Another Question for Atheists

Originally posted by scottishinnz
That's all I ask - that people [b]do think![/b]

One could not hold their own with you without some thought. That is clear. I shall do my best to not disappoint you.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Thanks, always nice to get a compliment, although besides people like vistesd, ammanion, Umbrage, twhitehead or Nemesio, I hardly warrant it!

Edinburgh is a fantastic university. Definitely, if you have a chance to study there, you should. Although, I would caution that Edinburgh is an expensive city, so budget well.

Hey Scott! I feel honored to be among that list of names—and yours as well! You’re one of the ones who helps me keep my sanity on here, as I try to walk the edge of this totality that has no edge...

Originally posted by rwingett
"Amazing Grace" is still a good song, even if I don't agree with that point of view.

To the three posts in agreement with this sentiment, it's still difficult (if not impossible) to reconcile antagonism against religion with an appreciation for religious expression. If one holds (as I do) that religion is one of the banes of human existence, one cannot find awe in that which springs forth from worthlessness.

It's akin to waxing sentimental about the highs of PCP, knowing the certainty of destruction (or possibly death) for those within its grasp.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
To the three posts in agreement with this sentiment, it's still difficult (if not impossible) to reconcile antagonism against religion with an appreciation for religious expression. If one holds (as I do) that religion is one of the banes of human existence, one cannot find awe in that which springs forth from worthlessness.

It's akin to waxing sentime ...[text shortened]... s of PCP, knowing the certainty of destruction (or possibly death) for those within its grasp.

Picasso, by all accounts, was a jackass. He paints pretty well, though. Pick an example here, Freaky, they are legion. Aethetic evaluation is not held hostage by moral evaluation even within the context of a single piece of art.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
To the three posts in agreement with this sentiment, it's still difficult (if not impossible) to reconcile antagonism against religion with an appreciation for religious expression. If one holds (as I do) that religion is one of the banes of human existence, one cannot find awe in that which springs forth from worthlessness.

It's akin to waxing sentime ...[text shortened]... s of PCP, knowing the certainty of destruction (or possibly death) for those within its grasp.

Have you ever seen a picture of the Nuremburg rally? That's awesome. Scary, abhorrent, but awesome. I can imagine the immense sense of power nazis felt when they stood in ranks of almost endless black and grey uniforms and contrastingly bright red standards stretching as far as the eye could see. One can find the aesthetic picture amazing, and still despise the reality of what that scene represents.

Even apart from this, there are numerous aesthetic aspects to the art, design and fashion of religions which are not connected to their dogma. Fortunately god never said anything about interior design, or good art.

Originally posted by bbarr
Picasso, by all accounts, was a jackass. He paints pretty well, though. Pick an example here, Freaky, they are legion. Aethetic evaluation is not held hostage by moral evaluation even within the context of a single piece of art.

While one can find pattern and beauty in almost every facet of life, it's beyond me how one is able to reconcile out-and-out deception with anything 'stunningly beautiful.' Perhaps it's just the smallness of my mind that limits my ability to see disloyalty to the truth as anything other than repulsive, other than ugly.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
While one can find pattern and beauty in almost every facet of life, it's beyond me how one is able to reconcile out-and-out deception with anything 'stunningly beautiful.' Perhaps it's just the smallness of my mind that limits my ability to see disloyalty to the truth as anything other than repulsive, other than ugly.

The dishonesty may be ugly, but the manner of its expression may be elegant, witty, etc. That is, we can praise certain aesthetic qualities of lies. Iago was a well written character. Oscar Wilde could hurl a vicious insult that was incredibly funny. The counterexamples to your sort of moralism about aesthetic judgements are legion.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
While one can find pattern and beauty in almost every facet of life, it's beyond me how one is able to reconcile out-and-out deception with anything 'stunningly beautiful.' Perhaps it's just the smallness of my mind that limits my ability to see disloyalty to the truth as anything other than repulsive, other than ugly.

Such a view would lead to a very thin artistic diet indeed. Is the Parthenon ugly or repulsive? The Ring Cycle? Didn't you cry when ET got sick?

