Atheism

http://imageshack.us/a/img580/2673/rjdz.jpg

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Free choice is an oxymoron.

but not freewill right?

0 Replies

Stephen Fry - starts on philosophy but moves to atheism (although he prefers the term humanism). Quite eloguent and not the least preachy - is really about his world view, he's not proselytising, just saying why he feels the way he does.

2 Replies

@hingehead,

Tripe!! An overblown ego running wild.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

If spendi doesn't approve, it's all twaddle.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Lord - I ignored Spendi years ago - is he still around?

Anyway - another compassionate moral atheist who I like to think is very similar to myself, except he is talented, witty, sweet and able to string thoughts together.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Quote:

Lord - I ignored Spendi years ago - is he still around?

Yes he is. He doesn't do part time, carefully selected, hands over ears ****. He takes on all comers. Only wimps use Ignore.

Try giving me a nappy full.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

If spendi doesn't approve, it's all twaddle.

You make them famous for pretending to be Oscar Wilde and the next news they have solved the riddles of the Universe.

It's twaddle alright. Nothing to do with me. Bullshit lies on the ground objectively even when it is unseen.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Spendi, I don't mind getting into these little tiffs with you, but in threads concerning evolution and atheism, I think even you don't know what you mean half the time.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I can't defend myself from that ed because I don't know which half of the time you are referring to.

Your impression is possibly an unfortunate consequence of a situation in which it would be considered impolite, even unseemly, for me to say what I mean in unambiguous language.

There are people of all ages and conditions on A2K and I take that into account.

As Bob said--"You can fry somebody's brain".

I must have got a bit close to have caused a few of A2K's Big Beasts to scutter to the Ignore function. (The acid test). What an admission it is to make yourself have "to wear earphones". I have no respect for that sort of ****. It is not just the expression of a bigot but it is also the expression of a fierce determination to remain a bigot.

The word games sometimes allow me to say what I mean because there is a built-in get out.

If, for example, in the word association game or the "what does this remind you of game" the word PRICE was the one left on I would post FANNY. If somebody accuses me of being cynical about the tender ones I would say I was alluding to Miss Fanny Price, a most amazing burlesque, in that wondrous creation Mansfield Park accompanied by gestures of innocence mingled with surprise at what must have been the first thing they had thought of.

How did Fanny know that Mary Crawford's jest about rear and vice- admirals was in bad taste? Mr Clemens never peeled a character open as efficiently as that.

0 Replies

Maybe it's because they got tired of spam-like posts interrupting good threads, to the point of nullity.

0 Replies

The trouble with atheism is that I can't talk to my father about books.

1 Reply

What name does he post under?

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

that's a little sad Osso, but...

I don't think atheism has a tenant against talking about books ;-)

If it's any consolation I never talked about books with my father either - and as far as I know he was an atheist (we didn't talk about that either)

1 Reply

@hingehead,

So, yeah, that is what I mean. That we never got into it. Close, maybe I didn't get it. I know he tried to talk with me. (oh, to grab time back)

I take my father as a rattled atheist who went along with my mother for a peaceful life and dealt with me hopefully.

He was poet laureate at a catholic university in the twenties, and ended up working as head of photo re the a bombs. But I think you know that, and thus sort of understand me.

His best friend in those post war years was a submarine captain involved in the bikini stuff, who later became a jesuit. I think he clung to what that guy said.

It's all too far away - he was head of photo that had the plane photo down into the bomb and rode in it. We never talked about that. I was a kid.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

We had other talks. He brought me to meet Kennedy at the airport, LAX,
(few people there) and he was later against Kennedy, something about vietnam, early re others.

0 Replies

@littlek,

I appreciate the thoughtful comments of many unbelievers and join with their perception that religion, as an instiution, is proximate cause of much of our world's misery.

The only complaint I have about unbelievers in general is what I percieve to be an air of intellectual arrogance and condescending superiority. Present company excepted, of course.

We should beware of confusing that which is profound for that which is merely complex.

2 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

I appreciate the thoughtful comments of many unbelievers and join with their perception that religion, as an instiution, is proximate cause of much of our world's misery.

I don't see how that's relevant. It is at least conceivable that the God hypothesis is both true and socially destructive. If it was, and if satisfactory evidence pointed that way, I would grudgingly become a theist. Just because a belief has bad consequences, that doesn't mean it's false.

neologist wrote:

The only complaint I have about unbelievers in general is what I percieve to be an air of intellectual arrogance and condescending superiority. Present company excepted, of course.

That's not arrogance. It is simply true that the evidence supporting the God hypothesis is threadbare and feckless, whereas the no-gods hypothesis is a straightforward shave with Occam's razor. Our case is superior to theirs; there's no reason to tiptoe around it.

neologist wrote:

We should beware of confusing that which is profound for that which is merely complex.

What am I supposed to do about it? The evidence just isn't there to make the God hypothesis credible. Nothing profound or complex about it; it's just true.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

The only complaint I have about unbelievers in general is what I percieve to be an air of intellectual arrogance and condescending superiority.

The fact that you (and many believers) "perceive" the presentation of evidence as arrogant and condescending may say more about you than about the message being delivered.

"IF" the person delivering the facts "IS" being arrogant or condescending (something only they can know in their heart), then they are doing so unnecessarily because only logic and facts are needed.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

neologist wrote:

The only complaint I have about unbelievers in general is what I perceive to be an air of intellectual arrogance and condescending superiority. Present company excepted, of course.

Thomas wrote:

That's not arrogance. It is simply true that the evidence supporting the God hypothesis is threadbare and feckless, whereas the no-gods hypothesis is a straightforward shave with Occam's razor. Our case is superior to theirs; there's no reason to tiptoe around it.

rosborne979 wrote:

The fact that you (and many believers) "perceive" the presentation of evidence as arrogant and condescending may say more about you than about the message being delivered.

"IF" the person delivering the facts "IS" being arrogant or condescending (something only they can know in their heart), then they are doing so unnecessarily because only logic and facts are needed.

I did except present company, right. I do appreciate your well considered responses.

I just come from a different viewpoint. Music, for example has a mathematical signature apart from the experience it imparts to the listener.
Failure to understand or express the mathematics does not diminish one's ability to enjoy the work. Correspondingly, the existence of God can not be understood or expressed empirically. This does not invalidate the concept. But, it does increase the difficulty of the search because all that is left are anecdotal observations and circumstantial evidence.

I can't demonstrate how my own observations fit together to form my belief. I can list a few of them. I have related many of them on a2k. If any others are to believe, they must be willing to peer into the evidence for themselves. Or not. And continue disbelief. But never assume the believer lacks the intellect to make a choice.

4 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know