Atheism spreads religious awareness and biases our thinking...

@spendius,

I suppose what you are saying is that those who do not share your Moral code are immoral, how convenient...further, in order for someone to qualify as Moral doesn't even mean that one has to get every single rule in the book right, less alone those you particularly think are the right ones.

I don' approve Sam Harris or general pro-active new atheists approach on Religion, nevertheless the following video makes some valid points on Morality as something that is not directly dependent on religion...it is self evident, still the video might help along those who have a more distant relation with this kind of problems :

0 Replies

@spendius,

...one of the points I am in agreement with you is that we shouldn't particularly see religion as a menace to civilization nor see the proneness to believe in anything without evidence as something that flows strictly from religious belief, killing religions won't sort nothing, but probably worsen things to some extent, again self evident, but new atheist fall exactly in the same line of black and white reasoning you go against them...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...I think you are aware I empathise with your cynical reaction to this sort of neo Jacobin self proclaimed enlightenment prone to the naive idealistic view on which the development of science is a sure sign for human moral and ethical progress...it is not, in fact civilization growth is close to null regarding moral behaviour, and now, mainly due to complexity increasing, to entropy on information being far superior these days then 20 years ago. People are lost in a contradictory and relativistic never ending web clash of cultures habits and behaviours...While as I previously posted I do agree science can explain and hold on itself moral values, if anything, for the masses, that is a guarantee of regression. Now the role of Religion in all this will be as in the past to keep on projecting a simpler figurative model of guidance for common people. One far less complex or abstract and thus easy to hold as something familiar and concrete to which people can relate naturally...and it is simply that, and nothing but that...certainly not because I believe there is a personnel God like mind speaking with bushes and dictating the right principles for us to follow...I am almost certain your belief bottom line is not that different from mine you just don't dare to publicly admit to that...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I have made it clear a few times Fil.

I agree with what you said more or less. But I have given reasons as well.

And I don't think I am cynical. I think those who use specific instances to make general points and refuse to consider the social consequences of what they are promoting are either stupid or cynical.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Also Fil--you should beware of jumping to ready conclusions.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

But the consequence of not choosing a side is being out of the game. The consequences for society of atheism or a belief are pretty self evident but there can be no consequences of dithering except that you are not able to choose either and just sit there like a great big nonentity.

Football exists in this world, but that doesn't mean that I have to choose a team. In religion as in football, I am comfortable with being a nonentity.

Quote:

Once you have said you're an agnostic you have said everything there is to say. Perhaps that's why you keep going on about what agnosticism is or is not unto the thousandth generation

Have I said I am that? I said I might be an agnostic when it comes to the issue of gods. But that doesn't mean I am an agnostic in all things. I don't believe anyone is.

And in all my years here on a2k, I cannot recall a single thread where I have posted about what agnosticism is or is not...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

I said I might be an agnostic when it comes to the issue of gods.

That's heavy metal agnosticism cyr. You're even agnostic about being an agnostic.

A "nonentity" does not speak out publicly on important matters such as the meaning of the universe or how society is organised. A nonentity would only be concerned with survival and comfort.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

That's heavy metal agnosticism cyr. You're even agnostic about being an agnostic.

Perhaps. I rarely concern myself with these labels. They serve absolutely no beneficial function in regard to exploring philosophical issues. On the contrary, attention given to classifying someone's views only serves to derail the discussion and make it about the participants rather than the topic.

1 Reply

@spendius,

There is a difference between simply not knowing and being an agnostic...an agnostic actively suspends judgment out of not knowing...while someone that just not knows does not suspend anything...meaning that while one knows that he does not know the second has no clue...I suspect Cyr admittedly has no clue that he does not know if Gods exist or not...he seems undecided on whether he knows something about the matter of what acknowledged not knowing aims at... Laughing

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I know that you don't know much about anything. You display your ignorance to us every day.
Your skill in comprehension is rivaled only by your skill with the English language.

As far as I'm concerned, "god" is a fantasy concept entertained by those who want something to believe in and those who want something to not believe in. I couldn't care less about the whole concept. It's void of relationship to reality, as far as I'm concerned.

