| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/24/2009 03:47:31 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by merchillio:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by merchillio:
Originally posted by Ivo:
As an atheist, you would only do selfless things for tangible personal benefit as logic is your religion. You are bound to this mindset otherwise you believe in doing things for some illogical purpose. If you do something selfless for no gain, it is illogical and contradicts atheism's premise. Are you speaking of atheism lite? ;-) |
Hmm.. wait, what? I don't see the connection between "not believing in god" and "doing only selfless things". When I donate to a charity that is colelcting money for, let's say, funding the research on AIDS, it has nothing to do with God. Being an atheist does not prevent someone from caring for their fellow man. In fact, I think atheists care even more for the survival of humanity since they don't believe in the rapture and apocalypse, so they tend to try and make sure we will be here for a long time (except the baby-boomers... they don't car about anything... :p )
Edited for typo -> Good instead of God |
If I were an atheist, I would only give to the cancer society because I feel I may get cancer one day and had better help fund cancer research as a defacto insurance policy. If I had no concern about cancer and I still donated it would not be logical as it offers me no direct benefit. I guess in a way, only those who have no moral consciousness can qualify as true atheists. You cannot be devoid of social consciousness and have morals. There would only be practical and impractical for your own benefit. |
How so? I feel that it is my duty as a human to do my best for humanity as a whole, but not because God told me to. I give food to homeless people when I can, not because God told me to, but because I feel everyone is entitled to a little dignity. I try my best to reduce my impact on the environement, to make sure future generations will a planet to live on, not because God told me to. "Sense of social justice" and "belief in God" are very separate things. You have a very bad opinion of atheist my friend. |
And how do you feel when you do your "duty", you probably feel good about yourself right? And oyu enjoy that feeling of accomplishment and pride...which is the self serving side of it. We rarely do anything without a selfish goal attached to it, even if its not purely self serving on the surface, it can ultimately be attributed to it. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 03:48:37 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by merchillio:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by merchillio:
Originally posted by Ivo:
As an atheist, you would only do selfless things for tangible personal benefit as logic is your religion. You are bound to this mindset otherwise you believe in doing things for some illogical purpose. If you do something selfless for no gain, it is illogical and contradicts atheism's premise. Are you speaking of atheism lite? ;-) |
Hmm.. wait, what? I don't see the connection between "not believing in god" and "doing only selfless things". When I donate to a charity that is colelcting money for, let's say, funding the research on AIDS, it has nothing to do with God. Being an atheist does not prevent someone from caring for their fellow man. In fact, I think atheists care even more for the survival of humanity since they don't believe in the rapture and apocalypse, so they tend to try and make sure we will be here for a long time (except the baby-boomers... they don't car about anything... :p )
Edited for typo -> Good instead of God |
If I were an atheist, I would only give to the cancer society because I feel I may get cancer one day and had better help fund cancer research as a defacto insurance policy. If I had no concern about cancer and I still donated it would not be logical as it offers me no direct benefit. I guess in a way, only those who have no moral consciousness can qualify as true atheists. You cannot be devoid of social consciousness and have morals. There would only be practical and impractical for your own benefit. |
How so? I feel that it is my duty as a human to do my best for humanity as a whole, but not because God told me to. I give food to homeless people when I can, not because God told me to, but because I feel everyone is entitled to a little dignity. I try my best to reduce my impact on the environement, to make sure future generations will a planet to live on, not because God told me to. "Sense of social justice" and "belief in God" are very separate things. You have a very bad opinion of atheist my friend. |
You have a broader definition of atheist than what the definition is. There is the disconnect. ;-)
In addition, get over the use of the word "god". God is the assigned name of a particular dogma. As is Allah, Mother Nature, yada yada yada. The all elude to a belief in a non-tangible greater purpose. Belief in that alone disqualifies you from the ateist club. Sorry it appears your atheist membership has been revoked. ;-)
Message edited by author 2009-09-24 15:53:12. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 03:51:10 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
Was I wrong before..it sounds like you guys are attributing nihilist principles to the atheist description?
An atheist does not believe in a god. A nihilist does not believe in anything.
