| Join Austin Post
30th July, 2010 | Clear sky | 89.6 °F
Austin Highschools
    Austin
    You are not authorized to post comments.

    Atheists -- Show Me Your Holidays

    By JohnnieBaby - Wednesday October 21, 2009 - 10:45 am
    423 Views | 11 Comments | -3 Votes

    It hit me this evening -- I have had too many conversations with my daughter about her not wanting to practice piano.  Those of us with adolescent children know the drill.  Do your work -- learn your skill -- whether it be piano, or a sport, or a craft, or whatever.

    But there is one thing that I -- and I would propose every parent reading this -- has not said to my child.  And that is: do nothing and claim something for it.  Never have I said sit there, and then claim something gained. And it's quite obvious why: because there is nothing gained.

    And it occurred to me that I have that same feeling regarding art -- yes, many styles, many different ways of expressing things -- but there is some "art" for me that is no art at all.  And it boils down to this: art that required no effort on the part of its creator, is worthless as a "work of art" of its creator.  Sorry Jackson Pollock.

    Now at this point you might be saying "Whoa, Johnnie Baby, don't get philosophical on me here.  I need a beer." That's OK.  But hang with me.

    Because I have a challenge for my atheist friends out there -- and that is this: I respect your right to believe there is no God, but I am challenged on how you call it a religion, when it has no organization, no holidays, no formal documents, no means of study or advancement.  Nothing.  If I decide to be an athiest, there is nothing I am aware of that differentiates the novice from the expert athiest.  Where's the black belt?  Where's the work?  Where's the effort to learn something?  Are there atheist holidays?

    John Cage wrote a piece called 4 minutes 33 seconds.  It is 4 minutes and 33 seconds of utter slilence where the "music" is that which incidentally occurs in the room.  Fancy, Mr. Cage.  And from the Father of Chance Music, we could expect such.  But you and I are just as good as John Cage at creating a 4'33" experience anywhere anytime.  It requires no effort.  No skill.  No education.

    I am starting to view atheism as the 4 minutes and 33 seconds of religions.  Because I do not understand how you get good at it.  Or what makes you a more advanced atheist than someone else.

    So help me out here!  Are there atheist mission trips of which I am unaware?  Do Atheists gather under that name to help the poor?  And what about Christmas Dinner?

    423 Views | 11 Comments | Votes [ 0 ] [ -3 ]

    You need to be logged in to do that!

    Login or sign up now - it's fun, easy, and free.
    Comments
    Add Comment
    RonRon | Points: +3 | Tuesday October 20, 2009, 11:46 AM

    The crux of your argument is this: "Because I do not understand how you get good at it. Or what makes you a more advanced atheist than someone else."

    Is the point of religion to "get good at it" or be a "more advanced atheist"? No. Religion is not about comparing yourself to others, it is about your personal journey and relationship to the god or gods that you worship. If, in the case of an atheist, god isn't a factor, then the religion--or lack thereof--is still a personal journey to explain life without a "higher power."

    Either way, religion/atheism are not competitions to see who can be the best at them.

    1
    Reply | Votes:

    You need to be logged in to do that!

    Login or sign up now - it's fun, easy, and free.
    Melinda | Points: +1 | Tuesday October 20, 2009, 12:32 PM

    Who is calling atheism a religion? I would consider it a lack of religion.

    1
    Reply | Votes:

    You need to be logged in to do that!

    Login or sign up now - it's fun, easy, and free.
    MacDaddy | Points: +7 | Tuesday October 20, 2009, 17:49 PM

    Actually, there are advanced atheists. Religion is a framework / philosophy to help understand the human condition, and so is atheism. And as religious thinking has advanced over the centuries, so has atheism.

    Most recently, the "New Atheism" movement led by Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and others, has a advanced a more aggressive secular theology that has been extensively chronicled in a series of bestselling non-fiction books (including the PEN/Faulkner Award winning "The End of Faith").

    1
    Reply | Votes:

    You need to be logged in to do that!

