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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Actions speak louder than words.
-
06-07-2012 8:49am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Why do athiests voice their opinion, as if it were objectively true? Even if he holds to something being just true for him, then what value does that have outside himself if it's only true for him?, it seems voicing an opinion at all is implicitly holding to absolutism.
Nihilism seems to be the only real option an athiest can take, but then their opinon certainly has no value at all. Yet, his actions beg to differ. Logic demands absolutism.
Can an athiest explain how voicing his opinion is justified?
Your first paragraph is a moot point as you could say that about any opinion ever held. Insert religious people for atheists and your argument still remains the same so in essence it's not an argument, maybe it's an aspect of humanity you seem to be troubled by? People will always have diverse opinions and the desire to express them as part of the learning process. If your issue is you're uncomfortable hearing opinions that either contradict your own or make you question your own then that's ultimately a good thing. It's what led me to become an atheist from a Catholic upbringing
I agree nihilism is the only option an atheist can take but only in the face of indoctrination. I find it useful to adopt a nihilistic stance on things so I may imbue whatever situation I'm in with whatever meaning I feel it has. It's the core of free thinking to me, it allows me to be wrong and update myself if necessary rather than being told what to think and get defensive when logic shows how you haven't thought things through. To say that an opinion formed in this way has no value is short sighted, I'd value one formed that way more than one formed through a thought process moulded (sic
) by a religious upbringing. 0 -
Advertisement
-
Your first paragraph is a moot point as you could say that about any opinion ever held. Insert religious people for atheists and your argument still remains the same so in essence it's not an argument, maybe it's an aspect of humanity you seem to be troubled by? People will always have diverse opinions and the desire to express them as part of the learning process. If your issue is you're uncomfortable hearing opinions that either contradict your own or make you question your own then that's ultimately a good thing. It's what led me to become an atheist from a Catholic upbringing.
Well, this question applies to those who deny absolute truth, so it's perfect for an athiest. A Christian lets say, doesn't deny an absolute truth, obviously, so when a Christiian voices an opinion, they beleive it to be true, in line with the truth. So it makes sense why they voice an opinion at all. Can you understand my point?0 -
-
-
-
I agree nihilism is the only option an atheist can take but only in the face of indoctrination. I find it useful to adopt a nihilistic stance on things so I may imbue whatever situation I'm in with whatever meaning I feel it has. It's the core of free thinking to me, it allows me to be wrong and update myself if necessary rather than being told what to think and get defensive when logic shows how you haven't thought things through. To say that an opinion formed in this way has no value is short sighted, I'd value one formed that way more than one formed through a thought process moulded (sic) by a religious upbringing.
But as a nihilist, your opinion has no value whatsoever, nobody's does. it's illusory. So why did you reply to my post?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I just want to clarify with you liveya, when you speak of absolute truth, are you talking about not so much in a general epistemological sense (to allow there being any form of absolute truth such as 2+2=4 as such as we define it), but rather using it to describe more "bigger picture" concepts such as the meaning of life and morality (i.e., so that for an atheist in this case, there would not be absolute meaning or morality for the only standard we have is what we define)?
That being said, an atheist is best described as someone who is not a theist - so, there are ways of getting around it so that you can believe in an afterlife for example but not any form of deity. It is tricky to try get a grasp on it, but of course, not many can claim to report much on such matters. (I'd recommend H.H. Price's theory on the irreligious afterlife - even then there seems most likely at the very least, a source of being in a more consciousness over material manner). From this very basic beginning, there appears the room/potential for "meaning" - but I seem to have gone almost in circles at this point, reverting to what was initially denied (unless we're happy to speak in deistic terms) to attempt a reconciliation of "meaning" and atheism - all I really wanted to do was ask the question in the initial paragraph so let's ignore this section here for now; otherwise, face the wrath of an overlong post that I don't want to write out 0 -
-
I just want to clarify with you liveya, when you speak of absolute truth, are you talking about not so much in a general epistemological sense (to allow there being any form of absolute truth such as 2+2=4 as such as we define it), but rather using it to describe more "bigger picture" concepts such as the meaning of life and morality (i.e., so that for an atheist in this case, there would not be absolute meaning or morality for the only standard we have is what we define)?