Yes? |
this, please this, you guys are making arguments that don't make sense. now get back to the good stuff |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 03:52:52 PM · #204 |
| I can't tell if you were agreeing with me or trying to shut me up or bot hahha. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 03:57:21 PM · #205 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
An atheist does not believe in a god. A nihilist does not believe in anything.
Yes? |
Yah. You are correct, Lebowwwski. We believe in nosssink.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2009 03:58:31 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
An atheist does not believe in a god. A nihilist does not believe in anything.
Yes? |
Yah. You are correct, Lebowwwski. We believe in nosssink.
|
That is the main reason I know what nihilist are.
No Donny, these men are cowards. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 04:01:20 PM · #207 |
| sorry i was agreeing. Maybe you guys should start debating the definition of an atheist |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 04:09:41 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by BeefnCheez:
sorry i was agreeing. Maybe you guys should start debating the definition of an atheist |
Right, that's not been done before, has it?
Theist: "You have a belief that there is no God or Gods"
Atheist: "No, I just reject your belief in a God or Gods"
QED. No debate to be had. :-/
|
|
|
|
09/24/2009 04:13:17 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by merchillio:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by merchillio:
Originally posted by Ivo:
As an atheist, you would only do selfless things for tangible personal benefit as logic is your religion. You are bound to this mindset otherwise you believe in doing things for some illogical purpose. If you do something selfless for no gain, it is illogical and contradicts atheism's premise. Are you speaking of atheism lite? ;-) |
Hmm.. wait, what? I don't see the connection between "not believing in god" and "doing only selfless things". When I donate to a charity that is colelcting money for, let's say, funding the research on AIDS, it has nothing to do with God. Being an atheist does not prevent someone from caring for their fellow man. In fact, I think atheists care even more for the survival of humanity since they don't believe in the rapture and apocalypse, so they tend to try and make sure we will be here for a long time (except the baby-boomers... they don't car about anything... :p )
Edited for typo -> Good instead of God |
If I were an atheist, I would only give to the cancer society because I feel I may get cancer one day and had better help fund cancer research as a defacto insurance policy. If I had no concern about cancer and I still donated it would not be logical as it offers me no direct benefit. I guess in a way, only those who have no moral consciousness can qualify as true atheists. You cannot be devoid of social consciousness and have morals. There would only be practical and impractical for your own benefit. |
How so? I feel that it is my duty as a human to do my best for humanity as a whole, but not because God told me to. I give food to homeless people when I can, not because God told me to, but because I feel everyone is entitled to a little dignity. I try my best to reduce my impact on the environement, to make sure future generations will a planet to live on, not because God told me to. "Sense of social justice" and "belief in God" are very separate things. You have a very bad opinion of atheist my friend. |
You have a broader definition of atheist than what the definition is. There is the disconnect. ;-)
In addition, get over the use of the word "god". God is the assigned name of a particular dogma. As is Allah, Mother Nature, yada yada yada. The all elude to a belief in a non-tangible greater purpose. Belief in that alone disqualifies you from the ateist club. Sorry it appears your atheist membership has been revoked. ;-) |
I use "God" because it has less letters than "higher being or beings, or lower in the case of satanists". Is "being lazy" another trait of the atheists? |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 04:15:05 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by merchillio:
How so? I feel that it is my duty as a human to do my best for humanity as a whole, but not because God told me to. I give food to homeless people when I can, not because God told me to, but because I feel everyone is entitled to a little dignity. I try my best to reduce my impact on the environement, to make sure future generations will a planet to live on, not because God told me to. "Sense of social justice" and "belief in God" are very separate things. You have a very bad opinion of atheist my friend. |
You have one out which is found in Dawkins' Selfish Gene. Your actions could remain logical if they directly benefit your offspring as they contain at least some of the same genetic code.
We didn't say you can't hold these beliefs, we're just saying they are irrational to your worldview. :P Plus we're getting away from the original post which was talking about a purpose or higher goal in life.
Message edited by author 2009-09-24 16:22:42. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 04:15:23 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
An atheist does not believe in a god. A nihilist does not believe in anything.
