Is atheism a philosophical dead-end?

[trotsky]

That sentiment has popped up from time to time, and I couldn't disagree more.

To me, atheism is the gateway to complete freedom of philosophy. Instead of being confined or limited by god-stuff, humans become free to explore and think and reason for themselves. You don't have to start out in this tiny box that says "Goddidit."

For a mind that wants to explore, what's more exciting and enticing than heading off into the wilderness, where everything's waiting to be discovered rather than laid down into nice neat paths for you?

[MsUnderstood]

1. You need to read this book

The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (Paperback)

It is a PHD in Philosopy arguing why moderate religious interpretation is RUINING THE WORLD.

And then explains why we need to abandon religion for a more enlightened view of the world.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393327655/sr=8-1/qid=1142874750/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4426136-5866522?%5Fencoding=UTF8

[trotsky]

4. Sam Harris has kicked off lots of heated discussions on here.

Haven't read his book yet, but have really appreciated his stuff online.

[radio4progressives]

9. You beat me to it!..

I was just going to post this..

I've posted excerpts here in the past... I haven't read the book yet, but excerpts from several chapters are posted on the website.. I was turned on to him, when i caught him on C-Span a couple of months or so ago..

amazing..

[NMMNG]

26. I just bought that last Thursday

I saw it in Borders and knew it was a must-read.

[Warpy]

2. "God did it" is the true intellectual dead end because that statement

stops all inquiry. Once you inject god as a cause, you not only answer all questions, you make questioning into blasphemy.

The Inquisition was largely about those who dared to question, to point out contradictions in holy writ, to suggest that the authority of the past and its god wasn't sacrosanct and inviolable.

"God did it" is the kiss of death for reasoning, for inquiry, for experimentation, and for science, itself.

[radio4progressives]

3. There is No God (And You Know It) by Sam Harris blog

There is No God (And You Know It)

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion human beings.


The same statistics also suggest that this girl’s parents believe -- at this very moment -- that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?

No.

The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.

cont..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/there-is-no-god-and-you-_b_8459.html

[flamin lib]

14. The only thing I can possibly know is

That I can't possibly know.

Having come to that conclusion I formed my own cosmic construct that makes me comfortable with what I know about the universe.

Whatever someone else believes is OK with me as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

That said, if your particular construct:
Allows you to launch missiles into your neighbor's country,
discriminate based on real or imaginary differences,
blow up women's clinics or the FBI building in OKC,
strap bombs on your own body or that of your children,
or any variance of the above perhaps you should re-evaluate your cosmic construct for flaws.

The real problem comes when you think you really do know . . .

Oops, thought I was replying to the OP--sorry.

[trotsky]

15. "as long as it doesn't harm anyone"

That's the sticky part.

When someone's particular worldview also carries with it a special definition of "harm," what can we do? For many fundies, the thought that someone will die without accepting the fundie worldview means they will be subject to the most extreme harm, for eternity. When faced with that prospect, wouldn't you do anything possible to save people from that harm, even if it means inflicting (what you figure to be) short-term physical or societal harm?

[flamin lib]

16. Like I said,

The real problem comes when you think you really do know.

[trotsky]

17. But even if you don't know for sure,

wouldn't you want to be on the safe side? Pascal's Wager is based on this. Better to believe and be wrong than not believe and burn forever.

[flamin lib]

18. That's based on the belief that one particular cosmic view is

valid. What if Buddhism is right, or Judaism? Or Islam or any of the others who believe they have a lock on absolute truth?

This reminds me of the character in the movie The Mummy--the smarmy guide who, when faced with the angry re-animated mummy drags a cross out and says a prayer. Didn't work do he dragged a crescent out and speaks an arab dialect. Didn't work so he dragged out a star of david and spoke hebrew. The mummy says, "The language of the slaves, I can use you."

The argument is that there is no harm in believing a false religion if there is no "truth". Bull shit. If you live the only life you have based on something you don't believe in your heart to be true you would get kicked out of any heaven there might be and if there really isn't a "truth" you've squandered your only life.

Believers see it as a "win/win" and those who don't see it as a "lose/lose".

[Zebedeo]

34. A conceit

Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious.

This is a profoundly fundamentalist statement, which could be made by a believer of any stripe, or anyone else asserting his own correctness.

Naturally, everyone holding any belief or viewpoint thinks that that belief or viewpoint is correct; otherwise they would not believe it (or hold it as their point of view).

What this author does is to go beyond saying that he is correct. He asserts that his opinions are not even opinions -- that they are just the truth. Well, anyone could say that about their opinions or beliefs.

What Mr. Harris reveals is a profound inability to see things from the perspective of someone who has a different point of view.

