| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/24/2009 07:24:14 PM · #226 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
There's a word for the attitude of the faithful who can't imagine that an atheist could live a moral life outside of god: provincial. |
As there is a deeply entrenched need for people to slot themselves as atheists when they are actually not. Its almost laughable because this always comes down to having "God like" beliefs in something with a different name. There is a rabid insistence there be "differentiation" though the faith is equally strong in one form or another.
Its like viewing two cars and arguing that one is a car and the other is not. They both serve to accomplish the same thing, provincially or universally. Those who need to "label" themselves choose not to see the similarities and therefore discount the validity and purpose of one or the other. |
Just as a point of fact, there are many moral philosophies that do not require a god, belief in a god, or even the existence of a god. To state that all morality is a direct result of a god is to do man a great disservice. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 07:25:41 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
There's a word for the attitude of the faithful who can't imagine that an atheist could live a moral life outside of god: provincial. |
As there is a deeply entrenched need for people to slot themselves as atheists when they are actually not. Its almost laughable because this always comes down to having "God like" beliefs in something with a different name. There is a rabid insistence there be "differentiation" though the faith is equally strong in one form or another.
Its like viewing two cars and arguing that one is a car and the other is not. They both serve to accomplish the same thing, provincially or universally. Those who need to "label" themselves choose not to see the similarities and therefore discount the validity and purpose of one or the other. |
Atheists and theists are a lot alike then. The world would be a better place if we were all just agnostics. :)
Message edited by author 2009-09-24 19:27:35.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2009 07:32:20 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
hmmmm. How about a buddhist. Or any humanist. Some hindus. Confucians. Some Daoists.
Philosophers, let's start with Sartre and go from there. |
I'm going to check some of these out, but off the top of my head I think buddhism and confucianism, for example, don't apply. Those are philosophies, to be sure, but they do not directly address the existence of a Supreme Being and thus are not technically atheist. Both those philosophies are easily melded into other religions. For example, you may find a mix of buddhism and christianity in some asian countries, or more commonly buddhism and local animistic religions.
But let me do some reading and I'll give you a more educated response. And I'll check out Sartre for you. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 07:54:02 PM · #229 |
| Here is a good place to start... |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 07:59:39 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
hmmmm. How about a buddhist. Or any humanist. Some hindus. Confucians. Some Daoists.
Philosophers, let's start with Sartre and go from there. |
I'm going to check some of these out, but off the top of my head I think buddhism and confucianism, for example, don't apply. Those are philosophies, to be sure, but they do not directly address the existence of a Supreme Being and thus are not technically atheist. Both those philosophies are easily melded into other religions. For example, you may find a mix of buddhism and christianity in some asian countries, or more commonly buddhism and local animistic religions.
But let me do some reading and I'll give you a more educated response. And I'll check out Sartre for you. |
Now wait a minute... a philosophy can't be atheist unless it directly addresses the existence of a higher power?
*sputter* *wheeze*
Actually I think this is the crux of why people (like Ivo) just don't get atheism.
It's not anti-god. It's un-god. Huge difference. Many atheists (I would count myself among them for this purpose) live in a world where god is only a pattern of speech on the part of a group to which they do not belong.
I only call myself agnostic as a sign of my respect for logic and my understanding of my own perceptual limitations.
After I'm dead I quite expect to be an hard-core atheist, if 'be' can be understood as the hypothetical 'knowledge' of the non-existence of my-non soul, since my own ability to determine whether I'm in heaven or not will be, I assume, severely compromised given my worldview.
Message edited by author 2009-09-24 20:00:32. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 08:12:22 PM · #231 |
So Sartre seems like he's been smoking the wacky-tabacky a bit too long. :) ya, I'm not going to be able to wade into his stuff and come out with any real sense of what he stands for.
Anyway, I did find some allusion that some buddhists are atheist while many are either polytheistic or pantheistic. Let's leave it at this. I understand your point and you can include an invisible asterisk every time I equate an atheist to a materialist. There may be exceptions, but they do not seem common and they aren't usually showing up for our discussions.
I think we can all agree that all materialists are atheists though. And I think we can agree that the usual suspects here on Rant are both materialist and atheist. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 08:14:01 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
hmmmm. How about a buddhist. Or any humanist. Some hindus. Confucians. Some Daoists.
