What do you think about Evangelical Atheism?

@reasoning logic,

What is there to explain in an opinion ? I do believe Sam Harris is brilliant and mostly right on what he states n yet I do think a great deal of what he says implies a deep lacune in philosophical education n political instinct...for instance his stance on religious moderates is totally wrong and frankly dangerous...the point he misses is that clever moderates are fundamentally pessimistic regarding how much you can teach dumb people...moderates do know historically, radicalism, even if rational radicalism, is far worse then the possible moderate dialoguing "religious discourse" ever can be...the openness of the moderate builds a "metaphysical" bridge between the smart and the stupid otherwise forever close...yes Sam Harris is brilliant, and yet mentally "young"...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

his stance on religious moderates is totally wrong and frankly dangerous.

Quote:

he misses is that clever moderates are fundamentally pessimistic regarding how much you can teach dumb people...moderates do know historically, radicalism, even if rational radicalism, is far worse then the possible moderate dialoguing

Clever moderates Is this the norm for moderates?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

...If we put it in comparison "clever" can mean a bunch of things...I meant moderates can be clever then radicals, certainly more intuitive... and in some cases just depressed people... Laughing

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Although i know you almost never believe it, you're wrong. Look up weak atheist online sometime.

0 Replies

You know, EB, i can't imagine an atheist call in show that would have any other purpose than to ambush the caller. It's a really nasty concept. Here's my atheist call in show:

Hi, welcom to our debut program. I don't know if there is a god, but i don't believe there is, and i really don't care. Don't bother to call in. This is also our final episode.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

There would be nothing to discuss.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Although i have met a few militant atheists in my life, far and away the atheists i have met have been those who are called, rather unjustly, weak atheists. They aren't weak in the sense that their refusal to believe is tentative or could easily be overcome. It just means they don't claim to know if there is or is not a god. I have know literally hundreds and hundreds of atheists of this description.

Those are not atheists, then. By definition, those are agnostics. Frank Apisa is a vehement agnostic.

You are obviously correct...

0 Replies

Can you explain the difference between:

- those who don't claim to know there's no god
- those who claim to know there's no god

3 Replies

@timur,

Yes one of them in the least understand the question asked cannot be answered, I would say the difference is substantial...

0 Replies

Anyone who understands the difference between certainty and belief will understand the difference between those two positions.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I believe, with a degree of certainty, that those are similar positions.

One from an introvert and the other from an extrovert.

(Tongue in cheek, obviously)

1 Reply

I certainly wouldn't base my official stance to such a question on a matter of personnel belief unless of course it was the case that I centred beliefs at the core of my crystallized self...my beliefs are at best transitory states of information always open for revision and my ability to doubt them is considered for me an healthy check of my mental fitness.

That all being said and just because I do indeed have the balls to take an informal position I will publicly admit that my view is very close to the atheistic opinion when the concept of God presented is the classical one.

1 Reply

@timur,

You are entitled to believe what you wish. Obviously, that is not a matter of certainty, so i care as little for your belief as i do for the possibility that there may be a big sky daddy.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Good for you Fil

Consider the possibility that the problem is semantic, Her existence or not a hopeless dualistic issue depending upon how one defines Her

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

...the very common issue often raised between philosophers n scientists can be equated with having or lacking a sober stance, strangely enough one would expect scientists to have the upper hand by definition, but the fact remains often scientists have a very narrowed field of knowledge n lack training in, lets put it this way, professional thinking methodologies...the important distinction between an agnostic and an atheist rests precisely in the precision that a sober position requires, and not in the particularity of the question itself...weather we are talking about Gods or talking about the Multiverse or knowing what I will do 2 years from now, acknowledged self aware lack of certainty can be interestingly informative.

0 Replies

@timur,

One bunch likes to make unwarranted claims.

I don't know about the other bunch. It's probably a mix of those who like to make all other kinds of unwarranted claim, and a dizzying number of people who just don't care either way.

0 Replies

@timur,

timur wrote:

Can you explain the difference between:

- those who don't claim to know there's no god
- those who claim to know there's no god

I think the difference is quite easy to understand if you forget about emotionally-loaded fantasies like gods for a moment and consider more easy-going ones. Take the tooth fairy for example. Anybody who claims to know there is no tooth fairy is clearly overplaying their evidence. You can't possibly know that it doesn't exist, because it's near-impossible to prove a negative. So although you probably don't believe in the tooth fairy, you'd find it hard to claim that you know it doesn't exist.

The same reasoning can apply to Zeus, Vishnu, Jehovah, and the rest of the bunch.

0 Replies

What do you think about Evangelical Atheism?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know