Yes? |
Yah. You are correct, Lebowwwski. We believe in nosssink.
|
Best movie ever.
Originally posted by Walter Sobchak:
I don't roll on Shabbos!!! |
|
|
|
|
09/24/2009 04:18:32 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A completely selfless act would be illogical and against a materialists worldview. Take it to the extreme. How could a materialist ever justify sacrificing their life for a complete stranger? I do not see how such an action could ever compute as something "logical" to do for a materialist. |
Originally posted by Ivo:
I guess in a way, only those who have no moral consciousness can qualify as true atheists. You cannot be devoid of social consciousness and have morals. There would only be practical and impractical for your own benefit. |
From among the quotes I posted earlier: "The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude." These are the thoughts of a lunatic.
Attributing morals and social responsibility to religious belief alone is utter nonsense, and a deplorable view of mankind as completely self-serving in the absence of gods. Everyday heroes risk their lives all the time to foil a robbery, help an accident victim or bring relief to the needy. To assume that all of these people must be theist or male or left-handed or anything else is absurd... as if a passing atheist would require a deposit before pulling you out of a burning car. Even animals and toddlers have shown a basic willingness to help others without any expectation of benefit. Indeed, social animals MUST have this tendency for the good of the species. "United we stand, divided we fall" is not a religious concept. The idea that gods dictate altruism is the ultimate admission of weakness— basically declaring yourself incapable of good unless you're trying to please some supernatural power— yet in the same breath maintaining that good deeds ultimately don't matter (this does not compute BTW). You'd probably be left drumming your lips in disbelief if a blood donor or other volunteer saved your life and turned out to be atheist. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 04:20:56 PM · #213 |
| Without looking it up, I'd say atheism and nihilism are getting at different things. The first is an entire worldview, the second is specific to morality. Nihimism would be synonymous with amoral in my view. But I could be wrong there. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 04:22:13 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Attributing morals and social responsibility to religious belief alone is utter nonsense, and a deplorable view of mankind as completely self-serving in the absence of gods. Everyday heroes risk their lives all the time to foil a robbery, help an accident victim or bring relief to the needy. To assume that all of these people must be theist or male or left-handed or anything else is absurd... as if a passing atheist would require a deposit before pulling you out of a burning car. Even animals and toddlers have shown a basic willingness to help others without any expectation of benefit. Indeed, social animals MUST have this tendency for the good of the species. "United we stand, divided we fall" is not a religious concept. The idea that gods dictate altruism is the ultimate admission of weakness— basically declaring yourself incapable of good unless you're trying to please some supernatural power— yet in the same breath maintaining that good deeds ultimately don't matter (this does not compute BTW). You'd probably be left drumming your lips in disbelief if a blood donor or other volunteer saved your life and turned out to be atheist. |
Also sprach the atheist... |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 04:24:05 PM · #215 |
| Have I mentioned yarn comes in a wonderful array of colors and textures?? ;-) |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 04:33:15 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Have I mentioned yarn comes in a wonderful array of colors and textures?? ;-) |
Many old texts are considered yarns... ;-) |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 04:35:03 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Have I mentioned yarn comes in a wonderful array of colors and textures?? ;-) |
Many old texts are considered yarns... ;-) |
Hence the "Textile" industry.
Ivo said a funny!! lol |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 04:39:26 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
[quote=scalvert]Hence the "Textile" industry.