Philosophers, let's start with Sartre and go from there. |
I'm going to check some of these out, but off the top of my head I think buddhism and confucianism, for example, don't apply. Those are philosophies, to be sure, but they do not directly address the existence of a Supreme Being and thus are not technically atheist. Both those philosophies are easily melded into other religions. For example, you may find a mix of buddhism and christianity in some asian countries, or more commonly buddhism and local animistic religions.
But let me do some reading and I'll give you a more educated response. And I'll check out Sartre for you. |
Now wait a minute... a philosophy can't be atheist unless it directly addresses the existence of a higher power?
*sputter* *wheeze*
Actually I think this is the crux of why people (like Ivo) just don't get atheism.
It's not anti-god. It's un-god. Huge difference. Many atheists (I would count myself among them for this purpose) live in a world where god is only a pattern of speech on the part of a group to which they do not belong.
I only call myself agnostic as a sign of my respect for logic and my understanding of my own perceptual limitations.
After I'm dead I quite expect to be an hard-core atheist, if 'be' can be understood as the hypothetical 'knowledge' of the non-existence of my-non soul, since my own ability to determine whether I'm in heaven or not will be, I assume, severely compromised given my worldview. |
You sound angry, I'm sorry for not recognizing your faith in something you dare not name. Those who believe in "God" are fortunate they have a name for their faith. It eliminates ambiguity and allows them to enjoy it.
Message edited by author 2009-09-24 20:14:20. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 08:18:52 PM · #233 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Now wait a minute... a philosophy can't be atheist unless it directly addresses the existence of a higher power?
*sputter* *wheeze*
|
Don't get all phlegmatic on me. I realize that there is MORE to your philosophy (or Shannon's, etc), BUT if you are going to label a philosophy as "atheist" then you are going to need to know whether it subscribes to the existence of a higher power. Seems pretty obvious to me. 1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god"
Is the philosophy without a god? It is atheist. If the philosophy somehow does not address the issue, I would consider it to be either an incomplete philosophy or agnostic: from Gk. agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known"
These definitions aren't really that hard and all this wishy washiness would be promptly thrown out of any decent university level philosophy class.
Message edited by author 2009-09-24 20:19:18. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 08:20:04 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think we can all agree that all materialists are atheists though. And I think we can agree that the usual suspects here on Rant are both materialist and atheist. |
...and? You somehow seem to equate "materialist" and "atheist" as a less desirable position than one who professes a "faith" in something. Why is that?
|
|
|
|
09/24/2009 08:30:14 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think we can all agree that all materialists are atheists though. And I think we can agree that the usual suspects here on Rant are both materialist and atheist. |
...and? You somehow seem to equate "materialist" and "atheist" as a less desirable position than one who professes a "faith" in something. Why is that? |
Well, I answered that for myself up above. I can't answer it for everybody though. Materialism specifically neglects a large portion of the world as I see it (philosophy and religion) and atheism does not adequately describe why I feel what I feel about the state of the world. That's my own opinion though. See the posts from last night. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 08:37:49 PM · #236 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So Sartre seems like he's been smoking the wacky-tabacky a bit too long. :) ya, I'm not going to be able to wade into his stuff and come out with any real sense of what he stands for.
Anyway, I did find some allusion that some buddhists are atheist while many are either polytheistic or pantheistic. Let's leave it at this. I understand your point and you can include an invisible asterisk every time I equate an atheist to a materialist. There may be exceptions, but they do not seem common and they aren't usually showing up for our discussions.
I think we can all agree that all materialists are atheists though. And I think we can agree that the usual suspects here on Rant are both materialist and atheist. |
Yes, all materialists are, by matter of course, atheist. But I would not call millions of people not so common. I think the issue here is your thoughts on what make up the non-material world. If you only consider God non-material and nothing else, then you are right. But God is not the whole of the non-material world. Anyone who believes in the mind as separate from matter is a dualist, not a materialist. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 08:37:49 PM · #237 |
yuck. the godS are back.
Message edited by author 2009-09-24 20:38:14. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 08:48:54 PM · #238 |
Dualist, yep. Bingo.
Me in my head, or me in my body? Signifier or signified?