    Login or sign up now - it's fun, easy, and free.
    Dkfwriting | Points: +5 | Wednesday October 21, 2009, 8:10 AM
    dkfwriting's picture

    Your comments about modern art show complete ignorance of the entire purpose of that movement.

    By the time John Cage wrote 4 minutes 33 seconds, he was already well-known in the world of modern/experimental music. He had mastered his craft, and then started asking the question, "What is music, really?" 4 minutes 33 seconds is an exercise in philosophy as much as anything else.

    Picasso once said, "It took my four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child." If you look at his early work - or Jackson Pollock's, for that matter, you'll see that they knew exactly what they were doing. But their charge was to question the very definition of art, and that's why they became famous, and that's why their art is worth anything. Anyone who paints like Jackson Pollock today will be ignored.

    You can apply this comment to your concern about atheism, but other comments here have already addressed that point. I'll just say that frankly, I don't think many atheists care about "getting good at it." Atheists are people who don't believe that God exists. Most, I suspect, don't spend a lot of time worrying about it.

    http://upsanddownsbook.com
    http://www.dkfwriting.com

    1
    Reply | Votes:

    You need to be logged in to do that!

    Login or sign up now - it's fun, easy, and free.
    JohnnieBaby | Points: +2 | Friday November 13, 2009, 6:34 AM
    JohnnieBaby's picture

    Speaking as someone who has studied and performed a lot of different music for 43 years, I'll enjoin your interpretation on the "entire purpose of that movement" as a great explanation of why it sucks. Philosophy doesn't make very good music. Neither do purely academic pursuits. And this is the exact problem that most serious musicians had in the 20th century - they tried to run too far ahead of the pack. And in the process, what do we remember of them and how are we influenced by them? For most, in no way at all. For centuries memorable melodies have been created that have inspired, cheered people up, told stories, and been part of celebration. And then the 20th century comes along and we get all full of ourselves and have a solid 100 years of "what was that?" Hey man, I can't whistle any of it back to you. And I would bet that when you come home to relax, you don't throw a little Cage on in the background and relax with a drink.

    But that presents the question -- is it as admirable to deconstruct as it is to construct?

    I would argue no. It takes far less to knock a good building down than it does to build it in the first place, and yet many place deconstructionists on a pedestal higher than anyone else. Why?

    So I see a paradox of deconstruction with the atheist statement:

    1. atheists are people who don't believe God exists
    and
    2. atheists are people who believe God doesn't exist

    is it belief itself, or response to disagree with other expressions of belief?

    0
    Reply | Votes:

    You need to be logged in to do that!

    Login or sign up now - it's fun, easy, and free.
    Dkfwriting | Points: +5 | Friday November 13, 2009, 8:20 AM
    dkfwriting's picture

    Clearly, it doesn't take as much to knock down a good building than it does to build it in the first place. Nor, for that matter, does it take as much to knock down a BAD building as it does to build it in the first place.

    But to be the first person ever in the history of the world to knock down a building? That takes courage. You may not relax to the sound of it, but you should never doubt the commitment of the person who thought to do it.

    But I do relax to jazz, and I often whistle to Dave Matthews, and I get inspired by Eric Johnson, and American Pie tells a pretty solid story. In the classical world, I'd have to say my favorite piece ever is Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun. So I'm not sure whether to be impressed or disgusted by your dismissal of the century that gave us Copland, Debussy, and Stravinsky, but yes, also gave us deconstruction and minimalism.

    http://upsanddownsbook.com
    http://www.dkfwriting.com

    0
    Reply | Votes:

    You need to be logged in to do that!

    Login or sign up now - it's fun, easy, and free.
    JohnnieBaby | Points: +2 | Friday November 13, 2009, 9:54 AM
    JohnnieBaby's picture

    OK -- I think you have a good point there. That to be the first to propose that something which has been built be destroyed questions it purpose in the first place. And I do not doubt the sincerity of the well-thought deconstructionist. Or the well thought demolitionist (although this is more like anarchy and makes me uneasy). Well-thought roller derby -- that is right out.