(I don't know why I wrote that, because you are probably not going to understand. My bet is that you will twist it into something you can ridicule so you can tell yourself how clever you are. But be my guest. Your frantic attempts at asserting your cleverness have the complete opposite effect.)

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

They serve absolutely no beneficial function in regard to exploring philosophical issues.

I'm not persuaded that there are any philosophical issues for an atheist and an agnostic doesn't know whether there are any philosophical issues by his own logic. An intelligent Christian is obsessed with them.

Can you persuade me that an atheist can have a philosophy and is not pretending to have one as a cover for something pragmatic and to cast his self-interested pragmatism, what else, in a veil of respectability? Just as pacifism might be a cover for avoiding military duty.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

As far as I'm concerned, "god" is a fantasy concept entertained by those who want something to believe in and those who want something to not believe in.

Then both have defined the terms of the debate and their contributions automatically follow. If God is a fantasy concept then it is obvious that believers in God are deranged. When you point out that they are deranged you have justified the proposition and completed a simple circle.

God is a concept around which societies are organised. As is noGod.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
They serve absolutely no beneficial function in regard to exploring philosophical issues.

I'm not persuaded that there are any philosophical issues for an atheist and an agnostic doesn't know whether there are any philosophical issues by his own logic. An intelligent Christian is obsessed with them.

Can you persuade me that an atheist can have a philosophy and is not pretending to have one as a cover for something pragmatic and to cast his self-interested pragmatism, what else, in a veil of respectability? Just as pacifism might be a cover for avoiding military duty.

Well is a philosophy of self such a bad thing? I know how christians like to demonize the idea of self prise or (worship) but I am talking about something very rudimentry. Since all I know about the world is myself, it is the only thing I can rely on.

I am not talking about chasing desires because I already know it is fruitless to try to use outter methods for permenat self fulfillment. But my life is sustained by my actions so being self centered on that aspect is not so bad.

I am not talking about being uncaring towards others but in the same way that I respect my own existence I place that same respect on others lives. Is this such a bad philosophy for my existence? Beause I put my own life ahead of some fantacy thoughts of some god thing?

I know christians like to jump up and down on that idea and prosecute me for appealing to the "flesh" as if that is in some way a evil thing. I know their religious programming demands that they trash this world in favor of one that is theoretical.

What I want for myself, is what I want for everyone in the world. I don't want to suffer unnecessarily and I want to be free from anxieties or worries and accumulate as much happiness that I can at no one else's expense. I don't see any politicians exercising that philosophy at all. They might try to claim they are but their past involvments never reflect that.

I also know that religious people do not want this philosophy for myself either. They want me to shun this existence and this life and suffer as much as possible. They want me to look at my existence in a negative way as if I am worthy of endless torture because of this very existence. Why anyone would accept that as being reasonable always baffles me.

So my philosophy is simple and it is based on my existence. I don't want to suffer and I want to be content with my time within this existence. I also would like others to have this self same ability. There is no need of selfishism within this idea. How is this philosophy so bad?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Then both have defined the terms of the debate and their contributions automatically follow. If God is a fantasy concept then it is obvious that believers in God are deranged. When you point out that they are deranged you have justified the proposition and completed a simple circle.

God is a concept around which societies are organised. As is noGod.

Although what you say is true here it is only true in the sense of how society currently is. Now hypothetical situation what would you call a society who has completely abandoned religous ideas?

I think the problem is that (the way I look at it) we are trying to recover from the religious disease. We are going through a transition and abandoning these ideas because they are no longer useful. It is obvious these religious ideas don't work or else we wouldn't be trying to struggle to find solutions. If it worked we would actually utilize it and we would be moving in that direction. It doesn't work and that is why we are moving on.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

As far as I'm concerned, "god" is a fantasy concept entertained by those who want something to believe in

I am not twisting anything asshole you just as usual did contradict what you said in a previous post...First you assert yourself as an atheist next you say that you are an agnostic later you are not sure you are an agnostic, now you say god is fantasy so you are sure again...how pathetic is that ?...all the limitations I have with English allow me to do a better job in my worst days that you could not rival in your whole life thinking about anything...your nothing but a poor devil lost in pseudo hippy meditation, a laughing stock whenever you write...ad hominem insults whenever anyone shows the ridicule of your reasoning its the only weapon a Neanderthal like you can find...did occurred to you that people can read idiot ? the quote is above ! What a ******* sorry ass looser you are...