As a programmer, I draw a bright line between object and process. A case could be made that I don't really do anything at all, all day long, because when it comes down to it, I'm only manipulating energy states in mainly inert matter. I don't effect things directly, although there are some tangible implications at times. Surprising, the pay one can receive while doing nothing even remotely physical is rather good.
If anything, I'm closer to a wizard than a architectural engineer.
So, how can I be a materialist if the intricate process that makes me me today will just go poof when I die? Unlike matter, consciousness can be destroyed.
Message edited by author 2009-09-24 21:03:12. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 09:14:58 PM · #239 |
To this day, the most intriguing question I have come across in philosophy is, "What makes you you?"
1. Your mind?
2. your body?
3. Both?
How much of your mind are you required to have to still be you? How much of your body? If you are unconscious (in a coma) are you still you? If you replace body parts, at what point are you no longer you? If transporters existed, would you be the same person after being transported (like in Star Trek)? If your brain is transplanted into someone else's body, who are you? If it was possible to take all your memories and implant them in another, are they now you? If you are cloned, is the cloned version you, too? If you have complete amnesia, are you you or someone new?
Anyway, Mousie's wandering over processes led me here... |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 09:15:46 PM · #240 |
I guess I don't understand your need to put a tag on everyone and slot them into a category. You just don't seem to get it that some people just don't know exactly what their beliefs slot into, and yet are perefectly comfortable with a mish-mash of ideas, and ideals of how to live.
I don't for one second believe that atheism MUST cancel out selfless works of good, that they're only self-serving. What a load of crap!
To decide that people will only be good if they think they're under the mantle of Divinity is a whole heck of a lot more self-serving in my book that someone who looks out for himself because he knoews nobody else is......but why can't that person just be nice?
There doesn't have to be an agenda for every single act of kindness.....there are atheists out there who are just nice people.....deal with it.
Some days I wonder where some of you come up with this stuff.
I'm not an atheist and I don't much care for the general attitude you guys all seem to take in your perception of atheism.
Do you really feel that way about atheists? You certainly make them sound like pretty amoral humans.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2009 09:23:33 PM · #241 |
| Missed ya Jeb. Wondering when you were gonna chime in. ;-) |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 09:24:38 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
hmmmm. How about a buddhist. Or any humanist. Some hindus. Confucians. Some Daoists.
Philosophers, let's start with Sartre and go from there. |
I'm going to check some of these out, but off the top of my head I think buddhism and confucianism, for example, don't apply. Those are philosophies, to be sure, but they do not directly address the existence of a Supreme Being and thus are not technically atheist. Both those philosophies are easily melded into other religions. For example, you may find a mix of buddhism and christianity in some asian countries, or more commonly buddhism and local animistic religions.
But let me do some reading and I'll give you a more educated response. And I'll check out Sartre for you. |
Now wait a minute... a philosophy can't be atheist unless it directly addresses the existence of a higher power?
*sputter* *wheeze*
Actually I think this is the crux of why people (like Ivo) just don't get atheism.
It's not anti-god. It's un-god. Huge difference. Many atheists (I would count myself among them for this purpose) live in a world where god is only a pattern of speech on the part of a group to which they do not belong.
I only call myself agnostic as a sign of my respect for logic and my understanding of my own perceptual limitations.
After I'm dead I quite expect to be an hard-core atheist, if 'be' can be understood as the hypothetical 'knowledge' of the non-existence of my-non soul, since my own ability to determine whether I'm in heaven or not will be, I assume, severely compromised given my worldview. |
You sound angry, I'm sorry for not recognizing your faith in something you dare not name. Those who believe in "God" are fortunate they have a name for their faith. It eliminates ambiguity and allows them to enjoy it. |
More like exasperated. At impossible goalposts like "It can't be atheist without addressing god".
If you don't think I heartily enjoy my ungodliness-as-atheism-as-agnosticism, you don't know me at all. You apparently think I'm some fearful, adrift soul... to wrapped up in vagaries to enjoy life... too skittish to put a name to glory...
...when all I need to do is look up at night to swoon, or crouch down and poke at some leaves to nearly burst with sentiment.
I'd posit that it's your cognitive dissonance that's painting your image of me, not my own reality.
I mean, goodness gracious... amusedly poking fun at my own ability to determine the truth of my worldview, in light of my ceasing to exist right when it would be most useful to continue perceiving? *eyeroll* Maybe I'm simply too dry for you, and you just aren't getting it.