And why shouldn't an atheist hold Jesus to be a great heroic figure, albeit a literary one? Why shouldn't an atheist admire, and even be moved by, certain aspects of Christianity, or Christian practice? (Acts of great charity, kindness, or self-sacrifice, for example.) Who wouldn't be profoundly moved by a painting like Guido Reni's Man of Sorrows - such a raw, intimate portrait of a man suffering such a heavy burden for such a noble cause?

Being moved by the realisation of such an idea is perfectly compatible with not believing in the literal truth of Christianity; indeed it's perfectly compatible with a contempt for many of the beliefs and actions of professed Christians; it's even compatible with a belief that Christianity has been in general a terrible influence on society.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I am a professional organist.

Amazing grace how sweet the sound to have saved a wretch like me.
Well it sure gets to the root of christian doctrine doesn't it?
Humans are from conception corrupted with sin. Nice stuff to tell an 8 year old, eh. That's basically what my granma told me, she was pentacostal and I was going to a lutheran school, I was utterly damned in hell if I didn't get baptized in the PENTACOSTAL way, those freaky lutherans didn't know a baptism from a pap smear. So I did it just to make her happy but it showed me how screwed up those kind of religions were, even at the age of 8 I knew something was fundamentally screwed up here.
BTW, you said you were an organist. We lived in Jerusalem for three years and once attended a christmas service at the lutheran church in Bethleham, one of the oldest churches anywhere. So they started to play some music, a pump organ and a flute. Well first we heard this thunking sound like a huge switch being pulled and a sound like a loud airconditioner. That apparently was the fan for the organ. So it starts playing some hymn or other, kind of a wheezy reedy organ kind of thing, very organic. So then the flute comes in. I swear, I had to grab my wife's leg and squeezed so hard she cried out in pain, as was I. The flute was at LEAST 25 cents out from the organ and it was excruciating! My head was jerking around smasmotically and I was looking around at the other attendants of the service and saw not one other look of distress, it seemed nobody noticed how far out of tune they were to each other. My wife and I are musicians who have played (folk music, guitar,vocals, dulcimer, autoharp, banjo, concertina, bouzuki, mandolin, etc.) at some pretty large venues and you can't imagine how painful that was to listen to those two play.
Then they have the service and we found out we were in the GERMAN section. It seemed they had three preachers, each one aimed in a differant direction, one speaking in German, one in English and one in Arabic. Talk about cacaphony. Then they started on the hymns, same way. We were in the german section so didn't understand much but just to our right started the arab section, and then at the opposite end, english. It was the most amazingly confusing sight I have ever witnessed. It was certainly a memorable christmas, one you never forget, and once was enough for a lifetime!

Originally posted by wittywonka
While in my spare time pondering the world 😛, I've yet again come across a question for atheists out there. Again, pardon my ignorance if this is commonly known, but living where I live, trust me, it's not that common...

Do atheists find religion interesting? I keep hearing atheists refer to religion as pointless, worthless, weakminded, etc., but ev ...[text shortened]... interesting, even those different from mine, but again, I'm biased. What do you thnk?

easy read.

Originally posted by dottewell
Such a view would lead to a very thin artistic diet indeed. Is the Parthenon ugly or repulsive? The Ring Cycle? Didn't you cry when ET got sick?

And why shouldn't an atheist hold Jesus to be a great heroic figure, albeit a literary one? Why shouldn't an atheist admire, and even be moved by, certain aspects of Christianity, or Christian practice? (Acts o ...[text shortened]... ible with a belief that Christianity has been in general a terrible influence on society.

Didn't you cry when ET got sick? ???? please what a crap film. Had he just died like the idiot hw was it woulda been worth watchin. I hated that film when I was a kid. and it still scuks.

Originally posted by dottewell
Such a view would lead to a very thin artistic diet indeed. Is the Parthenon ugly or repulsive? The Ring Cycle? Didn't you cry when ET got sick?

And why shouldn't an atheist hold Jesus to be a great heroic figure, albeit a literary one? Why shouldn't an atheist admire, and even be moved by, certain aspects of Christianity, or Christian practice? (Acts o ...[text shortened]... ible with a belief that Christianity has been in general a terrible influence on society.

