Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
PrintPage: First 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
 Question about Atheism | |
|
t3chn0n3rd
Initiate  Usergroup: Members Joined: Jun 28, 2009 Total Topics: 5 Total Posts: 12 |
 #321
Subject: conceptual atheist It is unfortunate in the western world we arent able to fully appreciate the total concept of atheism. We often bring concepts from our upbringing, which hamper our understanding. For instance coming from a judeo-christian background. I dont think you are fully able to rationalize what atheism is. You start to bring in that world view and limit yourself in your concept about God. To have an true atheist world-view you would have to survey all major thought systems , ie religions etc. you would then have formulate an world-view based on everything not just on a few concepts you learned while growing up. For further clarification. Lets take for example the most well educated western philospher. I dont think they are far enough removed from concepts of God they learned from being immersed in culture based in religious systems. In short I doubt the convictions of even the most staunches atheist trained in a western thought system. To be a true atheist I think you have to return the Soctratic and platonic era which were devoid of many dilutions present today. It seems modern day atheism is deluded in the very concept they are trying to do away with. The time of the ancient greeks were more pure for this reasoning Edited by t3chn0n3rd on Nov 29, 2009 - 5:49 PM |
|
hipskipdip
yes  Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 09, 2006 Location: Michigan Total Topics: 8 Total Posts: 540 |
#322
t3 wrote: "To be a true atheist I think you have to return the Soctratic and platonic era which were devoid of many dilutions present today. It seems modern day atheism is deluded in the very concept they are trying to do away with. The time of the ancient greeks were more pure for this reasoning" You seem to have an idea of what atheism should be without any real clarification. I don't think we really need to spin our wheels on definitions. Atheism broadly defined is the absence of belief in deities. The ancient Greeks were no better equipped for some form of "pure" reasoning. Modern science owes a great gratitude to the ancient Greeks, but that's to make a serious error. Would you really suggest that since 433 BCE no serious thought has been given to the problem of human bias? "To have an true atheist world-view you would have to survey all major thought systems , ie religions etc. you would then have formulate an world-view based on everything not just on a few concepts you learned while growing up. " Any and all theisms are discounted when they postulate deities, by definition. I'm sure you're talking about the experiential relation to atheism, which will be different for everyone, since no one, as you've pointed out, comes from the same background and philosophical basis. Speaking in generalities, no doubt, we can come to understand what it means to be classified as atheist despite whatever walks of life we come from. The same could be said of a religious person, in fact it would be more appropriate, that they can't truly understand or love their religion unless they were to familiarize themselves with all other religions (however ridiculous and impossible that is, as there are literally thousands of different religions and millions of variations). In fact, it might be most advisable that a person just understand themselves most fully in relation to their native religion or denomination. In any case, whether you're a strong believer or a strong opponent, knowing the object of your attention is the most sensible thing to do. With anything, there are shades of grey. There are some people, like professor Bart Ehrman (agnostic), who may no longer believe in the judeo-Christian God, but can still have strong feelings and experiences with the judeo-Christian teachings and gatherings, despite his loss of faith. The same too can apply to atheists. Take the case of Alan Watts. He considered himself a spiritual atheist, as do many atheists. That doesn't interfere with their absence of belief in deities. Religion is human, belief or no belief. "What the world calls clever more often is vanity and narrowness." - Goethe, Faust. "I am God! How do I know? Everytime I pray to God I realize that I'm just talking to myself." - The Ruling Class "You may not agree with everything I say, but at the very least, you'll understand that your differing opinion is wrong." -Stephen Colbert |
|
hipskipdip
yes Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 09, 2006 Location: Michigan Total Topics: 8 Total Posts: 540 |
#323
mtboger wrote: "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." No doubt, by page 33, the original poster has long since left the thread. I think this is a common response to an atheistic worldview. It's something I've seen other struggle with, but have never felt it myself. I feel that this is the only life and moment I'll ever get. I'm moved to make the most of it, the best of it. I don't make every moment count in the sense of social betterment of all mankind. But the things I do and the behavior I have are always with others in mind, since they share the same mortality. Whether you're a Christian or an atheist, we're all mortals, and equally entitled to life. It's here that Dawkins is entitled to his opinion (for better or worse). I understand what he and Sam Harris are trying to say. Of course, many terrible actions have been carried out by ernest men and women in the disservice of mankind through religious justifications. Gandhi wrote: "Few men wantonly wicked. The most heinous and the most cruel crimes of which history has record have been committed under cover of religion or equally other noble motive." On the other hand you have those that believe religion has been in the service of fear and supernatural hope in the face of adversity. Will Durant wrote: "It has conferred meaning and dignity upon the lowliest existence, and through its sacraments has made for stability by transforming human covenants into solemn relationships with God. It has kept the poor (said Napoleon) from murdering the rich. For since the natural inequality of men dooms many of us to poverty or defeat, some supernatural hope may be the sole alternative to despair." But I feel that they're missing the point when it comes to life. They have their experiences, and of course want the best for what they see as a world in turmoil and irrational means of achieving their goals, whether something tangible or something supernatural. Some people feel better about a war or dispute over something tangible, because that person is unlikely to destroy what they're fighting for. On the other hand, if it's for the conquest of mens minds, then the battle ground is nearly limitless in it's path of destruction. "What the world calls clever more often is vanity and narrowness." - Goethe, Faust. "I am God! How do I know? Everytime I pray to God I realize that I'm just talking to myself." - The Ruling Class "You may not agree with everything I say, but at the very least, you'll understand that your differing opinion is wrong." -Stephen Colbert |
|
greggb
Graduate Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 23, 2004 Total Topics: 5 Total Posts: 162 |
#324
