Question about Atheism : Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Question about Atheism » Question about Atheism

Question about Atheism

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Last

Question about Atheism

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

0 of 3 people found this post helpful Posted 11/06/09 - 12:31 AM:	#11
Dawkins believes in the possibility of a God/s, probably pluralistic. But he just doesn't think they are fit for worship as they might have evolved through a gradual process of evolution and mutations. He suggests that he accepts 'alien' possibilities and also sees potential artificial insemination of Earth. So... really, where does atheism stand outside this? What is atheism anyway? Why not agnosticism? Why not deism?
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

baden511
McHamlet

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 13, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 179

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 11/06/09 - 04:36 AM:	#12
mtboger wrote: My point is, why does Richard Dawkins feel the need to persuade and argue his point, if no matter what, all people end up as nonexistent. To me, this puts his whole argument in question. I feel like if he truly believed all people simply cease to exist, he would not try to argue against religions. mtboger wrote: Religion supplies most, if not all, of my morals. If you could prove to me that my religion was false, which is highly unlikely, the definition of morality for me would change drastically. With respect, I believe you are sadly misguided. Religion is not necessary for either morals or meaning. Our human condition is enough for that. Theists forget that atheism is the default position for every human being, which is why I don't like the word (I don't think we should define the default position in the negative). You were an atheist once mtboger. No child exits the womb crying "Jesus saves". To believe irrational dogma you need to be conditioned into it. Having purpose on the other hand is natural, and humans are not built to just give up because they don't believe their priests. In any case, I ask you to ask yourself this: what you are going to do during your eternity of bliss? What purpose then? You are looking at a purposeless oblivion according to your own doctrine.
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Moses (Numbers 31:17-18) "Do not harm little children" - Satanic Bible. Rule no.9 "And the prize is: Eternal heavenly bliss. Or a peanut. Your choice." - The Divine Game Show Host

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 428

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 11/06/09 - 05:54 AM:	#13
Wosret wrote: No, atheists believe that theists are wrong about all that god-stuff. This doesn't necessarily preclude an afterlife, Buddhists can be atheists, and still believe in reincarnation, and all that. What is commonly thought as "atheist" by theists encompasses a large school of philosophical tradition, which the term "atheism" itself does not imply. Buddhists believe in reincarnation and Nirvana, etc. That, to an atheist who argues like Dawkins does, should be as idealistic as believing in God and it seems like a populist copout by him when he says that he 'likes the ideas of Buddhism' (Independant article, recently). Just my quibble with him; I'm not going to allow him to put Buddhism on his side, as Buddhism entails the idea of an immortal soul which is something he clearly does not believe in. I agree with you on the point that you CAN be a 'Buddhist atheist,' but being an atheist in Western philosophy encompasses many more things than 'not believing in a God.' To accuse theists of being wrong about this is unfair both to them and to the rich diversity within atheism; atheism has become far more than just a 'rejection of theism.' It is a movement which has developed since the Enlightenment and has succeeded in doing far more than just putting up a case against the existence of God. You do the acheivements of atheism as a philosophy injustice to my mind, Wosret. There, I said it. Edited by sheps on 11/06/09 - 07:08 AM
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

mtboger
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 17, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 21

Posted 11/06/09 - 06:35 AM:	#14
I'm close to understanding. But, I still don't think my question has been fully answered. Why would an Atheist devote their life in arguing against religion? I feel like Dawkins is being hypocritical since he preaches on living life to the fullest, then spends all this time on disproving religion. Like one poster said above, Atheism is a religion if baldness is a hair color. I know I have many presuppositions and bias, but bear with me.

baden511
McHamlet

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 13, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 179

Posted 11/06/09 - 07:54 AM:	#15
mtboger wrote: I feel like Dawkins is being hypocritical since he preaches on living life to the fullest, then spends all this time on disproving religion. I'm not sure why you think there's a contradiction here. I appreciate that you really think religion helps you to live life to the fullest but those who don't follow religion, like me, tend to think the opposite. I think that religion denigrates life by restricting an individuals ability to think. In the case of Dawkins, I think he passionately believes that what he is saying is true, and this devotion to truth is what gives his life meaning.
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Moses (Numbers 31:17-18) "Do not harm little children" - Satanic Bible. Rule no.9 "And the prize is: Eternal heavenly bliss. Or a peanut. Your choice." - The Divine Game Show Host

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 126

Posted 11/06/09 - 08:15 AM:	#16
If Dawkins says live life to the fullest and that life doesn't include a God then I guess he shouldn't waste anytime in his life to something that isn't a part of his life. Its like bringing back a topic that has already been shown not to affect you, I guess. I guess he read Hume and is trying to tell people that there isn't a 'miracle inside of them'. Just without realising that he was keeping the miracle going himself. But either way I think living life to the fullest in Dawkins sense means not be constrained by religion. Or maybe he is saying truth is the only way to live life whilst commiting to a whole lot of faith. But I honestly hope he's saying to live life as an individual with bias clouding the statement as happens to any of us.
"An honest religious thinker is like a tightrope walker. He almost looks as though he were walking on nothing but air. His support is the slenderest imaginable. And yet it really is possible to walk on it." - Ludwig Wittgenstein 'It is the duty of the human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand...' - Søren Kierkegaard

