Emotional resilience and Philistinery

[houseofcantor]

Hmmmn... a philosopher who gets uptight about those who lack a philosophy. I get the same way with people who lack math.

But why are you considering atheism a philosophy?

[Get me Rex Kramer!]

Violet - Video number 9 was the best I think. Thanks for taking the time.

cantor - good point and exactly counter to what I've been saying. If atheism is a simple fact (Pedro 1. happens to be born in spain 2. he has a sister 3. he doesn't happen to believe in a God), then it isn't a philosophy, or a doctrine, or perhaps even a choice. It's just a description.

However anything that you are isn't a description, but something real and meaningful. An atheist therefore could be meaningfully so without having any consequences for them personally within their lifetime. For those of us who may affect believers (or even influence the development of other people's atheism) it is certainly at the very least a point of contention and sometimes is driven by a real interest in the truth. Atheism has at least the personal consequence of having not accepting something socially acceptable, socially enabling and in many places enforceable. Atheism is a philosophy because it has philosophical antecedence and consequences that are very important both for us and for others. The reason we use a description, after all, is to describe something worth talking about.

There is also the internal method for deciding that atheism is a philosophy - the fact that its principles aren't established through math, or anything else, but in and through philosophy.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Where's the philosophy in lacking a belief in a deity or deities?

Oh shit I gave a serious response :|

Remember, it's not hard to graduate from clown college. I hear they're even giving PhD's out nowadays.

That's a lie, sir! I am PROUD to be a Jester, sir! I am PROUD of my PhD in clownin around! I HUNG IT ON THE WALL, SIR! I FRAMED IT, SIR!

Please, madam, please, accept my sincerest apologies. Those dedicated to the art of clowning around should be supported and their qualifications recognised.

[Mister Agenda]

I appreciate you love your family! I'm just pretty disgusted at the 'so what' atheism that people hold in the main, and I think that came across. Interesting that the first replies fit the stereotype I was painting quite perfectly!

Yah, it's the fate of cynical assholes to go through life having their stereotypes confirmed.

[houseofcantor]

The reason we use a description, after all, is to describe something worth talking about.

Or not. Like somebody coming up to me to talk about Jesus or something, and I go, "Imma atheist," they usually stop talking.

I can see your point, but trying to make it here is kinda pointless.

[là bạn điên]

Violet - Video number 9 was the best I think. Thanks for taking the time.

cantor - good point and exactly counter to what I've been saying. If atheism is a simple fact (Pedro 1. happens to be born in spain 2. he has a sister 3. he doesn't happen to believe in a God), then it isn't a philosophy, or a doctrine, or perhaps even a choice. It's just a description.

However anything that you are isn't a description, but something real and meaningful. An atheist therefore could be meaningfully so without having any consequences for them personally within their lifetime. For those of us who may affect believers (or even influence the development of other people's atheism) it is certainly at the very least a point of contention and sometimes is driven by a real interest in the truth. Atheism has at least the personal consequence of having not accepting something socially acceptable, socially enabling and in many places enforceable. Atheism is a philosophy because it has philosophical antecedence and consequences that are very important both for us and for others. The reason we use a description, after all, is to describe something worth talking about.

There is also the internal method for deciding that atheism is a philosophy - the fact that its principles aren't established through math, or anything else, but in and through philosophy.

People who study philosophy never refer to 'a philosophy'. Your post is just babble and bears no relationship whatsover to anything in Any Philosophy department.


Atheist is just a description of someone who does not believe in god. That's it. It is not an ethical system or praxis. Atheism has no principals other than not beleiving in God.

[Simon Moon]

Atheism has at least the personal consequence of having not accepting something socially acceptable, socially enabling and in many places enforceable.

80% of the population of Sweden, almost 80% of the population of Denmark, 70% of Norway, 60% of Finland, 54% of France are atheists.

What, exactly, is the 'socially acceptable' thing are they not accepting?

Seems not having any beliefs in gods is perfectly socially acceptable to them.

Being a tad ethnocentric possibly?

Atheism is a philosophy because it has philosophical antecedence and consequences that are very important both for us and for others. The reason we use a description, after all, is to describe something worth talking about.

Atheism can be part of someones philosophy (objectivism, humanism) , but on it's own, it is not a philosophy.

Calling atheism a philosophy is no different than calling the disbelief in bigfoot a philosophy.

There is also the internal method for deciding that atheism is a philosophy - the fact that its principles aren't established through math, or anything else, but in and through philosophy.

My atheism is based on the theist's assertion that gods exist not having met its burden of proof. If you want to call that a philosophy, sure.....

[Mr Greene]

For someone who makes some sort of special claim regarding emotions that was almost as ham-fisted as I've seen in nearly 15 years of internet debates...

You claim qualifications in philosophy and mention Kant, though what you write seems rather more reminiscent of the followers of Ayn Rand.

As for the concept of a universe with meaning; meaning is something you find for yourself, not something intrinsic to the universe.
There then follows some vague idea about the universe not being scary, reality is scary, we simply happen to be an adaptable predator and at least as scary as the other species at the top of the food chain. Of course you might not have noticed that if you spent most of your time sitting on your arse.

If you want an idea of just how scary we are as a species, think of the scariest thing you can and ask yourself - "What would Genghis do?"

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I read the OP twice. I thought about it for a bit. Here's my judgment:

If one was actively trying to write a handbook justifying the persecution of people with a differing viewpoint on religion, this OP would be a world-beater of a beginning. In just a few short paragraphs, the poster has slyly intimated that non-theists are inherently inferior - we are brutish, backward, not socially engaged, incoherent, resorters to force, insensate, uncaring, inhuman (as well as inhumane) and so on.

From such pronouncements are pogroms made.

Boru

[pocaracas]

I haven't read most of the thread, so I'll look into the OP.
You were going well into a very nice point about how the lack of faith in an almighty and just god can lead to a depression laden society...
But just before you could make that one nice point, you messed it up and started calling names... what a waste...
Still, had you made that point, all we had to do was show you northern European countries, where the vast majority dies not believe in any god, they live in a place where the Sun shines very little for half the year, and still... manage to have a positive outlook, love each other, have kids, do sports, the arts, etc...

So... kindly sod off with your name calling of all atheists.
Your speech is reminiscent of klu-klux-klan speeches...