[Stanchetalarooni]

5. Riddle me this?

How does an athiest get to heaven?
Huh?
Huh?
Huh?

[trotsky]

10. Prove that heaven exists, and I'll try to answer. n/t

[HereSince1628]

11. Get off at 56th and Broadway. Look for the Ed Sullivan theater

Heaven, is in the take out deli just around the corner.

[flamin lib]

12. Imagine . . .

John Lennon

[varkam]

22. Um...

Well if we really do live in a world of J-C philosophy...then an atheist doesn't get to heaven.

[NMMNG]

27. The same way a person gets to Shangri-la

:shrug:

[HereSince1628]

6. But it does sort of put a limit on arguing details of pantheistic roles

in the control of the universe.

More or less pushing the issue of divine beings into matters for consideration by the vulgate and unwashed mentors of popular culture and relativistic cultural expression.

[trotsky]

8. Gosh, can't have that, can we?

;-)

[HereSince1628]

13. Man! That is downright Anti-republican

:rofl:

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. Look up "Freethought" n/t

[More Than A Feeling]

19. What if some of the answers are the same?

After all, if religion said nothing about the human psyche, had nothing that resonated with the human experience, if you will, there's no way it would have been as successful.

[trotsky]

20. It filled the gaps in human knowledge.

Plain and simple, that's how religion got started. As our brains evolved the capability to analyze systems for patterns, we began to understand the principle of cause and effect. Those effects whose causes were not readily apparent were arbitrarily assigned a cause. Voila - primitive religion.

The reason why religion resonates with the human experience is that humans created it when they were a very ignorant species. Things happened, and we didn't always know why. It filled in the gaps, and clearly continues to do so for a good number of people.

[papau]

21. "continues to do so for a good number of people"- just the ignorant folks

:toast:

[salvorhardin]

23. trotsky didn't say that

And I don't think he even implied it. Please don't put words into our mouths.

[papau]

24. ????

"The reason why RELIGION RESONATES with the human experience is that HUMANS CREATED IT WHEN they were a VERY IGNORANT species. Things happened, and we didn't always know why. It filled in the gaps, and clearly continues to do so for a good number of people."

[beam me up scottie]

25. You think humans weren't ignorant then?

Ignorant doesn't mean stupid, papau.

[papau]

28. As to religion I believe only those that deny their own experience so as

to be good atheists are showing that they are ignorant. Those that deny other's experiences just have a bit too much hubris.

And indeed you are correct, Ignorant doesn't mean stupid. It simply means lacking education or knowledge.

Neither of us are using the word all that correctly. But I think we both understand the tone implied. Those with more knowledge, more education, become atheists - right?

[beam me up scottie]

29. No, as usual, you are attacking other posters based on a motive

that is only obvious to you.

If you cannot get past your hate, why even bother coming in here?

You have gone past rabidly defending your fragile faith from the evil atheists and are now disrupting reasonable dialog.

You did the same thing in my thread, which was a sincere attempt to apologize for a previous lapse in judgment, and yet you couldn't help yourself, you felt compelled to post the same old passive aggressive bullshit we see here.


Again papau, why?


It can't be healthy or enjoyable for you, and I for one am sick of having to wade through your self righteous indignation at imaginary slights in order to read the posts from honest people.

[salvorhardin]

30. Just put him on ignore

It's obvious he thrives on the conflict.

[beam me up scottie]

31. I've never done that.

Does the blah blah blah smilie appear instead of the monotonous drivel?

[salvorhardin]

32. Heh. It should.

Maybe we should make that a request to the admins. But what does happen is in the thread display you just see "Ignored" and in the message display you just see everyone that you don't have on ignore. It's like making a poster not exist, which is probably the wisest course in this situation. It saves your sanity anyway.

[beam me up scottie]

33. I'm beginning to see that it's the only answer.

Given the amount of propaganda, spam and info dumps one has to wade through in some forums, this would save both sanity and time.

[papau]

35. Projecting motives on others - hate - ?? imaginary slights are those

wordings that insult the religious but are considered obvious truth to the atheist. And no, I do not think atheists are evil - but I do believe some folks do not realize that their postings are - to the religious - very real "slights" as you call it.

Scottie - I am not trying to convert you or any one else. I certainly do not hate you or anyone else for that matter.

Fell free to think that my faith is fragile, if that helps to float your boat.

Indeed interpret my non-agreement with the obvious truths you see as "passive aggressive bullshit".

Have a good night.

normally I'd add a smile here - but you indicated that was "phony" and passive aggressive - and I am already so badly thought of by you - so no smile - just

Have a good night.