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2103

3 of 3 people found this post helpful Posted 11/06/09 - 08:16 AM:	#17
mtboger wrote: I have just finished watching two of his documentaries on why religion is a danger to society. This is your answer right here. Living this mortal life is what matters to Dawkins because it is all we get. If religion is detrimental to living life to its fullest, as he believes, then that is all the reason he needs to argue against it. This is particularly true given that he thinks the influence of religion can go beyond those who are religious (via political interference, for example). Since other people’s religious views can cause them to do things that interfere with his life, and with the lives of people he cares about (which could be everyone if he is suitably compassionate), Dawkins’ concern with religion is easily explainable. sheps wrote: I'm not going to allow [Dawkins] to put Buddhism on his side, as Buddhism entails the idea of an immortal soul which is something he clearly does not believe in. The fundamental premise of Buddhism is anatta, which is a denial of the Hindu doctrine of atman -- i.e., the immortal soul. Technically speaking, Buddhists do not typically believe in reincarnation as Westerners understand it. This is a misconception stemming from the fact that "reincarnation" is the closest concept we have to the Buddhist notion of "rebirth." sheps wrote: I agree with you on the point that you CAN be a 'Buddhist atheist,' but being an atheist in Western philosophy encompasses many more things than 'not believing in a God.' I disagree that atheism encompasses more than not believing in God (or, more specifically, believing in the non-existence of God -- one can not believe in God and not be an atheist by virtue of suspending judgment and being an agnostic). It just happens to be the case that atheism is typically tied to naturalism is Western philosophy, and so the former tends to carry connotations of the latter. sheps wrote: To accuse theists of being wrong about this is unfair both to them and to the rich diversity within atheism; atheism has become far more than just a 'rejection of theism.' It is a movement which has developed since the Enlightenment and has succeeded in doing far more than just putting up a case against the existence of God. It seems to me that what is unfair to the rich diversity among atheists is to suggest that there is more to it than a (non-agnostic) rejection of theism. To make all atheists naturalists or otherwise universal participants in a particular philosophical movement is to homogenize them. It is by noting the many different ways one may be an atheist -- and by noting that one can be a religious atheist or an irreligious atheist -- that we acknowledge the diversity within atheism. Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 11/06/09 - 09:33 AM
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." --Casey Stengel

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 968

Posted 11/06/09 - 08:24 AM:	#18
mtboger wrote: I'm close to understanding. But, I still don't think my question has been fully answered. Why would an Atheist devote their life in arguing against religion? I feel like Dawkins is being hypocritical since he preaches on living life to the fullest, then spends all this time on disproving religion. Like one poster said above, Atheism is a religion if baldness is a hair color. I know I have many presuppositions and bias, but bear with me. I haven't read the latest Dawkins book or two, but I think that Dawkins and other recent outspoken atheists are concerned about promoting what they judge to be a way to improve human life during the normal physical lifespan. They see religious belief as contrary to certain values that they think would enhance the quality of human life. They seem particularly concerned with the religious habit of accepting claims without discriminating epistemic justification (primarily rigorous rationality and empirical corroboration). They read religious belief as credulous and delusional, and see uncritical credulity and facile self-delusion as very dysfunctional habits for people to have. The more uncritically credulous people are, the more they can be manipulated and taken advantage of by others, and the less they themselves are able to contribute to the general progress of society. Not only are those who are credulous and undiscriminating not able themselves to advance much human knowledge, but such people actually interfere with the attempts of those who are competent critical thinkers (as for instance the influence of know-nothing fundamentalism on government research policy, and of credulous acceptance of preposterous claims against vaccinations and immunizations.)
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

baden511
McHamlet

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 13, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 179

Posted 11/06/09 - 08:37 AM:	#19
sheps wrote: Buddhists believe in reincarnation and Nirvana, etc. ..... I agree with you on the point that you CAN be a 'Buddhist atheist,' but being an atheist in Western philosophy encompasses many more things than 'not believing in a God.' There are different forms of Buddhism, Mahayana and Theravada being the two major forms. Even within Mahayana Buddhism, there are significant differences, with the Zen school being particularly non-"religious" focusing less on doctrine and more on meditation. I think this form of Buddhism (along with Taoism) is as close as religion gets to atheism. I live in a Buddhist country where they do engage in certain rituals but are much clearer of theistic baggage than adherents of other religions. I agree with your point that being an atheist in the Western tradition tends to encompass more things than "not believing in God", and it would be misleading to suggest an equivalence between a Buddhist and an atheist from that perspective. Having said that, as atheism can refer to a rejection of theism or a disbelief in a deity or deities, or both, those who simply don't believe in a God have a right to call themselves atheists, and I don't think anyone who points that out is doing atheism a disservice. Edited by baden511 on 11/06/09 - 09:23 AM
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Moses (Numbers 31:17-18) "Do not harm little children" - Satanic Bible. Rule no.9 "And the prize is: Eternal heavenly bliss. Or a peanut. Your choice." - The Divine Game Show Host

Dragohunter
illusion is persistent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Why does it matteR?

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 164

Posted 11/06/09 - 09:12 AM:	#20
I find that many atheists (especially those that are not philosophers) are confused that rather or not if they have rational justification for their beliefs, it does not entitle them to materialism, nihilism, and other such belief systems. Atheism is a philosophical position, it does not mean they are irreligious or scientific. Buddhism is an atheistic philosophy, but that does not mean they are not religious. Personally I think Richard Dawkins is a jackass, I find it disturbing that he doesn't find it in some respect ironic to try to persuade the world to scientism. I read his book on God Delusion, and although he made some good points in pointing out the bloody history of religion, he could've been not so one sided (the majority of the worst wars have been for nonreligious purposes), being so philosphically and theologically incoherent, without being COMPLETELY mistaken on Albert Einstein's belief system in the 1st chapter, and without being the most noted individual in his book.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." - Albert Einstein

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Last

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.