    Now - I'll say that the accomplishments of Copeland, Debussy, and Stravinsky are huge -- I really believe that is what 20th century music could have grown into and it would have been great -- but when was the last time any of us listed our top ten favorite 12-tone pieces? I can't even hum any of them back. And yes, I understand that there is an element of restriction adopted to try and tame the new freedom found and somehow learn more in the process.

    but...did it work? i would propose it ran onto very rocky ground because it became more academic at that point and disconnected from where people (the larger public in general) could deal with it any longer. I am not saying these guys were not brighter than their contemporaries. But it's the academic hesitancy to criticize later Ives pieces, for example, as banging on the piano with your limbs. There are those who will revere his work as cutting edge. And perhaps it is more for what it philosophically says than for what it musically says. But it still ends up being banging on the piano with your limbs.

    Why does it take a master musician to play chance music? And why is chance music produced by a child eschewed as unlearned?

    So in a sense, I am asking the same question of belief in God or belief in no God. Or lack of belief in God (or is it belief in the lack of God).

    0
    Reply | Votes:

    You need to be logged in to do that!

    Login or sign up now - it's fun, easy, and free.
    Dkfwriting | Points: +5 | Friday November 13, 2009, 10:07 AM
    dkfwriting's picture

    The answer is that it doesn't take a master musician to bang on a keyboard, but only a master musician can do it and still command respect (and the rare master musician at that).

    Millions of people can play "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" on the piano, but a rare few will even aspire to reach Mozart's level of mastery. It's the difference between someone who can play piano and someone who calls himself pianist.

    Similarly, it is the rare atheist who commands respect as an atheist. It's also the rare atheist who cares. (Those would be the "lack of belief" variety). I'm sure there are some militant nonbelievers, and those are the very rare few who will master their craft.

    http://upsanddownsbook.com
    http://www.dkfwriting.com

    0
    Reply | Votes:

    You need to be logged in to do that!

    Login or sign up now - it's fun, easy, and free.
    Jodonho | Points: 0 | Friday November 13, 2009, 5:03 AM
    jodonho's picture

    "I respect your right to believe there is no God, but I am challenged on how you call it a religion, when it has no organization, no holidays, no formal documents, no means of study or advancement. Nothing. If I decide to be an athiest [sp -1], there is nothing I am aware of that differentiates the novice from the expert athiest [sp -1]. Where's the black belt? Where's the work? Where's the effort to learn something? Are there atheist [spelled correctly] holidays?"

    1. Buy a spellchecker.
    2. Religions do not require hierarchies; hierarchies require religion.
    3. Organizations tend to boss people around. Atheists by their nature don't like being told what to do or what to think. Therefore, atheists have dispensed with organizations.
    4. Separating novices from experts is the job of hierarchies. See above.
    5. There are no gradations in the disbelieve in god: either you believe in god or you don't. If you don't, you're an atheist, pure and simple.
    6. There are no atheist holidays, because atheists do not need an excuse not to show up at work.

    0
    Reply | Votes:

    You need to be logged in to do that!

    Login or sign up now - it's fun, easy, and free.
    JohnnieBaby | Points: +2 | Friday November 13, 2009, 6:46 AM
    JohnnieBaby's picture

    Jodonho,

    So, if atheists don't have any rules or hierarchies that govern them, how can there be general statements about them that are true?

    BTW, I work at a large corporation, which shall remain nameless. We have, without exception, no problem with atheists [I might have gotten it right that time] showing up for work on any holiday, whether religious in nature or not. Now, you know I say this tongue in cheek.

    But why, after disasters like Katrina, are there still Christians giving of their own time and money to help people rebuild years later? Do atheists look at that work and find fault with it too? Or would you say, "I don't buy the God part, but it is good to help people?"

    0
    Reply | Votes:

    You need to be logged in to do that!

    Login or sign up now - it's fun, easy, and free.
    12next ›last »
    Add Comment

    You need to be logged in to do that!

    Login or sign up now - it's fun, easy, and free.

    Like This Article

    Like
    Share This Article
    Twitter
    Email
    Print

    Austin Post - Top Authors
    View Top 100 Authors | Blogroll | Writer Resources