Do atheists read the primary sources?

[David Handeye]

What? I don't speak Italian.

old fox

[Hobbes' Choice]

Which groups did not transcend it? What is "Rock and Roll" that it is transcend-able anyway? R&R has a history, which at each step evolved from the previous steps. Some bands consciously preserved a traditional or retro style, but most bands have added their own interpretation.

I can see where B del MS is coming from..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNkWac-Nm0A

Give it a serious listen, the rhythms are not conventional, and some of the references are quite jazz based.

Or try this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZSxZHMkZWM

Yes never did anything remotely close to what Banco did.

Trouble is that his music is basically shit and a poor imitation of real progressive music.

[Wyman]

Yeah you've not spent much time in the USA. The place that thinks itself modern and progressive is hidebound with conservatism and being ashamed of its newness clings to whatever crumbs of tradition it can find.
I'll never forget when in St. Berdo being told with great pride that many of the building were nearly 100 years old, and some even older. Back home in England my house was older than the USA was a dream.
This is a keen part of the American psyche- the need to cherish a tradition but stuck with a new nation. Much of which was not colonised until the late 19thC. They crave history.

You have a strange perception of the U.S.. Fully half the country thinks of 'progressive' as a dirty word. I find that most dumb Americans (which is what everyone overseas focuses on) have absolutely no sense of history or tradition. And although Christmas is revoltingly commercialized over here, Thanksgiving really is not - the only thing sold and advertised a bit is turkey.

If you are speaking of the liberal intelligentsia, then I suppose there is some truth to what you say; but they are generally reviled, for better or worse, by the rest of the country which views history as beginning in 1776 (shortly after Genesis).

You have an weird concept of the US, and then you almost agree with me. Yes, progressive is a dirty word, americans are conservative. Americans crave history as they have none. 3 years ago the obsession with the war of 1812, was laughable by British standards. And the claim that the US won was fucking hysterical. In the US could call getting a punch on the nose a victory. The US failed in its bid to take Canada, got the Whitehouse gentle fried and one the Brits had taught the US the lesson they needed went home- job done!
Americans are obsessed with the so-called "heritage", the Irish cringe when US tourist come over claiming to be "Irish", they make damn fools of themseleves.
When you ask an American about themselves its always "Italian", "German", Hispanic with a bit of Indian" as if that defines them. I only ever met one who always said "American".

I must have missed the whole war of 1812 obsession. Do you all ever think that maybe the media portrayal of the 'average American' could be a bit skewed? Regrettably, most Americans know nothing about the war of 1812. The 'craving history' thing is really off - I wish they craved history, then maybe they'd know more about it. History to Americans interested in history usually means history of the Civil War.

I said that half the population thinks of 'progressive' as a dirty word. But the other half elected Obama. The two halves hate each other for the most part - to say that the U.S. is conservative is too large a generalization. I said this once before on another thread, but you have to realize how big the U.S. is. People from Texas hate California and Massachusetts and vice versa. People in Maryland don't like Pennsylvania, etc., etc.. There are probably a hundred different accents across the country as different as British is from Australian, with their own regional slang. Have you ever been to New Orleans? Boston? Wisconsin? Georgia? New York? Half these people can't understand each other when they speak.

[Wyman]

always hated rock and roll, except for groups that transcended it. Pink Floyd did for a while, and I love Dire Straits/Mark Knopfler. I am fond of some British pop groups, (Everything But The Girl, Pet Shop Boys, and Prefab Sprout come to mind). But the only 'rock' music I ever listen to is Italian progressive (Banco del Mutuo Soccorso). But the whole premise didn't make sense to me; the 'rebellion' was just nauseating. Back to the Future made fun of that. And I hope there is a special place in hell for Leslie Gore.

That's funny, I was watching youtube videos of Mark Knopfler just yesterday - Sultans of Swing. Love watching him play guitar.

