Posts: 155
Threads: 1
Joined: June 9, 2015
Reputation:
7
RE: *trigger warning* What if atheism's not all it seems?
December 27, 2017 at 3:02 am
(This post was last modified: December 27, 2017 at 3:33 am by surreptitious57.)
I am an apatheist and so it makes no difference to me whether or not God actually exists. Because either way it is not something that I have any control over. I am
atheist rather than agnostic though because there is precisely zero evidence for God and evidence is the basis upon which I decide whether or not something exists
PhilosophicalZebra Wrote:I want to make one more point : if you are to fully embrace the cold harshness of rationalism and scientific reasoning as a guide
for your philosophical views you must see that in doing this you also accept that in nature there are no concepts of good or bad
Rationalism and reasoning are not cold and harsh but methods of explanation. Mathematics and physics and chemistry and biology are not cold and harsh either but subjects that enhance
our knowledge and understanding. Applying emotional language to evidence and proof based disciplines is committing a category error. Good and bad do exist but they have nothing to do
with these subjects. Me being interested in mathematics and physics does not mean that I cannot also be a good person. Knowledge acquisition and moral being are not mutually exclusive
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
Posts: 3638
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: *trigger warning* What if atheism's not all it seems?
December 27, 2017 at 1:39 pm
(December 27, 2017 at 3:02 am)surreptitious57 Wrote: I am atheist rather than agnostic though because there is precisely zero evidence for God and evidence is the basis upon which I decide whether or not something exists
Not trying to beat a dead horse, but...
Agnosticism and atheism are NOT mutually exclusive positions. They are not 'one or the other' labels.
Atheism describes what one believes, or more specifically, does not believe.
Agnosticism describes what one claims to know, or is knowable.
In other words, it is possible to disbelieve in the existence of gods, but still not take the position that it is unknown (and possibly unknowable) whether gods exists. Most atheists (I believe) take this position. This is described as "agnostic atheism", which is perfectly valid. As is "agnostic theism".
Carry on...
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 5436
Threads: 138
Joined: September 6, 2012
Reputation:
58
RE: *trigger warning* What if atheism's not all it seems?
December 27, 2017 at 1:54 pm
(This post was last modified: December 27, 2017 at 1:58 pm by CapnAwesome.)
Totally silly. The central tenents of organized religion is a clergy that sucks off the masses like a parasitic tick, and belief is the supernatural and a set of stupid rules you have to follow. It always has a set of beliefs. 100% of the time.
Dawkins is a biologist who gets paid by Oxford and writes books. Nobody says he speaks for a higher power nor claims him to be infallible. I've never read any of his books myself.
What a load of nonsense. You are just taking a few characteristics of internet atheists and linking them with fragility to a few characteristics of organized religion. Look at all the temples in Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, and Hinduism. They all have them. A place that people go. Atheism? Not so much. I could go on and on about the difference that occur 100% of the time. But if you haven't realized that on your own, I can't really imagine it being a productive conversation.
Mostly this argument is just used to troll Atheists by people who actually feel organized religion is a good thing. So how could they use it as an attack?
Don't be silly.