Topic: What do atheists really know anyway?
+Anonymous A — 13.4 years ago #20,856
David Hume would say nothing.
Actually, I'm not an atheist, or for that matter a fundamentalist Christian. But atheist lines of reasoning are amusing, because if pressed, writers like A.C. Grayling admit they're not totally sure, they're just practically certain because the God hypothesis cannot be empirically validated (at least with our current technology and scientific methods...then again, electrons, protons, neutrons, and quarks almost certainly existed in the 13th century, but it would be inconcievable, and impossible to accept for the people of that time) . Even Richard Dawkins caved and said that a reasonably respectable case for a deist God, could be made, although he would never accept it (and that a theist God is out of the question). He probably thought he'd just throw Creationists a bone with that one, but he's not wrong. A case could be made, though it couldn't be proven (like a great deal of quantum physics, at the moment).
I consider myself spiritual, but I believe atheists have the right to espouse their beliefs. I have no interest in infringing on their precious rights to self-expression through the legislation of morality, because it denies people the possibility of self-actualization, among other things. However, I think its intellectually dishonest to declare with absolute certainty that there does not exist, for instance, a plane of existence beyond what modern medicine declares physical death.
People are continually having to rework their perceptions of the world as the data arrives, resulting in multiple paradigm shifts throughout history. This new fashionable breed of "enlightened" atheism is understandable, because traditionally Judeo-Christian religions has been a source of bloody conflict, Crusades, Inquisitions, and many, many forms of human suffering, which primarily stem from serving as a tool of the politically devious. There are, in fact, actually many concepts that the religious and non-religious alike could take away from "humanism" and "human-centered" living, and apply to their daily lives profittably. But that doesn't mean atheism is the answer humanity has been waiting for all along.
For whatever reason religion survives, and has been with us for some time. It seeds appear in the burial rites of early man, it flourished in various parts of the world, at various times, rising and falling, and reappearing in radical new forms. The old gods, Jupiter, and Mars, crumbled, were swept away by the tide of history, but they were replaced with a new conception of the Divine (including, but not limited to the Judeo-Christian God who now occupies the center spot of dartboards in so many liberal offices)It has had multiple opportunities to die off completely. It has survived the horrors of the Great Plague of the Middle Ages, Papal corruption (such as that exemplified by the Borgias), the Enlightenment, philosophers like Nietzche, in the face of the atomic devastation ushered thanks to places like Los Alamos (which prompeted Oppenheimer to equate himself with a god), the recurring molestation scandals of the Catholic church, and even the rise of atheist heads of state such as Mao and Stallin. God reinvents himself to suit the ages, through various schisms, and he is welcomed by a new set of believers each time (and just to clarify, no I don't believe anything in the Bible, to a large extent, is LITERALLY true....).
The current tendancy to dismiss God, or religion in general, lies in a temporal smugness, and also in the solemn belief that our current generation is also the first, the last, and the best, and that we possess or on the verge of possessing all the answers to the great riddles of nature and existence. Assuming humanity hasn't already died off before the universe is expected to contract many, many billions of years from now, we're probably just another link in a very long chain, and future generations will laugh their asses off at us poor benighted souls (and not just because of the prevalence of Judeo-Christian belief-other, more complex, more compassionate variants or entirely new belief systems may exist by then- but also because of the schools of thought and disciplines of science now extant and yet to be discredited). I find the idea that Dawkins or Hitchens, alone, or together could ever be responsible for the death of God (or even, hell, belief in re-incarnation, Pagan religions, the Force etc.) given everything that's occured, to be risible (though they would probably view it as a tragedy, a failure of humanity).
In short, I'm saying that I have a belief system, I acknnowledge that there are elements of humanism which would benefit mankind, and I refuse to actively infringe on the rights of atheists, but just being practically certain something doesn't exist is no reason to assume it doesn't (although the burden of proof would be on the believer). Its is one thing to dismiss dogma, and to identify its negative effects on society, and quite another thing to declare with total certainty that because a Christian or Pagan god is unlikely to exist, it must naturally mean that NOTHING is there- this presumes heights of knowledge as yet not scaled in the realm of science, which like the concept of God, is ever re-inventing itself.
I think atheism is more trendy than being, say, agnostic, because atheism is confident, vigrous, and authortative("There is NO God. Period"), whereas agnosticism is viewed as sort of waffling, perhaps even being equated with a juvenile state of mind ("Ehhhh...who knows?")...but I think agnosticism would be a more intellectually honest attitude for non-believers.
To the extent that atheism should be actively allowed to suppress what appears to be some sort of reoccuring, and varied general human tendancy toward belief, it should be squarely in the sphere of public policy, which should be free of religious bias.
Actually, I'm not an atheist, or for that matter a fundamentalist Christian. But atheist lines of reasoning are amusing, because if pressed, writers like A.C. Grayling admit they're not totally sure, they're just practically certain because the God hypothesis cannot be empirically validated (at least with our current technology and scientific methods...then again, electrons, protons, neutrons, and quarks almost certainly existed in the 13th century, but it would be inconcievable, and impossible to accept for the people of that time) . Even Richard Dawkins caved and said that a reasonably respectable case for a deist God, could be made, although he would never accept it (and that a theist God is out of the question). He probably thought he'd just throw Creationists a bone with that one, but he's not wrong. A case could be made, though it couldn't be proven (like a great deal of quantum physics, at the moment).