Ivo said a funny!! lol |
Yes you did! :-) |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 04:52:14 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by merchillio:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by merchillio:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by merchillio:
Originally posted by Ivo:
As an atheist, you would only do selfless things for tangible personal benefit as logic is your religion. You are bound to this mindset otherwise you believe in doing things for some illogical purpose. If you do something selfless for no gain, it is illogical and contradicts atheism's premise. Are you speaking of atheism lite? ;-) |
Hmm.. wait, what? I don't see the connection between "not believing in god" and "doing only selfless things". When I donate to a charity that is colelcting money for, let's say, funding the research on AIDS, it has nothing to do with God. Being an atheist does not prevent someone from caring for their fellow man. In fact, I think atheists care even more for the survival of humanity since they don't believe in the rapture and apocalypse, so they tend to try and make sure we will be here for a long time (except the baby-boomers... they don't car about anything... :p )
Edited for typo -> Good instead of God |
If I were an atheist, I would only give to the cancer society because I feel I may get cancer one day and had better help fund cancer research as a defacto insurance policy. If I had no concern about cancer and I still donated it would not be logical as it offers me no direct benefit. I guess in a way, only those who have no moral consciousness can qualify as true atheists. You cannot be devoid of social consciousness and have morals. There would only be practical and impractical for your own benefit. |
How so? I feel that it is my duty as a human to do my best for humanity as a whole, but not because God told me to. I give food to homeless people when I can, not because God told me to, but because I feel everyone is entitled to a little dignity. I try my best to reduce my impact on the environement, to make sure future generations will a planet to live on, not because God told me to. "Sense of social justice" and "belief in God" are very separate things. You have a very bad opinion of atheist my friend. |
You have a broader definition of atheist than what the definition is. There is the disconnect. ;-)
In addition, get over the use of the word "god". God is the assigned name of a particular dogma. As is Allah, Mother Nature, yada yada yada. The all elude to a belief in a non-tangible greater purpose. Belief in that alone disqualifies you from the ateist club. Sorry it appears your atheist membership has been revoked. ;-) |
I use "God" because it has less letters than "higher being or beings, or lower in the case of satanists". Is "being lazy" another trait of the atheists? |
Is baiting a trait unique to you or to atheists? ;-) |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 06:04:45 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Somewhat of a contradiction ... |
No kidding. We're verging towards semantics now; what is a "god", what is a "belief", and so forth. For the purpose of simplifying the argument, it's an either/or: if there is a "greater good", there is a "purpose" — and if there's a purpose, there's something "more" than materialism. And if one accepts THAT, then one's living in a gray area which "atheism" doesn't well describe, IMO...
Just sayin'...
R. |
As an agnostic (or rather, former athiest who has used logic to convince himself that he can't know that there is no diety, and is ever more humble as he approaches mid-life) let me tell you that yes, we can be absolutely filled with a sense of the inherent wrongness of this world. That much could be done to approach a 'greater good'.
Case in point:
I doubt you can imagine the sheer existential terror I experience living in a world populated by the apparently insane followers of incontrovertibly deranged and fundamentally unknowable god-beings. How I pine for a future where people are able to shed their fear of the unknown and take responsibility for themselves and their actions. A world where people don't kill their children and blame it on spirits. A world where the rights of our fellow citizens are not sacrificed on literal altars to feed an insatiable hunger for power. A world where people aren't indoctrinated into a disdain of reason and learning by the linking of curiosity to the heights of vanity and selfishness.
So, I come here and advocate for the dismantling of organized religion and superstition, for the greater good.
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.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2009 06:24:03 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
All actions to a materialist should be, at least on some level, self-serving. |
Can I ask why you insist that all atheists are materialists? |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 07:00:42 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
All actions to a materialist should be, at least on some level, self-serving. |
Can I ask why you insist that all atheists are materialists? |
Because the vast majority are and I have yet to meet one who isn't. And don't go counting yourself in that mix, you are fairly clearly a pantheist.. :)
I'd love to see an example of a philosopher who was an atheist, but not a materialist. If you can wiki me up, I'd certainly check it out.
Message edited by author 2009-09-24 19:00:56. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 07:09:55 PM · #223 |
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.
Message edited by author 2009-09-24 19:13:04. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 07:21:48 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
All actions to a materialist should be, at least on some level, self-serving. |
Can I ask why you insist that all atheists are materialists? |
Because the vast majority are and I have yet to meet one who isn't. And don't go counting yourself in that mix, you are fairly clearly a pantheist.. :)
I'd love to see an example of a philosopher who was an atheist, but not a materialist. If you can wiki me up, I'd certainly check it out. |
hmmmm. How about a buddhist. Or any humanist. Some hindus. Confucians. Some Daoists.
Philosophers, let's start with Sartre and go from there. |
|
|
|
09/24/2009 07:24:14 PM · #225 |
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. |
|
