Atheism

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

We are minute specks in the scheme of things and we are only here for a short time.

Curious, that. The Greeks were certain that the faculty of reason mirrored the actual structure of the Universe. We are able to calculate (for example) the age of the universe and the nature of sub-atomic structures and many other things in nature which we are not able to see or even comprehend. It is hard to see how we got those skills, out there on the Serenghetti. I always feel that the subordination of reason to adaptive necessity is a major philosophical weakness in evolutionary theory. We seem to have a massive surplus in the skills department, considering all that we are able to do. So I believe, with the Greeks, and probably also the Indians, that the evidence of the mind or presence in the universe is actually our mind or presence in the universe. There is nothing in science which counts for or against that, either. It is simply a matter of intepretation of what everyone can see.

2 Replies

@Khethil,

I don't need any theists to become atheists. I do however need theists to not legislate their beliefs. This effects me. I have a right to speak on these matters, and when someone wants to trespass on my liberties, damn straight I'm going to press back.

A
R
That doesn't make me a preacher.

1 Reply

@littlek,

littlek wrote:

I know there are other threads about atheism, but they tend to be focused somewhat specifically to some argument or subtopic. I'd like this thread to be open for constructive conversation, sharing of ideas and resources, etc.

One big issue that some friends and I feel is weird is that religious people seem to feel that we are persecuting them. I can't see how that could be given that we represent such a small minority of any population. If anything, it is we who are persecuted.

Atheism is not the antipode to religion; atheism is the opposite of theism, obviously. You can be a religious atheist, such as a Buddhist. Or a global warmist, or a overpopulation believer. These are, anthropologically speaking, religions.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

Your Monod quotes don't support your claim that atheists separate us from universe.

It says there is not a universal plan, and I agree. Your problem is that you want atheism to be a religion so you want it to address the questions religion claims to answer.

Have you ever considered that questions like "What is the meaning of life" might be the wrong questions? Perhaps standing in the kitchen, you remains in an arrested state asking yourself "what food am I supposed to eat?" Of course you don't. You simply pick, and it is done. We are free to give whatever meaning we want to things, we don't have to have someone else tell us what it is.

I life spent feeding the hungry because a person chooses that path is every bit as profound (daresay more so) as a path that convinces a person that their purpose is to feed the hungry.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Atheism is not the antipode to religion; atheism is the opposite of theism, obviously. You can be a religious atheist, such as a Buddhist. Or a global warmist, or a overpopulation believer. These are, anthropologically speaking, religions.

Rubbish.

The basis of the atheist is skepticism. Atheism is no more a religion than bald is hair color or not collecting stamps is a hobby.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

Hi Jeeprs,

I'm having a little difficulty ascertaining what point you are getting at partly because some of your points seem semi self-contradictory.

You cite the Greeks certainty about reason and the structure of the universe, then talk about sub-atomic structure the Greeks were unaware of. Certainty doesn't equate to truth.

Then you say we can calculate things we can't comprehend - I put it to you the only way we can calculate them is because we can comprehend them at least at some level.

We didn't develop these skills overnight on the Serenghetti, we built on millennia of trial and error in many different environments. A prehistoric man had the same brain structure (read potential) but no access to the body of knowledge that we have acquired, organised, communicated.

And that brain structure was an evolutionary advantage over our food, our competitors for food, and those who used us for food. Not because it meant we could one day fly to the moon, but because it improved our ability to communicate, interpret, act, cooperate. I don't see anything divine about it - we may well have been an evolutionary dead end, and may still well be.

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

The basis of the atheist is skepticism. Atheism is no more a religion than bald is hair color or not collecting stamps is a hobby.

You're just writing your standard responses without reading the words.
Atheism indeed isn't a religion; but atheists can be religious. Buddhists are atheists, Buddhism is a religion, right?

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

The basis of the atheist is skepticism

If you read up on skepticism you will realise it actually started out as a spiritual movement, lead by a philosopher, Pyrrho, who was deeply influenced by Buddhism.

It consists of the suspension of judgement (epoche) in pursuit of philosophical tranquility (ataraxia).

"Scientific skepticism" is a belief system which basically consists of a defence of metaphysical naturalism. And the only reason you don't see your naturalist spectacles is because you're looking through them, not at them.

2 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Buddhists are atheists, Buddhism is a religion, right?

I'd say that Buddhists are Buddhists, and I don't know of any atheists who reject god but accept other supernatural claims.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Well they might be self-contradictory in places, I appreciate your patience.

The point I am making is that I question the ability of evolutionary theory to explain the human ability to see into the deepest recesses of matter and the universe. I don't doubt that humans evolved, and I am not a creationist. I just question the conclusions that are drawn about our abilities on the basis of the scientific account of our origins. I am deeply skeptical of the use evolutionary naturalism as a de-facto religion, which I believe it is for a lot of people, whether they acknowledge it or not.

