RE: Meliorism - The rise of neo-atheism and the fall of reason
April 17, 2013 at 6:15 pm
(This post was last modified: April 17, 2013 at 6:24 pm by ManMachine.)
(April 17, 2013 at 4:36 pm)cato123 Wrote:(April 17, 2013 at 4:27 pm)ManMachine Wrote: I am an atheist. I recognise a Christian influence on new atheist thinking. This post is about identifying that influence and challenging the idea that science and technology leads to human progress. See my replies above.
MM
I have read your replies. You appear to be arguing with yourself because of your desire to shove the idea of a universal final cause into your definition of progress, to only then deny the existence of progress because of the inclusion of the idea of a final cause.
Pure sophistry demonstrated by the fact that you vehemently deny that the human species has progressed since the time of the Visigoths.
Your accusation of sophistry is disingenuous.
What I said is the most we can say is that things have changed. While I know well enough about my own time I do not have enough information about being a Visigoth to make any kind of call on that, neither do you.
Without reference to some agent's action and to a definite goal the notion of human progress is empty and void of any meaning. There is unquestioningly a teleological thought atructure behind this, how else do you justify the notion of human progress if there is no final cause in nature, I'm guessing you do not invoke a god as agent, perhaps the man in the moon?
MM
(April 17, 2013 at 5:49 pm)frz Wrote:(April 11, 2013 at 2:51 pm)cato123 Wrote: I have to accept his claim without further evidence, but I have serious doubts that MM is atheist.
I agree.
So, to justify the dissonance you are experiencing you simply reject my assertion I am an atheist. That would be funny if it wasn't so unbelieveably ignorant.
You lot are worse than Christians.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