By the way, that's a lovely non-apology-as-slight thing you got going there.
Also, lovely non-addressing-any-point-I-made thing, too! I don't expect platitudes in response to my challenges. I expect reason. Oh well. Maybe I'll have better luck with others! |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 09:35:51 PM · #243 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
To this day, the most intriguing question I have come across in philosophy is, "What makes you you?"
1. Your mind?
2. your body?
3. Both?
How much of your mind are you required to have to still be you? How much of your body? If you are unconscious (in a coma) are you still you? If you replace body parts, at what point are you no longer you? If transporters existed, would you be the same person after being transported (like in Star Trek)? If your brain is transplanted into someone else's body, who are you? If it was possible to take all your memories and implant them in another, are they now you? If you are cloned, is the cloned version you, too? If you have complete amnesia, are you you or someone new?
Anyway, Mousie's wandering over processes led me here... |
Doesn't that make life worth living though? If we all knew the answers (or accepted arbitrary ones) would we not be extinguishing the very thing that fuels imagination and in turn killing the poet and artist inside all of us? After all, what would be the purpose to explore new ideas if we know all the answers and have our marching orders?
|
|
|
|
09/24/2009 09:36:06 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
hmmmm. How about a buddhist. Or any humanist. Some hindus. Confucians. Some Daoists.
Philosophers, let's start with Sartre and go from there. |
I'm going to check some of these out, but off the top of my head I think buddhism and confucianism, for example, don't apply. Those are philosophies, to be sure, but they do not directly address the existence of a Supreme Being and thus are not technically atheist. Both those philosophies are easily melded into other religions. For example, you may find a mix of buddhism and christianity in some asian countries, or more commonly buddhism and local animistic religions.
But let me do some reading and I'll give you a more educated response. And I'll check out Sartre for you. |
Now wait a minute... a philosophy can't be atheist unless it directly addresses the existence of a higher power?
*sputter* *wheeze*
Actually I think this is the crux of why people (like Ivo) just don't get atheism.
It's not anti-god. It's un-god. Huge difference. Many atheists (I would count myself among them for this purpose) live in a world where god is only a pattern of speech on the part of a group to which they do not belong.
I only call myself agnostic as a sign of my respect for logic and my understanding of my own perceptual limitations.
After I'm dead I quite expect to be an hard-core atheist, if 'be' can be understood as the hypothetical 'knowledge' of the non-existence of my-non soul, since my own ability to determine whether I'm in heaven or not will be, I assume, severely compromised given my worldview. |
You sound angry, I'm sorry for not recognizing your faith in something you dare not name. Those who believe in "God" are fortunate they have a name for their faith. It eliminates ambiguity and allows them to enjoy it. |
More like exasperated. At impossible goalposts like "It can't be atheist without addressing god".
If you don't think I heartily enjoy my ungodliness-as-atheism-as-agnosticism, you don't know me at all. You apparently think I'm some fearful, adrift soul... to wrapped up in vagaries to enjoy life... too skittish to put a name to glory...
...when all I need to do is look up at night to swoon, or crouch down and poke at some leaves to nearly burst with sentiment.
I'd posit that it's your cognitive dissonance that's painting your image of me, not my own reality.
I mean, goodness gracious... amusedly poking fun at my own ability to determine the truth of my worldview, in light of my ceasing to exist right when it would be most useful to continue perceiving? *eyeroll* Maybe I'm simply too dry for you, and you just aren't getting it.
By the way, that's a lovely non-apology-as-slight thing you got going there.
Also, lovely non-addressing-any-point-I-made thing, too! I don't expect platitudes in response to my challenges. I expect reason. Oh well. Maybe I'll have better luck with others! |
Simplicity is bliss and unfortunately my simplified response is "unblissful" in your eyes. That's okay as my concise response seemed dismissive in your eyes. It is what it is. Furthermore, if you have points to make, make them in a manner which is not so cryptic and suspicious. I'll gladly address them in a respectable manner if you wish, and if not, that's okay as well. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 09:37:18 PM · #245 |
An aside:
I know I've called myself an agnostic, and still do, but those New Atheists are awfully tempting.