That being said, an atheist is best described as someone who is not a theist - so, there are ways of getting around it so that you can believe in an afterlife for example but not any form of deity. It is tricky to try get a grasp on it, but of course, not many can claim to report much on such matters. (I'd recommend H.H. Price's theory on the irreligious afterlife - even then there seems most likely at the very least, a source of being in a more consciousness over material manner). From this very basic beginning, there appears the room/potential for "meaning" - but I seem to have gone almost in circles at this point, reverting to what was initially denied (unless we're happy to speak in deistic terms) to attempt a reconciliation of "meaning" and atheism - all I really wanted to do was ask the question in the initial paragraph so let's ignore this section here for now; otherwise, face the wrath of an overlong post that I don't want to write out
The most commonsensical position to hold for an athiest would be nihilism, but they behave in a way they are not nihilists, but absolutists.
If one adopts the folly of relativism, then they have no good reason to share their opinion at all, but to keep it to themselves, since it's only true for them, not for anyone else.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Really? What an athiests says is always true, and is always backed up by science? What tremendous arrogance!
Secondly, there is no reason to believe in a teapot, obviously using ridicule as a rhetoric device, will necessarily fail.
ROFL
The church has never shown arrogance. Not even when they ordered parents here in Ireland to turf their daughter (who had given birth out of wedlock) out onto the street. The baby went to an orphanage, but you know the rest I'm sure.
Also, we're all wondering if you have proof that His Noodliness or the Space Tea Pot don't exist.
If you discovered that a friend or relative was spending money that they didn't really have, on a psychic, (resulting in debt problems), would you try to help them, or would you keep schtum? There are plenty of videos that PROVE that these gangsters have no 'special' abilities other than the ability to con weak minded people out of their savings.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
joseph brand wrote: »ROFL
The church has never shown arrogance. Not even when they ordered parents here in Ireland to turf their daughter (who had given birth out of wedlock) out onto the street. The baby went to an orphanage, but you know the rest I'm sure.
Also, we're all wondering if you have proof that His Noodliness or the Space Tea Pot don't exist.
If you discovered that a friend or relative was spending money that they didn't really have, on a psychic, (resulting in debt problems), would you try to help them, or would you keep schtum? There are plenty of videos that PROVE that these gangsters have no 'special' abilities other than the ability to con weak minded people out of their savings.
You have to admit, to say that athiests are always right is, well you know..
Now, the church may seem arrogant to you, but when you think about it, it's not. Athiests make claims based on their own grounds. now the church teaches what it teaches, even though some find it a terrible inconvenience, because they beleive it to be revealed to them by God.
So the church didn't make the road up to God, or claims to have made these teachings. they beleive God revealed the truth to them, and accepted it, this is actually humility.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Yet, not the belief itself. Has nihilism been proven to you? If not, why do you beleive it?
I don't think it's reasonable to create your own temporary meaning for your life, until you die. I think this is intellecually dishonest. I understand ones desires to do so.
You could say that about any belief though? You're on a path of infinite regression here, belief being built upon belief. The only way to be sure is evidence, nihilism to me isn't a belief, it's a sense, one that becomes heightened around indoctrination. As I've said it's a personal experience, if others can identify with it then cool, if not then I'm not going to force that on you or tell you it's the only way to live and certainly not before the age of reason
Life is temporary so any meaning I choose is mine to apply and you've kind of proven a point I was making in another thread, religious people seem to not only want others to believe as they do but to have that belief enshrined in law. You think I'm being intellectually dishonest by applying my intellect to my view of the world? Smacks of a lack of maturity and understanding to me
0 -
-
Life is temporary so any meaning I choose is mine to apply and you've kind of proven a point I was making in another thread, religious people seem to not only want others to believe as they do but to have that belief enshrined in law. You think I'm being intellectually dishonest by applying my intellect to my view of the world? Smacks of a lack of maturity and understanding to me
If religious people want you to beleive what they do, it's only because they beleive it's the best for you, and society as a whole. For example, every human being from conception to death is to be valued, and respected. Doesn't sound too bad to me. A religious law isn't bad for society, if you don't believe it.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement