ChatterBank0 min ago
Why not ignore those dratted atheists?
52 Answers
Yet again the plaintive cry has been heard that those dratted atheists who dare to rock the rickety boat of religion with frequent gusts of rationality are preventing the faithful from discussing their beliefs as they would wish to discuss them here. The fact is if the faithful choose not to enter into discussion with those who oppose their views, it is their choice. No one is imposing that choice upon them. At the risk of stating the obvious, why don’t they and their apologists do what they do with their religious literature and simply ignore the contradictions? They are not going to stop anyone contributing to any thread – and nor should they attempt to - but at least if they disregard what they see as negative comments, they can waffle on between themselves to their heart’s content. Just an idea.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have never entered any debate on where to obtain church candles or communion wine as I consider myself to be unqualified to speak on such matters. However when the sanctimonious and rationally challenged try to restrict the lives of those more tolerant and open minded than themselves then it is a free for all with gloves off. If theists consider themselves disadvantaged because they cannot win rational arguments then perhaps their god is trying to tell them something :-)
If an atheist has a moral code based on some sensible foundation then their views should be of great interest to anyone who is religious. The real problem is anti-foundationalists - people who believe that everything is relative. Most materialists, especially Marxist Materialists, are without a moral code.
See http://
See http://
Dave the Dog, Google "Marxist Materialism", of course there is a philosphical movement called "Marxist Materialism". Stalin uses the term in his 1938 paper "Dialectical and Historical Materialism".
BTW, I am no fascist but I do oppose postmodernism and postmarxism and other creepy manifestations of Derrida and Lyotard's revolutionary philosophy. People dont even realise they are supporting this subversive philosophy, they just think they are being trendy and modern.
BTW, I am no fascist but I do oppose postmodernism and postmarxism and other creepy manifestations of Derrida and Lyotard's revolutionary philosophy. People dont even realise they are supporting this subversive philosophy, they just think they are being trendy and modern.
Chakka.. What you call "ordinary, everyday, routine, rational atheism" is based upon science such as radioactive dating showing that the world is more than 5000 years old, evolution being partially written in the phylogenetic ontogeny of every embryo and evolution being obvious from molecular biology etc.
Science, or rather knowledge, shows that the cosmologies described in 1000-3000 year old books and traditions are usually false.
Now take away the cosmologies and focus on moral issues such as the nature of a moral action. Does science have a greater usefullness or accuracy in this area of philosophy than religion? The link I gave in my first post on this thread suggests that simple materialist science is hugely problematical when applied to morality.
You might also consider the form and content of Platonic love rather than the process of love, again science has a problem explaining such things, being about process rather than form.
I think Jake the Peg has alluded elsewhere to the possibility that modern science, which might be more accurately labelled "physicalism" than materialism might provide some foundation for moral principles. However, if we pursue the physicalism we stumble upon possibilities such as universal consciousness and pan-psychism that are not exactly atheist.
Science, or rather knowledge, shows that the cosmologies described in 1000-3000 year old books and traditions are usually false.
Now take away the cosmologies and focus on moral issues such as the nature of a moral action. Does science have a greater usefullness or accuracy in this area of philosophy than religion? The link I gave in my first post on this thread suggests that simple materialist science is hugely problematical when applied to morality.
You might also consider the form and content of Platonic love rather than the process of love, again science has a problem explaining such things, being about process rather than form.
I think Jake the Peg has alluded elsewhere to the possibility that modern science, which might be more accurately labelled "physicalism" than materialism might provide some foundation for moral principles. However, if we pursue the physicalism we stumble upon possibilities such as universal consciousness and pan-psychism that are not exactly atheist.
Johnysid //Now take away the cosmologies and focus on moral issues such as the nature of a moral action. Does science have a greater usefullness or accuracy in this area of philosophy than religion? //
You think religion has a use in morality? I would say quite the opposite.
Sacrificing innocent animals to atone for one's sins.
Demanding worship without question.
Punishing four generations of descendants for one's sins.
Killing children as punishment to a whole society for the policies of its rulers.
Genocide.
Treating women as property.
Offering women to rapists.
Raping conquered enemies.
Eagerly anticipating the destruction of most of the people in the world.
A deeply corrupt sense of morality pervades the holy books. The Abrahamic philosophies are nothing more than the institutionalised versions of primitive tribal prejudice and are objectively revealed as fundamentally fascist.
As such it is unsurprising that theist religious attitudes are behind most of the conflict in the world.
You think religion has a use in morality? I would say quite the opposite.
Sacrificing innocent animals to atone for one's sins.
Demanding worship without question.
Punishing four generations of descendants for one's sins.
Killing children as punishment to a whole society for the policies of its rulers.
Genocide.
Treating women as property.
Offering women to rapists.
Raping conquered enemies.
Eagerly anticipating the destruction of most of the people in the world.
A deeply corrupt sense of morality pervades the holy books. The Abrahamic philosophies are nothing more than the institutionalised versions of primitive tribal prejudice and are objectively revealed as fundamentally fascist.
As such it is unsurprising that theist religious attitudes are behind most of the conflict in the world.
Johnysid //However, if we pursue the physicalism we stumble upon possibilities such as universal consciousness and pan-psychism that are not exactly atheist.//
Putting aside the question of whether one does stumble upon these possibilities by pursuing physicalism there is an unwarranted presumption that atheism precludes these perspectives.
Theism is about a belief in a deity. Traditionally theists have claimed jurisdiction over all things spiritual but this is not justified. Many atheist adopt a deeply spiritual perspective, it simply does not include the concept of a God.
Indeed the concept of a universal consciousness is much closer to the position of a spiritual atheist than to that of a deist who perceives God as a separate conscious entity.
Atheism does not preclude the possibility of a natural phenomenon beyond what is known in science but merely points to the lack of evidence. Given evidence an atheist can change their position.
In contrast the theist insists that some ancient ignorant misogynist men had the last word on all knowledge thousands of years ago and cannot change their perspective because it is founded in doctrine. It is a patently absurd position that sharply contrasts with the sensibilities that have guided us to the real knowledge that forms the basis of our civilisation today.
Putting aside the question of whether one does stumble upon these possibilities by pursuing physicalism there is an unwarranted presumption that atheism precludes these perspectives.
Theism is about a belief in a deity. Traditionally theists have claimed jurisdiction over all things spiritual but this is not justified. Many atheist adopt a deeply spiritual perspective, it simply does not include the concept of a God.
Indeed the concept of a universal consciousness is much closer to the position of a spiritual atheist than to that of a deist who perceives God as a separate conscious entity.
Atheism does not preclude the possibility of a natural phenomenon beyond what is known in science but merely points to the lack of evidence. Given evidence an atheist can change their position.
In contrast the theist insists that some ancient ignorant misogynist men had the last word on all knowledge thousands of years ago and cannot change their perspective because it is founded in doctrine. It is a patently absurd position that sharply contrasts with the sensibilities that have guided us to the real knowledge that forms the basis of our civilisation today.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.