I consider myself spiritual, but I believe atheists have the right to espouse their beliefs. I have no interest in infringing on their precious rights to self-expression through the legislation of morality, because it denies people the possibility of self-actualization, among other things. However, I think its intellectually dishonest to declare with absolute certainty that there does not exist, for instance, a plane of existence beyond what modern medicine declares physical death.
People are continually having to rework their perceptions of the world as the data arrives, resulting in multiple paradigm shifts throughout history. This new fashionable breed of "enlightened" atheism is understandable, because traditionally Judeo-Christian religions has been a source of bloody conflict, Crusades, Inquisitions, and many, many forms of human suffering, which primarily stem from serving as a tool of the politically devious. There are, in fact, actually many concepts that the religious and non-religious alike could take away from "humanism" and "human-centered" living, and apply to their daily lives profittably. But that doesn't mean atheism is the answer humanity has been waiting for all along.
For whatever reason religion survives, and has been with us for some time. It seeds appear in the burial rites of early man, it flourished in various parts of the world, at various times, rising and falling, and reappearing in radical new forms. The old gods, Jupiter, and Mars, crumbled, were swept away by the tide of history, but they were replaced with a new conception of the Divine (including, but not limited to the Judeo-Christian God who now occupies the center spot of dartboards in so many liberal offices)It has had multiple opportunities to die off completely. It has survived the horrors of the Great Plague of the Middle Ages, Papal corruption (such as that exemplified by the Borgias), the Enlightenment, philosophers like Nietzche, in the face of the atomic devastation ushered thanks to places like Los Alamos (which prompeted Oppenheimer to equate himself with a god), the recurring molestation scandals of the Catholic church, and even the rise of atheist heads of state such as Mao and Stallin. God reinvents himself to suit the ages, through various schisms, and he is welcomed by a new set of believers each time (and just to clarify, no I don't believe anything in the Bible, to a large extent, is LITERALLY true....).
The current tendancy to dismiss God, or religion in general, lies in a temporal smugness, and also in the solemn belief that our current generation is also the first, the last, and the best, and that we possess or on the verge of possessing all the answers to the great riddles of nature and existence. Assuming humanity hasn't already died off before the universe is expected to contract many, many billions of years from now, we're probably just another link in a very long chain, and future generations will laugh their asses off at us poor benighted souls (and not just because of the prevalence of Judeo-Christian belief-other, more complex, more compassionate variants or entirely new belief systems may exist by then- but also because of the schools of thought and disciplines of science now extant and yet to be discredited). I find the idea that Dawkins or Hitchens, alone, or together could ever be responsible for the death of God (or even, hell, belief in re-incarnation, Pagan religions, the Force etc.) given everything that's occured, to be risible (though they would probably view it as a tragedy, a failure of humanity).
In short, I'm saying that I have a belief system, I acknnowledge that there are elements of humanism which would benefit mankind, and I refuse to actively infringe on the rights of atheists, but just being practically certain something doesn't exist is no reason to assume it doesn't (although the burden of proof would be on the believer). Its is one thing to dismiss dogma, and to identify its negative effects on society, and quite another thing to declare with total certainty that because a Christian or Pagan god is unlikely to exist, it must naturally mean that NOTHING is there- this presumes heights of knowledge as yet not scaled in the realm of science, which like the concept of God, is ever re-inventing itself.
I think atheism is more trendy than being, say, agnostic, because atheism is confident, vigrous, and authortative("There is NO God. Period"), whereas agnosticism is viewed as sort of waffling, perhaps even being equated with a juvenile state of mind ("Ehhhh...who knows?")...but I think agnosticism would be a more intellectually honest attitude for non-believers.
To the extent that atheism should be actively allowed to suppress what appears to be some sort of reoccuring, and varied general human tendancy toward belief, it should be squarely in the sphere of public policy, which should be free of religious bias.
+White — 13.4 years ago, 4 minutes later[T] [B] #252,382
TL;DR
No one knows anything for sure, God is a never-ending, undebatable paradox, religion was created by man, and even modern science is becoming outdated, because it no longer follows the basic principles of science and incorrectly adopts/accepts certain other paradoxical principles as fact or fake.
No one knows anything for sure, God is a never-ending, undebatable paradox, religion was created by man, and even modern science is becoming outdated, because it no longer follows the basic principles of science and incorrectly adopts/accepts certain other paradoxical principles as fact or fake.
+Anonymous C — 13.4 years ago, 15 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #252,397
Nice copy pasta faggot.
+Anonymous D — 13.4 years ago, 4 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #252,408
@OPNice AnT copypasta.
̖͍̮̭̞C̲̠̬i͖͙̰a̠̠o̥͇̣̜, ͚̪̞͉T̙͎̤͉ḫ̰̳̪̘͖e̯̱̜̲̲ ͇̠̦M̩͔͈̜̹a̟̘̹̱s̭͚̼k̜͕̝͉͕ed̫ ͍͇̬̥B̖̬̖ast͕̻͖̤̭͎̰a͍̳͕͉͈̹r̺͔d̠̬̤.
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.