Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    11660
    14 Jun '15 15:37
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    what? and you have not adopted either stance through a process of evaluation? come come Mr Hess, please be reasonable, it most certainly is an intellectual stance!
    Would it be fair to say that atheism is an intellectual stance and religion an emotional one?
  2. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    14 Jun '15 15:39
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    what? and you have not adopted either stance through a process of evaluation? come come Mr Hess, please be reasonable, it most certainly is an intellectual stance!
    Actually, no. I'm one of those who grew up an atheist without giving religion any serious thought. As a grown up I've done my fair share of thinking on the subject, but remain unconvinced that any deities exist.
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    14 Jun '15 15:582 edits
    Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
    Would it be fair to say that atheism is an intellectual stance and religion an emotional one?
    not unless you have no rational basis for your beliefs, many atheists I am sure are quite fervent about their beliefs (or lack of as the case may be) as are many of the religious. Religion without a rational basis is abhorrent.
  4. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    14 Jun '15 16:011 edit
    Originally posted by C Hess
    Actually, no. I'm one of those who grew up an atheist without giving religion any serious thought. As a grown up I've done my fair share of thinking on the subject, but remain unconvinced that any deities exist.
    Interesting I have always been a theist since I was a little child and have only come to strengthen my convictions. It is still an intellectual stance though for we at very best can only say with any certainty what appears more plausible (as an explanation for life and the universe) to us.
  5. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y3ngvdp2
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    14 Jun '15 17:55
    Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
    Would it be fair to say that atheism is an intellectual stance and religion an emotional one?
    Not necessarily. A cold, calculating analysis of the world will lead to the conclusion that God's influence is enormous. Christianity and Islam, both worshiping the God of Abraham, are together taking over the world.

    You just have to look at it from the right perspective.
  6. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45756
    14 Jun '15 20:46
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    what? and you have not adopted either stance through a process of evaluation? come come Mr Hess, please be reasonable, it most certainly is an intellectual stance!
    Your wide definition of "intellectual stance" would surely take in every opinion
    we have .. and therefore be pretty meaningless; why not just use "stance" ???
  7. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    14 Jun '15 22:21
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Your wide definition of "intellectual stance" would surely take in every opinion
    we have .. and therefore be pretty meaningless; why not just use "stance" ???
    no i dot think it would, not in this context because its clear that its an intellectual stance with regard to the existence or otherwise of a deity, this is understood.
  8. Joined
    18 Apr '15
    Moves
    778
    14 Jun '15 22:281 edit
    Originally posted by C Hess
    How can you not figure this out for yourself? This is one of the simplest concepts you can hope to come across in life. It doesn't get any simpler than this, so it can't possibly be an over simplification. You can't ask an atheist where atheists as a group get their world views and values from, any more than you can ask a theist to explain the views of all ot ...[text shortened]... ists. There are as many answers as there are ideologies, (a)theism in itself is not an ideology.
    Because ideas have consequences-Nietzsche knew this, Turner knew this. Yes, from a simple view Atheism is a denial of a god/gods existence.

    But that is like saying Christianity is an affirmation of a god/gods existence. We all would claim that is a gross over-simplification of Christianity.

    Ideas have consequences. That is my point. If Atheism cannot (as you suggest) supply reasonable answers to fundamental questions in life (such as meaning and morality) then you simply haven't learned to appreciate the reality of life.

    Atheists must form some form of morality. At least I hope you try to. As an Atheist where do you get your morality. It will differ from Atheist to Atheist.

    But seriously. This should be as obvious as the nose on your face where I'm going. I'm well aware what Atheism is having once been one and doing this for a living now. But you all want to get mixed up on how I need to first understand Atheism; I'm trying to get you guys to quit playing that game and start asking and answer hard questions about life which you must answer to live. Where did I come from? What does life mean-if anything? What is truth if it exists? What is right and wrong if they exist? Where am I going?

    So, seriously, please lets move away from the petty squabbling about what Atheism is and isn't and move onto how Atheism existentially impacts your daily living.

    I hope you see my point. This is why I called wolfgang59's (who I've blocked from PMs to me since I'm sure he'll/she'll point that out, I'll go ahead and throw it out there) view of Atheism overly simplistic and untenable. It's a poor way to go through life.

    If you don't get my meaning of how ideas have consequence then I'm honestly not sure how else to get through to you and how we can proceed on with this discussion.
  9. Joined
    18 Apr '15
    Moves
    778
    14 Jun '15 22:30
    Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
    First of all, apologies for being selective in the paragraph i have chosen to respond to. (Have come to this thread late and a lot has already been said).

    As an atheist, naturally i dispute your assertion that my conscience was placed in me by a God i don't believe in. I think you do mankind a huge disservice in alluding that any inner core of goo ...[text shortened]... o the concept of right and wrong all on my own, no external assistance required. I have evolved.
    Do you believe in the category of truth?
  10. Joined
    18 Apr '15
    Moves
    778
    14 Jun '15 22:30
    Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
    First of all, apologies for being selective in the paragraph i have chosen to respond to. (Have come to this thread late and a lot has already been said).

    As an atheist, naturally i dispute your assertion that my conscience was placed in me by a God i don't believe in. I think you do mankind a huge disservice in alluding that any inner core of goo ...[text shortened]... o the concept of right and wrong all on my own, no external assistance required. I have evolved.
    Do you believe in absolute truth? Or is it merely your truth verses my truth?
  11. Joined
    18 Apr '15
    Moves
    778
    14 Jun '15 22:33
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    It is a well known fact that the assertions of Christian apologists are typically wrong.