[Melchior]

Which groups did not transcend it? What is "Rock and Roll" that it is transcend-able anyway? R&R has a history, which at each step evolved from the previous steps. Some bands consciously preserved a traditional or retro style, but most bands have added their own interpretation.

I can see where B del MS is coming from..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNkWac-Nm0A

Give it a serious listen, the rhythms are not conventional, and some of the references are quite jazz based.

Or try this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZSxZHMkZWM

Yes never did anything remotely close to what Banco did.

Trouble is that his music is basically shit and a poor imitation of real progressive music.

Whom do you mean?

[Melchior]

What? I don't speak Italian.

old fox

No, really, I don't.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Yes never did anything remotely close to what Banco did.

Trouble is that his music is basically shit and a poor imitation of real progressive music.

Whom do you mean?

That stinky Italian geeza. B del MS. It's all a bit folky and scuzzy. He couldn't touch 1970s Yes with a pole.

[Melchior]

That stinky Italian geeza. B del MS. It's all a bit folky and scuzzy. He couldn't touch 1970s Yes with a pole.

BMS is a they, not a he. They started in 1969, about the same time as Yes and Emerson Lake and Palmer. They are vastly superior to Yes. It's not even close. You need to listen to the albums, not clips on the internet of live performances. They re-recorded their first two albums (from 1971 and 1972) in 1993. They are here:

http://www.amazon.com/Classic-Albums-Ba ... o+soccorso

[Hobbes' Choice]

That stinky Italian geeza. B del MS. It's all a bit folky and scuzzy. He couldn't touch 1970s Yes with a pole.

BMS is a they, not a he. They started in 1969, about the same time as Yes and Emerson Lake and Palmer. They are vastly superior to Yes. It's not even ..

Pass me a sick bucket. Imitative, derivative, with a touch of backyard botton-sctraching folkiness. Terrible.

[Melchior]

That stinky Italian geeza. B del MS. It's all a bit folky and scuzzy. He couldn't touch 1970s Yes with a pole.

BMS is a they, not a he. They started in 1969, about the same time as Yes and Emerson Lake and Palmer. They are vastly superior to Yes. It's not even ..

Pass me a sick bucket. Imitative, derivative, with a touch of backyard botton-sctraching folkiness. Terrible.

Hilarious. They are way beyond anyone else, ever. Totally unlike anyone else.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Pass me a sick bucket. Imitative, derivative, with a touch of backyard botton-sctraching folkiness. Terrible.

Hilarious. They are way beyond anyone else, ever. Totally unlike anyone else.

Only to your way of thinking.

[Melchior]

Pass me a sick bucket. Imitative, derivative, with a touch of backyard botton-sctraching folkiness. Terrible.

Hilarious. They are way beyond anyone else, ever. Totally unlike anyone else.

Only to your way of thinking.

You need to listen to a good bit of their stuff to know what I am talking about.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hilarious. They are way beyond anyone else, ever. Totally unlike anyone else.

Only to your way of thinking.

You need to listen to a good bit of their stuff to know what I am talking about.

I'd say the same about Yes, but I don't think you have the ear.

[Melchior]

I'd say the same about Yes, but I don't think you have the ear.

What do you mean? I saw Yes in concert in about 1970 or 71. They used to play whole sides on FM radio.

Check this out:

http://www.vintageprog.com/bbb.htm

Also, early PFM is great:

http://www.vintageprog.com/ppp2.htm#sto

[Advocate]

[>The more time I spend talking/debating with atheists, the more it seems to me that atheists are debating something that they don't entirely understand.

What they're debating, of they know anything, is not the finer points of the particular religion encountered but the relatively small number of ideas it takes to demolish All Possible religions, each of which relies on dogmatic belief of one sort or another, and all of which are equivalently indistinguishable from fiction.

>With respect to religion,

...let me stop you there. Respect must be earned and there's nothing respectable in religion. It's an abdication of epistemology and morality.