I haven't got time at this moment to develop the whole argument, but I actually believe that the current version of atheism, as per Dawkins, Dennett, and others, is actually deeply irrational. But I will come back to that point later.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

After Note: Damn - I read 'atheism' where you said 'skepticism'. Bugger nevertheless I'd consider myself a skeptic without having heard of mr pyrrho.

jeeprs wrote:

If you read up on skepticism you will realise it actually started out as a spiritual movement, lead by a philosopher, Pyrrho, who was deeply influenced by Buddhism.

That's bollocks. I'm an atheist and I've never heard of Pyrrho. You can't be a christian without having heard of Christ, or muslim with no awareness of Mohammed.

To reiterate a mental game I've posted in A2K in the past. If some human babies were isolated on another planet and cared for by non-communicative robots until adulthood what religion would they be?

Pretty obviously they would be atheists or they would make up their own religion. Atheism can be reached by an individual without any form of indoctrination. It isn't a religion. The fact that many atheists were indoctrinated in a variety of religions but still came to be atheists independently is yet more evidence of this.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

Quote:
The basis of the atheist is skepticism

If you read up on skepticism you will realise it actually started out as a spiritual movement, lead by a philosopher, Pyrrho, who was deeply influenced by Buddhism.

It consists of the suspension of judgement (epoche) in pursuit of philosophical tranquility (ataraxia).

"Scientific skepticism" is a belief system which basically consists of a defence of metaphysical naturalism. And the only reason you don't see your naturalist spectacles is because you're looking through them, not at them.

I'd say that if you have to read up on skepticism, you're over-complicating things.

I care not about epoche and ataraxia. I care only to hold that all claims be met with scrutiny and criticism. Let the claims that can handle that remain. No supernatural claim can substantiate. This is enough for me.

Also, if you think that the idea of skepticism did not exist prior to the Buddhists, you're crazy. Perhaps they sat around thinking about it, but they did not invent it.

As they say, we're all atheists, I just believe in one less than you. The same applies for florid accounts of enlightenment and experiences with the supernatural.

As Thomas so well put it in the other thread, atheists are not a group of people dedicated to the disbelief in gods, but rather those who have been unconvinced by the claims.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

Dawkins - I wouldn't say he's irrational, but he can be emotional. He clearly has an axe to grind, particularly when followers of a religion are motivated only by their religion and ignore common sense and human decency. His reportage of child indoctrination makes me pretty emotional too.

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

I don't know of any atheists who reject god but accept other supernatural claims.

Thereby you admit that atheism does not have to be areligious.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

failures art wrote:
I don't know of any atheists who reject god but accept other supernatural claims.

Thereby you admit that atheism does not have to be areligious.

Did you even read what I wrote?

How would an atheist be pro-religious?

Their is nothing to be taught in atheism. It's the rejection of supernatural claims like gods. You're trying very hard to make atheism into a religion, but that simply doesn't make sense.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

How would an atheist be pro-religious?

By believing in an atheistic religion.

failures art wrote:

It's the rejection of supernatural claims like gods.

No, it's the rejection of gods, just gods. has nothing to do with supernatural claims.

failures art wrote:

You're trying very hard to make atheism into a religion, but that simply doesn't make sense.

Nobody said atheism is a religion. That atheism is not a religion does not mean that atheists can't be religious.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

well that's all that bothers me - 'evangatheism' like that. As for what anyone chooses to believe, I have no problems with. But I love the romanticism of the spiritual side of philosophy. I wonder if people know what they're missing.

Quote:

That's bollocks. I'm an atheist and I've never heard of Pyrrho. You can't be a christian without having heard of Christ, or muslim with no awareness of Mohammed.

Greek philosophy has a spiritual side to it, even, as I say, the Skeptics. And if you reckon it's bollocks without even knowing anything about it...well, that says something, doesn't it?

3 Replies

@failures art,

You know, theism isn't a religion either. Theism does not have a unified belief, it is a term for a bunch of beliefs. So if theism is not a religion, like atheism, does that mean that theists aren't religious?

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

That's a subjective conclusion. So what?

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

well that's all that bothers me - 'evangatheism' like that. As for what anyone chooses to believe, I have no problems with. But I love the romanticism of the spiritual side of philosophy. I wonder if people know what they're missing.

Quote:
That's bollocks. I'm an atheist and I've never heard of Pyrrho. You can't be a christian without having heard of Christ, or muslim with no awareness of Mohammed.

Greek philosophy has a spiritual side to it, even, as I say, the Skeptics. And if you reckon it's bollocks without even knowing anything about it...well, that says something, doesn't it?

Atheist police.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know