It's very exciting to live in a time with belligerent unreligion on the rise. After the way I've been treated by those of faith, I certainly feel they have theirs coming. I'm tired of atheists walking on eggshells, and as they say, turnabout is fair play. It's so gratifying to see the demonizers get demonized for their demonization. To stop tolerating the intolerant. How very meta!
Message edited by author 2009-09-24 22:10:35. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 09:51:50 PM · #246 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Simplicity is bliss and unfortunately my simplified response is "unblissful" in your eyes. That's okay as my concise response seemed dismissive in your eyes. It is what it is. Furthermore, if you have points to make, make them in a manner which is not so cryptic and suspicious. I'll gladly address them in a respectable manner if you wish, and if not, that's okay as well. |
A simple "oops, my mistake" would have been acceptable.
And Ivo... seriously... if you think I'm being cryptic...
Heck. Why not ask some of the other usual suspects how cryptic they think I am. (Oooh, all that subterfuge, just waiting to be uncovered!) I've been here a long time. And I haven't exactly minced words.
I have to be honest with you. When someone calls out someone else for being angry and suspicious in the way you have, given the limited context available, all that tells me is that said individual is close enough to anger and suspicion that they're the go-to rationales for things they disagree with. Just sayin'.
But here's your opportunity to prove me wrong:
What, exactly, is cryptic about my exasperated post? Where, exactly, is the suspicious content? That post reads as plain as day to me... given the baseline of emotional obfuscation inherent in written communication. About the only thing I can come up with is you didn't see the humor in it.
How Machiavellian! |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 10:09:46 PM · #247 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Can I ask why you insist that all atheists are materialists? |
See original post. Atheists must be satanists, atheists must be materialist, atheists must be immoral, etc., etc. THIS is the real disconnect: a tradition of indoctrination in either/or assumptions results in fallacious reasoning. If a person doesn't go to heaven, then he must go to hell because it's the only other possibility within that belief. If a person doesn't worship god, then he must worship satan. If a person doesn't believe in what I consider the source of morality, then he must be immoral. Any other possibilities are completely foreign because they go beyond the preconceived notions of of causality.
Disbelief of gods means just that. It does not automatically imply anything else in the same way that someone declaring that Jesus probably existed in Roman times does not automatically mean that person is a Christian or believes Jesus was anything other than an ordinary human. It's a non-sequitur. As already pointed out numerous times, a person who doesn't believe in any gods may nevertheless believe in a spirit, alternate dimensions, or ESP. Jason cannot grasp this because he equates gods with immaterial, so disbelieving gods must mean disbelieving all immaterial things. There is no other possibility.
Note that these traditional perceptions are not limited to "others" either. The word of a priest or nun will be believed over the word of a plumber, when neither should have any bearing on truth. A devoted Christian is automatically assumed to be moral, so people will actually look for that "trait" in political candidates and caregivers even though there's really no correlation. How many admired politicians or conservative talk show hosts have been associated with drugs, adultery, corruption or worse? How many convicted felons "find God" in prison? King Charlemagne, a paragon of Christian decency, would be considered a savage dictator and convicted for crimes against humanity in modern times. I'm not trying to illustrate all Christians as bad, and that's precisely the point: the only thing you can say about a theist or atheist is that they believe and do not believe in gods, respectively. Nothing else may be assumed of their character or beliefs.
Originally posted by Ivo:
Those who believe in "God" are fortunate they have a name for their faith. It eliminates ambiguity and allows them to enjoy it. |
Ivo made another funny. Faith, in this context, is literally the conviction that you know something defined as unknowable. An atheist or agnostic doesn't claim to believe what can never be known, so faith simply does not apply. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 11:55:56 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
To stop tolerating the intolerant. How very meta! |
"I know there are people who do not love their fellow man and I HATE people like that!"
--Tom Lehrer, c. 1965
Message edited by author 2009-09-24 23:56:11. |
|
|
|
09/25/2009 07:19:06 AM · #249 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Missed ya Jeb. Wondering when you were gonna chime in. ;-) |
Just kinda puzzled by your ironclad atheist definition.
What if you're an atheist with compassion? Does that mean you're NOT an atheist?????
|
|
|
|
09/25/2009 07:22:50 AM · #250 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
What if you're an atheist with compassion? Does that mean you're NOT an atheist????? |
Not necessarily, they're just saying that you have no rational basis for this emotion, since it does you no good.
|
|
