesus guy.  What do you think of
> him?  Have you taken the time to get to know him, or are you so pissed
> off at Jimmy Swaggart (et al) that you're voting against him, because he
> is associated with them, sort of like I did with Al Gore?

Assuming he was actually a historical Jesus, and what he said was captured
accurately (and not edited through the years), yeah, I think some of what he
did/said was great - the violent parts I could do without, but maybe that's
my Quaker imprinting speaking. I say "if" he was historical, because of
arguments like the one presented in "The God That Wasn't There" (trailer):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73_IjNPmIEI

Although I thought the director was out of line by "punking" his former
school's principal/superintendant, there was some interesting stuff in
there. 

I have yet to read some of the lit from some of the contributors, like the
Bible Geek who is in there. The Bible Geek knows a ridiculous amount about
the Bible, hence his nickname, but still doesn't think the baby should be
thrown out with the bathwater, which I found interesting. He still thinks
that there are lessons to be learned, valuable metaphors, valuable rituals,
etc...he doesn't take the position of, say, Sam Harris, who thinks that even
moderate theists pave the way for extreme, sometimes violent ones. Sam
Harris is also in the movie, so I think the contributors aren't all in total
agreement.

-- 
Sean LeBlanc:seanleblanc at comcast.net  
http://sean-leblanc.blogspot.com/
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. 
-Victor Borge 
(contributed by Chris Johnston)