You characterize a "very thin artisitic diet" as though it's a bad thing. At what point does discrimination enter the consideration? If possession of a large appreciation pallet is the barometer, are all other standards then discarded?

What about bbarr's inclusion of Wilde's insults: what makes any of his acerbic put-downs funny? Derision? Contempt? Boredom? Will any of those witticisms be the succor of a dying man? Doubtful.

It is reasonable to marvel at the architecture which springs forth from error (as in your example of the Parthenon) in spite of the original inspiration and for other reasons--- such as geometrical symmetry, etc. However, this is in opposition to bbarr's claim of finding beauty in the inspiration as well as the expression thereof... quite another thing altogether.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You characterize a "very thin artisitic diet" as though it's a bad thing. At what point does discrimination enter the consideration? If possession of a large appreciation pallet is the barometer, are all other standards then discarded?

What about bbarr's inclusion of Wilde's insults: what makes any of his acerbic put-downs funny? Derision? Co ...[text shortened]... ty in the inspiration as well as the expression thereof... quite another thing altogether.

It is reasonable to marvel at the architecture which springs forth from error (as in your example of the Parthenon) in spite of the original inspiration and for other reasons--- such as geometrical symmetry, etc.

This is of course fair comment but seems to conflict somewhat with your earlier statement about "disloyalty to the truth" as being in all cases "repulsive... ugly". No matter. One can argue that Wilde is doing with words something similar to what the Greeks did with building materials, and there is a similar purely aesthetic delight to be had from reading or watching his plays.

This is quite apart from the fact that there is, indeed, a great deal of "truth" in Wilde (about society, class, etc.).

Will any of those witticisms be the succor of a dying man? Doubtful.

Is this really a criteria for good or great art?

You characterize a "very thin artisitic diet" as though it's a bad thing.

It is, but I wasn't meaning to make the Humean point that one with wide tastes is likely to have a better appreciation of art. I was simply saying that your decree that things which are "disloyal" to the truth are in all cases "repulsive" is wrong, and will mean you will miss out on a great many things of beauty and value in the world. This is partly because your definition of "the truth" is so tight, but mainly because there is no necessary connection between artistic value and truth.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You characterize a "very thin artisitic diet" as though it's a bad thing. At what point does discrimination enter the consideration? If possession of a large appreciation pallet is the barometer, are all other standards then discarded?

What about bbarr's inclusion of Wilde's insults: what makes any of his acerbic put-downs funny? Derision? Co ...[text shortened]... ty in the inspiration as well as the expression thereof... quite another thing altogether.

I never claimed to find beauty in religious inspiration. I think that religious motivation is mostly childish wish fulfillment.

Originally posted by dottewell
It is reasonable to marvel at the architecture which springs forth from error (as in your example of the Parthenon) in spite of the original inspiration and for other reasons--- such as geometrical symmetry, etc.

This is of course fair comment but seems to conflict somewhat with your earlier statement about "disloyalty to the truth" as ...[text shortened]... ainly because there is no necessary connection between artistic value and truth.[/b]

...seems to conflict somewhat with your earlier statement about "disloyalty to the truth" as being in all cases "repulsive... ugly".
The conflict is illusory, as the beauty is found in this example with an agreement with truth (in this case, geometric harmony). Homage to a non-existent pagan god may have been the builders' inspiration for erecting a sensory pleasing structure, but the beauty is found elsewhere--- and more importantly, quite apart and independent from the original impetus.

...and there is a similar purely aesthetic delight to be had from reading or watching his plays.
To a degree, perhaps, as it relates to a masterful turning of a phrase or a deft handling of ordinary concepts. Never venturing into the depths, Wilde nonetheless was brilliant at slicing through the mundanities of life and times.

Is this really a criteria for good or great art?
Is entertainment a better one?

This is partly because your definition of "the truth" is so tight...
I'm dying to hear yours!

...but mainly because there is no necessary connection between artistic value and truth.
Well, ain't that a whole 'nother ball of worms. If there be no necessary connection between the two, what exactly makes any expression valuable?