    [b]Now, evolution can in many ways answer origins to an extent,

    No, I don't think it can. Evolution really only tells us about how life works and has worked in the past. It doesn't deal with where life came from (abiogenesis) or where the universe came from or ...[text shortened]...
    I find meaning in many things and activities. I don't think any of it comes from a 'framework'.[/b]
    You need to rethink this comment,

    Quite correct. Of course it can't. It's not meant to. The theory of Gravity can't either.

    Equating evolution with the theory of gravity is a grave mistake. Michael Ruse states this (he's an atheist and an evolution btw). Only a man like Dawkins would suggest this. Evolution simply does not enjoy the status scientifically that gravity does. I'm sure you can accept this as MOST of evolutionary scholars and scientists do as well.
  12. Joined
    18 Apr '15
    Moves
    778
    14 Jun '15 22:36
    Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
    Would it be fair to say that atheism is an intellectual stance and religion an emotional one?
    No, not fair at all.

    Faith has it's reasons-it is not blind credulity. To suggest it is is to insult anyone of intelligence who has faith in religion (such as me). You would be suggesting that my emotions have overridden my better judgement, and if they hadn't I'd be an Atheist.

    First, I find that grossly arrogant for someone to really hold. How can you really know my reasons or experiences?

    Second, Atheism looks like a religion, smells like a religion, and feels like a religion, but it likes to not be called a religion. Call it what you like, but it has all the characteristics.

    It is a religion of disbelief in God. I'm just stating this quickly. I can develop this much more if you like.
  13. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    14 Jun '15 23:322 edits
    Originally posted by AppleChess
    No, not fair at all.

    Faith has it's reasons-it is not blind credulity. To suggest it is is to insult anyone of intelligence who has faith in religion (such as me). You would be suggesting that my emotions have overridden my better judgement, and if they hadn't I'd be an Atheist.

    First, I find that grossly arrogant for someone to really hold. How c ...[text shortened]... on of disbelief in God. I'm just stating this quickly. I can develop this much more if you like.
    Having been both a Christian and an atheist, my personal appreciation is that atheism does not smell, look, or feel like a religion. Far from being ignorant about religion, I have endured being deeply involved in it and suffered the horrible process of seizing control of my own mind away from its stifling influence. If you are unable to achieve autonomy that is a pity but it is understandable. Religion is tied up in social, cultural, family and ideological networks that are hard to disentangle. For my part, it helped to escape to another country and start afresh. Reading about Britain's youngest suicide bomber tonight is a sad reminder of how idealistic young minds can be entrapped and poisoned by their religious identity. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-33126132 Clearly his faith was pivotal to him in the way that Catholic or Protestant faith is pivotal to the people of Northern Ireland, leaving little scope for social progress. For an Ulster Catholic or Protestant to abandon their religious identity - or for a British Muslim - would be a social and political statement far beyond the boundaries of their private spiritual feelings. Still you may agree it is a curious notion of religion that entails bombing each other.

    Disbelief in God probably is pretty much a definition of an atheist but - for example - I would doubt that belief in God is a critical definition of religion or faith, since few people if any at all arrive at a religious faith by a process of rationally formed beliefs. Most people are poorly informed about the beliefs asserted by their chosen faith. Most Catholics, for example, hold many beliefs that are directly contradictory to those put forward by their church. In the same way, most atheists are probably unable to defend their position on this matter in detail and would typically have no desire whatever to argue the toss - they just wish religious people would stop making absurd assertions about what atheists believe and stop trying to impose their bizarre religious rules on everyone else.
  14. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45756
    15 Jun '15 00:15
    Originally posted by AppleChess
    I'm trying to get you guys to quit playing that game and start asking and answer hard questions about life which you must answer to live. Where did I come from?
    Yes - where did you come from? I get the feeling you have been here before.

    I wish you could have an enjoyable dialogue. When you throw mud, all you do is lose ground. I will not respond to you again it the forums as I do not consider you an honest seeker or willing to participate in an honest discussion.

    If you can't see that ideas have consequences that's your issue. Not mine. Atheism is no more than a denial of a god/gods. It has no consequences and that was my point which you seem to miss (oddly).
  15. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    15 Jun '15 00:251 edit
    With regard to meaning: the word “meaning” can have multiple meanings (signifieds), just like most word-signs. In this context, I suspect the question is one of significance or value—i.e., whether this existence needs some exogenous element to have value, or whether it has value in itself. Assertions that some exogenous element is so needed have always struck me as being fundamentally (and assumptively?) nihilistic with regard to this existence—which I might call “my life”—that is, that this life can have no value in itself.

    With regard to morality: the only moral theory that is foreclosed to a non-theist is divine command theory. A non-theist might well be a Kantian deontologist, or an Aristotelian value ethicist, for example—or hold to some other moral understanding. And, although the Abrahamic religions might require a divine command morality, other theistic views have not.

    [And, within the divine command rubric, the question remains as to whether a god’s commands are a priori moral—because they are the god’s commands—or whether that god is moral precisely because his/her commands are moral, which leaves the divine command theorist in the same need of a moral theory (to apply to god) as the non-theist.]

    With regard to destiny: I’m not sure that I understand the question (or the assertion). “Destiny”, to me, smacks of fatalism/determinism. However, I suspect that the context has to do with whether or not this existence has a final terminus or not—and, if not, whether our beliefs and/or behavior in this existence carry long-lasting (perhaps even eternally long-lasting) consequences for the next existence. I think that this existence does have a final terminus (death). I might be wrong. But whether or not that “being wrong” carries severe and long-lasting consequences is not something that I can do anything about—I think what I think at least honestly, whether I think well or badly. That honesty is part of my ethics (morality).
Back to Top