Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
Where was I supporting ISAW's argument?
Marien, we would get a lot further if you actually interacted with what I post rather than what you seem to imagine I think.
No problem PDN , i hav'nt followed the thread ( I am not even aware of it) you were referring to re C.S Lewis so I just picked up the stamp collecting reference and assumed you were dis-agreeing in the line of ISAW
It might help if you were less elliptical but apologies if I was wrong.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Fair enough butI pointing to a double standard hereI don't think anybody would believe that atheists individually have no moral integrity - the same as Christians, just a different worldview, different outlook, different set of faith values, but very much the same too.
On one side you have the atheist saying ( only true scotsmanlike) "that isn't atheism"
and then complaining that individual atheists can''t be accused of anything
In doing so they step away from being catagorised as a group
On the other hand they attack "Christianity" as a group and when called to defame particular Christians they refuse to do it ( except perhaps the Pope who they know won't sue them).You made the point that you don't support the idea that just because somebody happens to say they are a Christian, and does terrible things - that it reflects the values of all Christians, or Christianity, or actually says anything about the truth of Christianity. I think ISAW was saying that while you may say this, others do not. They support the suppression of freedom of religion, and happen to be active atheists, we've seen this in the 20th Century.
Yes and I don't witness Morbert saying Dawkings or Harris was wrong to say this.
If he does as I have stated I then have no problem with non fundamentalist atheists justas I have no problem with non fundie Muslims or Christians.I don't think it's necessary to act, or speak out of fear though, but pointing it out is no harm? - I think the basic roots of the western world which is built on Christian values - that are not opposed to pluralism, but absolutely at their core represent freedom of will, thought and mind and are established fairly solid at this stage.
And as I have pointed out it is those "Christian" values that Dennet refers to when he says we must "guard our defaults".However, there are a new wave of fundamentalist notions of what it means to be atheist, it's gaining support in the popular media too in the form of pop science books, that make it 'ok' to be...well, a bit of an asshole really.... and more than a little takes place on the internet - which is harmless until it leads to an 'us' and 'those' - little acorns.
And ironically when I adopt their modes of argument I draw flak from their "followers"?
Fundamentalism is dangerous for humanity. I don't care whether it's Christian or Atheist or Muslim etc. etc.
Yes. That and worshiping the material. They are both basically going against the first commandment which ironically is fundamental. 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
They want the percentage of religious schools to reflect the demand. Comparing this to brutal regimes borders on hysteria.
All journeys start with a single step.When a state religion was used to remove subversive, counter-cultural elements, it always resulted in cruelty and barbarism, at whatever scale was necessary for their goals to be achieved.
Not true! the Vatican has a State religion are they cruel and barbaric?
By the way what happened to all the "God commanded rape2 argument the atheists were touting earlier on?Again, the common property of all atrocities is the oppression and control of liberty.
Total freedom hedonism and just doing whatever you want isn't any better as it also results in chaos. Some rules are sometimes needed. Religious say those rulrs depend on natural law coming from God. Atheists say "there is no god" and there is no overarching moral authority. You yourself said that totalitarianism only comes about when there is no belief in a higher authority.Calling it a crusade also borders on hysteria.
Not really. I have attended Irish skeptics meetings and met such atheists myself.As for "not disavowing" them: You have not disavowed the Westboro baptist church,
Oh yes I have! I suggest you go and check.and I would not expect you to because you have not brought them into the conversation.
Actually I though i did bring them in but whether or not you expect me to is not a criterion for what i consider morally wrong. i don't even consider them Christians.So why would you expect me to disavow people I have not brought into the conversation?
Because i have asked you a direct question.
Do you reject the fundamentalists atheists?
And all their unholy pronouncements?
And all their evil works?
Do you repent from endorsing their bitter stances?
Exorcise your demons!My opinion overlaps most with Neil deGrasse Tyson. I have not yet found myself disagreeing with anything he has said, with the exception of how we should define "atheist".
Oh you follow a prophet?
I personally liked this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Burbidge
Not just as a scientist but as someone who spoke about the politicisation of science and how free thinkers like him were punished by the mainstream "received view"As for the "New atheist" movement: I agree with, and am very much thankful for, Dawkins's writing on the axiological argument and intelligent design argument, but disagree with his attempts at theology.
Would "memetics" be his attempts at theology?