A person who genuinely believes their experience ends after death has had to come to terms with the fact that there's really no point in their being here. The reason being that at some point all of their experiences, accomplishments, efforts, etc. are lost forever. Some may find purpose in the notion of their legacy, or a difference they make (usually for the better) in others' lives, which will live on and likely affect every generation to come. Still, it's affecting the lives and experiences of people whose lives are equally pointless by the same premise. With no afterlife, there can be no greater purpose in our being here. I suspect that some of the happiest people are those who genuinely believe that, and find purpose in the very experience in itself, or more likely find the notion of "purpose" to be fallacious, or simply don't need a purpose. The most miserable are those who genuinely believe, or find it likely that experience ends after death, and feel obligated to stick around on the behalf of others (or for other selfless reasons), failing all the while to identify a reason for being here, strongly believing that at some point it will all be for not, making all of their experience here pointless. Religions are dangerous when they exploit our greatest fear, which is the fear of the absense of an afterlife. We recognize our mortality, and we know that our experience here is pointless if there's no afterlife. Like good advertising, these types of religions identify this problem, and offer the one-and-only solution: theirs. Many religions also exploit our natural tendency to feel guilty. A Christian, for example, can't go a day without sinning. In sinning, you're hurting God, who loves you more than you can imagine. How can you not feel guilty hurting someone who loves you far more than you're capable of loving anyone else? Oh, you horrible person! But you can redeem yourself if you do what I tell you. Anyway, the average human is wired in a way that they can be easily controlled, and deep-down inside, they want to be controlled. Religion is a product of our desire to be controlled. So, in reply to the original post, I'd say that Dawkins has mistaken religion as the cause, instead of the result, or as a product of human nature. If there wasn't religion, there'd probably be something else to take its place. Religion is exactly what we need it to be, and by no coincidence. |
|
ivant
Aspirant Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 18, 2007 Total Topics: 6 Total Posts: 22 |
#325
baden511 wrote: While it maybe true that no child exits the womb crying "Jesus saves", same is true for "no child exits the womb crying 'Jesus did not exist and believing in all that is irrational dogma' or whatever". No child also exits the wound believing that earth is round and that doesn't make them flat-earth believers. Default position must be of no view rather than any particular view like atheism. You may though define atheism as such but in reality atheist (as theists do) have views on this matter. Atheist is not the one who does not assert something about God's existence. Contrary atheists assert God most likely does not exist (or some variation of it). Besides, it is as much irrational to postulate God's non-existence as it is to postulate its existence. All (atheists and theists and believers of all sorts) come from the same perspective: "I am the one who knows the truth and anything beyond my truth is irrational dogma." It can't be otherwise. Ego operates same way in all of us. But the truth is there's no truth and the only truth there can be is one and only on truth. It is MY truth.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. ZenEthics wrote: I do agree with you on this one. But that has 2 edges. All assertions relating to the future and the past would constitute irrational religion. If one must live with the only moment we have then why claim anything at all about the future (whether there's an end to all this or there's eternity after that)?
If the only thing we can be is alive, then it would make sense to use our sense to make the most out of being; the worst hell would be believing your whole life in an irrational religion, wasting your whole life by focusing your actions on the after life, only to die, and relive that wasted life over and over and over for eternity. |
|
dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist  Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 26, 2004 Total Topics: 50 Total Posts: 1569 |
#326
greggb wrote: Some may find purpose in the notion of their legacy, or a difference they make (usually for the better) in others' lives, which will live on and likely affect every generation to come. Still, it's affecting the lives and experiences of people whose lives are equally pointless by the same premise. With no afterlife, there can be no greater purpose in our being here. I suspect that some of the happiest people are those who genuinely believe that, and find purpose in the very experience in itself, or more likely find the notion of "purpose" to be fallacious, or simply don't need a purpose. The most miserable are those who genuinely believe, or find it likely that experience ends after death, and feel obligated to stick around on the behalf of others (or for other selfless reasons), failing all the while to identify a reason for being here, strongly believing that at some point it will all be for not, making all of their experience here pointless. I agree with much of what you are talking about, but what good is it if someone leads a happy life or not? If someone willing to dismiss puirpose and morality as an illusion, wouldn't happiness also be an aspect of them? There is no rational explaination why we 'ought' to be happy. The only reason we do it that as human beings we are hardwired to seek happiness and avoid it is almost impossible. greggb wrote: Religions are dangerous when they exploit our greatest fear, which is the fear of the absense of an afterlife. We recognize our mortality, and we know that our experience here is pointless if there's no afterlife. Like good advertising, these types of religions identify this problem, and offer the one-and-only solution: theirs. Many religions also exploit our natural tendency to feel guilty. A Christian, for example, can't go a day without sinning. In sinning, you're hurting God, who loves you more than you can imagine. How can you not feel guilty hurting someone who loves you far more than you're capable of loving anyone else? Oh, you horrible person! But you can redeem yourself if you do what I tell you. If it is rational to question whether there is a purpose, then how do you know that it is 'wrong' for religions to exploit people's fear. In order for there to good/evil or right/wrong then everything must fit into the context of some purpose. Without some grand story or purpose for people to follow then there is no reason to claim any action is either good or evil. greggb wrote: Anyway, the average human is wired in a way that they can be easily controlled, and deep-down inside, they want to be controlled. Religion is a product of our desire to be controlled. So, in reply to the original post, I'd say that Dawkins has mistaken religion as the cause, instead of the result, or as a product of human nature. If there wasn't religion, there'd probably be something else to take its place. Religion is exactly what we need it to be, and by no coincidence. A religion is merely a system of beliefs no matter what the beliefs are. The problem is that some people think religion as other people's beliefs and if they don't agree with them then religion is 'wrong'. No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti |
| |
||
Page: First 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.