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

spendius wrote:
Then both have defined the terms of the debate and their contributions automatically follow. If God is a fantasy concept then it is obvious that believers in God are deranged. When you point out that they are deranged you have justified the proposition and completed a simple circle.

God is a concept around which societies are organised. As is noGod.

Although what you say is true here it is only true in the sense of how society currently is. Now hypothetical situation what would you call a society who has completely abandoned religous ideas?

I think the problem is that (the way I look at it) we are trying to recover from the religious disease. We are going through a transition and abandoning these ideas because they are no longer useful. It is obvious these religious ideas don't work or else we wouldn't be trying to struggle to find solutions. If it worked we would actually utilize it and we would be moving in that direction. It doesn't work and that is why we are moving on.

The question I would like to ask you is why it did work for so long ? and consequently, why it doesn't work any more ?
Since when things that truly don't work endure for so long periods ?...maybe the obvious answer resides on a transition of paradigm regarding the arising modern values of instant gratification easy access to money and consumerism at large...this was never about whether there is a God or not, but rather on the practical moral values Religious institutions can bring to peoples life's...middle class wealth and light reasoning spelled doomed on the medieval social organizational values of most Religions, they simply don't fit reality any more, and the same is coming to the Arab world...

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

They want me to look at my existence in a negative way as if I am worthy of endless torture because of this very existence. Why anyone would accept that as being reasonable always baffles me.

Who is the "they" except those who want you to look at your existence in a negative way as if you are worthy of endless torture because of this very existence.

I don't think many Christians these days look at it that way and most of them would be as baffled as you at such a prospect.

I don't think you can undermine Christianity by obsessing about the minority who think that way. One might equally find atheists who deal out torture in the here and now.

Quote:

So my philosophy is simple and it is based on my existence. I don't want to suffer and I want to be content with my time within this existence. I also would like others to have this self same ability. There is no need of selfishism within this idea. How is this philosophy so bad?

I agree it is simple. It is bad because it can't be done. It's utopian mush.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Religions all around the world address suffering because for most part of the history of human life suffering was the major factor, the relevant factor of existence...these days you have mass alienation and entertainment...I don't know and its not at all that clear that life got so much better, as there are some trade-offs in between, but I am certain entertainment methods and mass manipulation did came a long way...in fact in South Latin America new religious movements who were quick in realising the new rules of the game are rising their ranks as mushrooms...all n all abstract debates about the nature of God are a side event better left for scholars, people simply want social reassurance regarding cultural acceptable behaviour, what and what not to do, a sense of belonging to a human project for the future ...Religions either provide or they don't.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

I think the problem is that (the way I look at it) we are trying to recover from the religious disease.

You mean we have been immunised. What was religion but an attempt to recover from something else?

Quote:

We are going through a transition and abandoning these ideas because they are no longer useful.

Transitions are unavoidable. And the "we" is, once again, those who are abandoning the ideas because they are no longer useful. It's a long way from everybody.

Quote:

It is obvious these religious ideas don't work or else we wouldn't be trying to struggle to find solutions.

Again--the "we" is those who are trying to increase their profits or their power by finding the solution which they think will do that. Which it won't.

Quote:

It doesn't work and that is why we are moving on.

I think it does work. What does "work" mean? Where are we moving on to?

North Korea works. It has no choice about moving on.

You're dealing in platitudes Krumpie.

1 Reply

@spendius,

The fact that he is not right doesn't make God any more real anyway...

1 Reply

Atheism spreads religious awareness and biases our thinking...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know