>it is my experience that, more often than not, the atheist presents caricatures of this or that religion that an [i]informed[/i] believer* in said tradition would find similarly ridiculous.

A central problem of religion isn't in how it's interpreted but in that it Must be interpreted. No two people have the same idea of their completely contingent, subjective, and often arbitrary god much less their completely contingent, subjective, and often arbitrary religion and a soon as an argument starts everyone thinks everyone else is straw-manning. An informed believer is one who is so full of confirmation bias that no meaningful conversation based on reason is possible. If they actually had reasons, they wouldn't need faith. Apologetics are excuses, not reasons, for believing what they pre-determined was true based on feelings.

>Based on the typical position of an atheist (that they are concerned with arriving at truth through rational inquiry), I would think that the average atheist would find it extremely important to be familiar with the primary sources for whatever tradition they're debating.

The average one would, but it doesn't take much thought to become better than that. I can demolish every apologetic argument easily just through basic deconstruction and an understanding of logical fallacies. You can make up a brand new religion right now and i can dispense with it immediately because it Will have unjustifiable beliefs while i understand epistemology and the value of evidence. Sacred texts are a distraction. They clarify nothing, even to believers.

>iI also would think that they would also place a high value on stating religious beliefs as the religious believer would state them him/herself.

If it's clear a belief is religious then it's clear it's baseless, no matter how it's understood. Religion is inseparable from faith which is the polar opposite of knowledge. There never had been, never will be, and cannot be any religion that can be understood in a reasonable manner because religions dispense with rationality as a prerequisite for belief.

>Obviously, this doesn't mean the atheist has to believe the tradition, but surely being able to present it fairly would be the first step in any successful rebuttal of that particular tradition/mindset? So I wonder...

It's can be helpful, but it's totally unnecessary.

>Do (most) atheists take the time to read the (Hebrew) Bible/Qur'an/vedas/suttas/Analects/etc in their entirety (as opposed to cherry-picking)?
Do (most) atheists take the time to read the writings of the "great thinkers" in that tradition? (e.g. Aquinas, Ibn Rushd, Shankara, Nagarjuna, etc)?
[i][b]Do (most) atheists think it is important to correctly describe the religious beliefs they attack? [/b][/i]

I have read most of the main texts but when you start talking about Buddhism and Hinduism (for sheer volume of "central" works), or apologetics it's s morass of unintelligible intellectual garbage.

There is no correct way to describe a religious belief.

>As someone who studies religion in an academic setting, I wouldn't last long if I simply ignored primary sources when publishing articles, etc. Of course, when I teach undergrads, they're under no such pressure (professionally. They're certainly under that pressure when it comes to a grade!). As such, they end up debate all sorts of misunderstandings, in much the same way that atheists I debate do. This type of misinformed-ness is something we all want to avoid, no?

The academic setting is not a rational one, in case you've been retired the last few decades. The incentives are not geared toward finding truth, and in philosophy almost nobody admits that's even possible, so the entire exercise is navel-gazing. If an atheist understands their atheism sufficiently they don't need to understand the particulars of their opponents because they're on unshakable ground, besides which they must take their opposition's bespoke understanding fresh each time.

>*[b]Many[/b] religionists who do not understand their own tradition. Of course, the atheist has good grounds to take on these misunderstandings, but that would only be a rebuttal of the incorrect ways in which believers understand their tradition. Surely if the atheist wants to tear down the tradition itself, he/she would go to the strongest arguments, not the weakest?

I'd like to see what you think is a strong argument for Any religious proposition so i can laugh and sneer at it. I promise you, there are none.

>PS I'm open to critiques of how I may misunderstand what it is that atheists are doing. I may simply not "get" what it is that they're doing.

In simplest terms, NOT am academic exercise. If you'd care to drop your neutrality for a minute i can prove each of my points easily enough. Starting with an idea that religion has anything meaningful to offer is the first mistake. There is nothing available with religion that isn't available with Truth, except the negative externalities.