There you go again!I agree with Hitchen's opinions about the atrocities committed by islamofascist and Totalitarian regimes, and the oppression of rights (especially rights of women) that theocracy and "leader worship" regularly produce.
But Christiany at a paltry level compared to atheistic regimes. I must laugh. When it is Christians they are a "theocracy" and belief is to blame but when it is atheists it isn't their belief in "no God" it is "totalism".I agree with Lawrence Krauss's writings on "first cause" arguments. But agreeing with something someone has said does not mean I have to agree with everything they say.
I quite agree.No. The only natural law they atheist humanists believe in is this.
...purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal i.e. not relative. not "man-made law".
I tend to lean more towards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justiceThe analogy is entirely appropriate. Social Darwinism uses the observation of Darwinian evolution to justify social principles. This is not a reflection of Darwinism (a true or false statement), or the moral integrity of Darwinists (who reject social Darwinism). Similarly, Totalitarianism and state-enforced atheism is not a reflection of atheism (a true or false statement), or the moral integrity of atheists (who reject Totalitarianism).
Not really you are saying
A: social Darwinism says it is Darwinism and models itself as if it was Darwinism but it isnt true Darwinism scientific sense
This would be analogous to
B: Totalitariasm says it is atheistic and models itself as if it was atheistic but it isn't true atheistic social structure
So then what is a true atheistic society modeled off atheism?
Whenever was it attempted?
What did it achieve?0 -
Yes. That and worshiping the material. They are both basically going against the first commandment which ironically is fundamental.
Yes, it is. It's a mixed up world though, and finding a path to health of mind and joy in particular, is strewn with things that diminish the singular loveliness of freedom of thought and mind, a miraculous thing, in and of itself! nothing added or subtracted!
If one judges their existence based soley on the size of the cosmos - I despair that one never learned about the story of Jack and the Giant, and that beanstalk. Wonder and experience, is not a monopoly of the elite, no they are often blind, mathematicians or rationalists have their place but write their own epitaph too - when humanity diminishes the Universe to something magnificently huge, and in doing so diminishes the singular quality of being priviliged enough to view it, and get excited about more than mechanics - but envoke imagination they do a terrible injustice to both - excitement, and imagination...and humanity, and themselves.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
ISAW: Earlier you mentioned Socratic dialogue. What you do is not socratic dialogue. I have found several implied accusations in your posts which have nothing to do with anything I have said. I have had to remove chunks of irrelevant parts of your post. We are talking about your misunderstanding of what it means to be an atheist, and the relationship between atheism, morality, and government.All journeys start with a single step.
I think I'll let the hysteria in that statement speak for itself.Not true! the Vatican has a State religion are they cruel and barbaric?
I said "When a state religion was used to remove subversive, counter-cultural elements, it always resulted in cruelty and barbarism, at whatever scale was necessary for their goals to be achieved.". When Catholicism was used to remove counter-cultural elements, it did indeed result in barbarism.Total freedom hedonism and just doing whatever you want isn't any better as it also results in chaos. Some rules are sometimes needed. Religious say those rulrs depend on natural law coming from God. Atheists say "there is no god" and there is no overarching moral authority. You yourself said that totalitarianism only comes about when there is no belief in a higher authority.
And?There you go again!
But Christiany at a paltry level compared to atheistic regimes. I must laugh. When it is Christians they are a "theocracy" and belief is to blame but when it is atheists it isn't their belief in "no God" it is "totalism".
Therefore theocracy and totalitarianism should be avoided.Not really you are saying
A: social Darwinism says it is Darwinism and models itself as if it was Darwinism but it isnt true Darwinism scientific sense
More specifically, Social Darwinism (a governmental policy) is not implied by Darwinism (a true or false scientific theory).This would be analogous to
B: Totalitariasm says it is atheistic and models itself as if it was atheistic but it isn't true atheistic social structure
Totalitarianism (a governmental policy) is not implied by atheism (a true or false ontological statement).So then what is a true atheistic society modeled off atheism?
Whenever was it attempted?
What did it achieve?
I do not know what you mean by "true atheistic". An atheistic society can be a totalitarian society, or a humanitarian society. They would both be "atheistic", but their governmental policies would not be "modelled off atheism". One would be modelled off complete state authority, and the oppression of human rights. The other would be modelled off principles of compassion, altruism, and individual rights.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement