Boredom Among Atheists

[rug]

September 25, 2013
Jack Vance

The Thinker (Atheism in the City) recently posted about how the Internet has eroded the experience of boredom. While I disagree with the author's statement that it is no longer possible to be bored, I acknowledge that my experience of boredom has changed quite a bit as a result of the Internet. I experience boredom today far less often than I did in my youth. I attribute this mostly to the fact that I have a long to-do list these days that I can never seem to get ahead of. There are so many things I have to do - whether I want to do them or not - that boredom is a luxury I rarely get to have. However, I do find that the ability to quickly find almost anything on the Internet has further reduced my boredom during those rare moments of down time when it could creep in.

A great example of how the Internet has reduced my experience of boredom involves how I interact with television. Before the Internet, boredom often led to channel surfing, an experience that almost always intensified the boredom. I rarely do this anymore. If I don't quickly find something I really want to watch on TV, I turn the TV off and get on the computer. I simply no longer have the patience to watch something I don't really want to watch.

Boredom With Online Atheism

As someone who writes a great deal about atheism and related topics, you might suspect that I rarely if ever get bored with this subject matter. You would be wrong to assume that. I do indeed bore of online atheism at times. To understand how this can be, consider for a moment the narrow range of content one finds on most atheist blogs and websites:

•Criticizing religion
•Describing the latest church-state violation
•Lamenting the appalling lack of political organization among atheists that impedes meaningful activism in response to church-state violations or threats to atheist civil rights
•Celebrating the courage of a few brave activists who make a difference by themselves

And that's about it. Is it any wonder "the great rift" has received so much attention? As dysfunctional as it is, it at least provides a temporary reprieve from the usual monotony! Could this even be part of what makes the drama so damned appealing to so many of us?

http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/09/boredom-among-atheists.html


October 8, 2013

Additional Thoughts on Boredom Among Atheists

http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/10/additional-thoughts-on-boredom-among.html

[xfundy]

1. They need to get outside more. And off the computer.

Still, I can find nothing to compete with the absolute boredom of sitting in church on a summer morning, or any morning, listening to some preacher-man drone on about begats or who's going to hell this week.

[dimbear]

2. Jean Paul Sartre on boredom:

Good digestions, the gray monotony of provincial life, and the boredom—ah the soul-destroying boredom—of long days of mild content.”
―Huit Clos

*************
Me?
A good reliable car or truck that always starts, never falters, never needs repair, never does anything unusual at all. Boring.

Not the worst fault.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Tea company only makes tea. Opines: THIS IS BORING.

No shit Atheist blogs/websites only hit on those 4 main points most often. Atheism isn't a belief structure. It doesn't bring any other philosophy to the table. It is: without theism. That's it. No god. Nothing more.

It doesn't tell you how to tie your shoes, or how to get along with your in-laws, or what to think about XYZ other unrelated bullshit.

There are other fields of philosophy if one wants to delve into that shit. Atheism is a single-issue philosophy.

[rug]

4. And repetitive.

[Goblinmonger]

5. So is the Catholic Mass.

Doesn't make it bad.

[rug]

6. There's actually quite a bit of change in it over the course of the liturgical year.

While it maintains its basic structure throughout, it covers a lot of territory.

When my kids would whine about how boring it is, I'd just tell them to listen to what's going on. As they've gotten older they've asked a lot of questions about the various readings and about the meaning of the basic structure of the Mass.

I suppose I could tell them there is no god and this is just thralldom for deluded people but I'm sure they will hear that. Over and over.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. As it must needs be, given the tired doggedness of it's foes.

Like the assclown far right evangelicals that nearly took this country over in the Bush era.

You can't share an idea with these people once, and walk away, hoping it sank in. It doesn't.

[rug]

11. What foes? You're contradicting yourself.

Atheism isn't a belief structure. It doesn't bring any other philosophy to the table. It is: without theism. That's it. No god. Nothing more.

It doesn't tell you how to tie your shoes, or how to get along with your in-laws, or what to think about XYZ other unrelated bullshit

I expect you'll find atheists in the Tea Party and republican party as well, though not among the Evangelicals. And, logically, not even the Evangelicals are necessarily "foes" if they believe and you do not.

If they are your foes, atheism per se is not the necessary motivator.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. People who want to ban abortion on religious morals grounds are not my foe as an atheist?

Bullshit they aren't.

People who want to keep Same Sex marriage unrecognized by the government aren't my foe?
Bullshit.

Etc.

The premise upon which they base their political activism is diametrically opposed to my position on the credibility of the supernatural.
(Possible you misunderstood what I meant, or possible I didn't convey it properly. I'll review my post and see if I spot a problem)

[rug]

13. No, not as an atheist.

To quote you:

It doesn't tell you how to tie your shoes, or how to get along with your in-laws, or what to think about XYZ other unrelated bullshit

There are many reasons to oppose them but atheism, per se, is not one of them.

You seem to be saying atheism is something more than it is.

You may be confusing it with secularism.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. No.

It is the foundation of their argument. Q: 'Why do you oppose abortion?' A: 'Because my faith tells me it is murder'

Until I resolve the root cause: meaning, until I help that person understand that there is no god, we cannot resolve the question of whether abortion is actually murder or not.

Their position is predicated upon not just the existence of a god, but of a particular god, and it's dogma. Until that is removed from the conversation, no progress can be made. It's an a priori argument that must be resolved before we can even have a meaningful dialogue about the political issue at hand.

[rug]

15. If you oppose faith-based policies, you're a secularist.

Secularism is not atheism.

There are atheists also who oppose abortion.

You seem to think there is something special or compelling about atheism beyond simple nonbelief.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. No, you simply don't seem to understand what I am saying.

I am perfectly willing to debate atheists that oppose abortion on the material facts at hand. In that conversation, the supernatural is not invoked, and meaningful dialogue can be had, and Atheism wouldn't be a part of the conversation. Medical facts would be.

Against 'my god says so', the only possible path forward is to establish whether said god is real or not. You cannot compromise with dogma. It is unyielding.

I don't have a problem with debating on the facts with people of faith, who do NOT claim a faith-based justification for, for instance, opposing abortion. As with the aforementioned anti-abortion atheists, we can get right to the nuts and bolts of the issue.

[rug]

17. No, I'm pretty sure I do.

It is: without theism. That's it. No god. Nothing more.

There's nothing wrong with that position.

When you move beyond that, you're adding something more to that. And that addition is neither atheism nor the logical conclusion of atheism.

If I'm wrong, what does the logic of atheism compel, politically, epistemologically. or otherwise, beyond simple nonbelief?

[AtheistCrusader]

18. It compels, because political goals are in conflict.

I cannot convince a person of faith that predicates their objection to Atheism upon their faith, that there are medical reasons for abortion.

I don't give a shit what their personal faith-based opinion is, I only care when it is entered into the public sphere as legislation.
If they were willing to discuss it based on medical facts, we'd be good to go. (And some people of faith DON'T inject faith into these issues)

For those that DO predicate their objection on their faith, the only possible resolution is to stop talking about abortion temporarily and step back to the larger issue; is god real/does associated dogma have a real basis. Without that, you cannot compromise, because the prevailing dogma is inflexible.

[rug]

19. Atheism, the nonbelief in god(s), is mute politically.

I haven't seen any of its political goals announced.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. And that's good, because I didn't say there were.

[rug]

21. "It compels, because political goals are in conflict."

You can't have it both ways.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Goals of PEOPLE not dogma.

For the severalth time, atheism is silent upon the subject of abortion.

The specified religious groups I referred to are NOT silent on the subject of abortion.

Therefore, to proceed politically (as a progressive, not as an atheist, as I said, there are people of faith that are not opposed to abortion on religious grounds) we have to step back from the political issue, and tackle the theological issue to either substantiate, or disprove the basis for the dogma that makes a rigid political stance on a political issue.

Atheism doesn't compel me to do it, wanting to resolve the political impasse compels me to use atheism as a tool to accomplish that forward progress.

[rug]

23. Proceeding politically "as a progressive, not as an atheist" is a correct statement.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. But do you understand why I say I am compelled to engage on the faith issue

to resolve the roadblock to move forward on, in that example, the abortion issue?

I'm not sure even now how I could have worded it differently, but I do think most of our disagreement came out, not of a material disagreement, but on how I worded it.

[rug]

25. I do and I join you on keeping it legal.

FWIW, you and I likely disagree on abortion itself, based on different philosophical and/or moral views, but we likely agree on the political action. There's is nothing inherent in my theism that compels - or contradicts - that political stance. Likewise, I don't think there's anything inherent in your atheism that compels you to the same political stance.

I don't think it's necessary to argue religious beliefs for or against a political position. It is, essentially, irrelevant. Politically, I care more about the proposed action than I do about what motivates that action.

In that sense, I'd say what best defines us is secularist, rather than theist or atheist.

[Jim__]

7. I find a number of things on the internet are boring.

It's not really surprising. People tend to update their blogs weekly or even daily. I'm not sure that even the most creative person can come up with especially interesting things to write about with that frequency. When I try to research a topic on the internet, often the most helpful piece of information is the bibliography (references) on wikipedia.

After spending a few hours on the internet, reading a book is a welcome change. One very good thing about the internet is that it has the complete text of a number of books. For instance, if anyone is bored now and has a few hours to spare, Ulysses is available:

STATELY, PLUMP BUCK MULLIGAN CAME FROM THE STAIRHEAD, bearing a bowl of lather on which a mirror and a razor lay crossed. A yellow dressing gown, ungirdled, was sustained gently-behind him by the mild morning air. He held the bowl aloft and intoned:

-- Introibo ad altare Dei.

Halted, he peered down the dark winding stairs and called up coarsely:

-- Come up, Kinch. Come up, you fearful jesuit.

...

[rug]

8. That's a great line.

But the book is maddening to read.

[Jim__]

9. Yes. I was kidding about a few hours.

[dimbear]

26. That's a wonderful read for those days when you really, really need a headache.

Infallible for me.