Atheism 2.0
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-01-2012, 11:53 AM
Atheism 2.0
If you listen to the Philosophy Bites podcast I suggest you check it out, it's not long, it's simple and it's updated regularly.

http://bit.ly/vZdHaG

What are your takes on this vision of Atheism?

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

--Stephen Jay Gould
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like scientician's post
17-01-2012, 07:14 AM
RE: Atheism 2.0
Atheism by itself has no vision. It's the people that have the vision. Your and my thought processes are vastly different even though we are both under the title of atheist.

NEW AND IMPROVED!
Twice the anger, Half the space!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Hamata k's post
19-01-2012, 07:47 PM
RE: Atheism 2.0
(16-01-2012 11:53 AM)scientician Wrote:  If you listen to the Philosophy Bites podcast I suggest you check it out, it's not long, it's simple and it's updated regularly.

http://bit.ly/vZdHaG

What are your takes on this vision of Atheism?

Very interesting proposition. The repetition of feeding someone bull shit on a consistent basis will eventually make them begin to like the taste. This is why the religious have prayers, chants, weekly meetings, etc., and focus on the young.

Hitchens addressed this briefly in one of his debates when he stated that atheists did not hold "church" to reinforce the fact that they don't believe. We don't need the reinforcement of other non-believers' non-belief to support our non-belief.

Atheists have been offensive to the religious because using logic and reason doesn't work. Ridicule seems to at least get their attention.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2012, 06:14 AM
RE: Atheism 2.0
I was about to post this video! Watched it this morning, TED is such an excellent resource.

I found it really interesting, especially the bits on sermons & art, and also the view that (essentially in Europe) we have secularized badly...I agree with De Botton that there are holes in our secular society and we are currently filling those holes with the wrong things.

One of the challenges is that those of us in Europe are further down the road to a secular society than other parts of the world...e.g America/Middle East & the BRIC countries. It's impossible to have a global debate within de Botton's framework because the rest of the world simply isn't ready yet. It's also naive to assume that 100% of theists would be willing to share their toys. You only need to read the comments under the youtube version of the video to realize that sadly, is not the case.

I also liked his views on politeness...something that is woefully overlooked by both sides of the debate. I politely ignore the theist beliefs of my family and instead focus on the 99% of the spectrum of life that we do agree on.

Refreshing video - thanks for sharing.

"Christianity is like a diet where you eat lots of chocolate cake all week, and then on Sunday you mentally scold yourself and "try again" only to repeat the cycle." - Buddy Christ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Shannow's post
24-01-2012, 01:15 AM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2012 01:18 AM by Logisch.)
RE: Atheism 2.0
I have mixed feelings about the talk.

I think there are points I can agree with and others I kind of feel so-so on. I will agree that I do know some atheists who are outright negative towards some people who don't agree with them. For instance, I have a coworker who ANY TIME he hears someone mention anything about god or religion will outright get pissed off and be condescending and/or rude to anyone who mentions anything of the sort.

Any time I see that I always thought... "How is this guy going to convince anyone anything about the truth if he's just an asshole to everyone?" - I don't have to RESPECT their religion. I don't have to AGREE with their religion. However, man to man.. I always feel the need to RESPECTFULLY disagree with them. If they tend to be open minded enough to hear a counter to their argument, or perhaps a point or an intelligent discussion... well... you do after all catch more flies with honey than vinegar, do you not?

After all, intelligent debate suggests intelligence and debate. It stops being intelligent once we begin name calling and cause someone to shut us off from listening. Although I won't lie, I am more aggressive about it online since it is a lot easier to be so with others on this forum since many of us think similar.

I do like shannow's point...
shannow Wrote:I also liked his views on politeness...something that is woefully overlooked by both sides of the debate. I politely ignore the theist beliefs of my family and instead focus on the 99% of the spectrum of life that we do agree on.

It's far easier to concentrate on the things we can agree on and get along with life than to spend our time constantly disagreeing. If they wish to discuss it with me, so be it. If not, that's fine with me too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logisch's post
24-01-2012, 12:42 PM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2012 12:53 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Atheism 2.0
(19-01-2012 07:47 PM)Thomas Wrote:  Hitchens addressed this briefly in one of his debates when he stated that atheists did not hold "church" to reinforce the fact that they don't believe. We don't need the reinforcement of other non-believers' non-belief to support our non-belief.
So, why do atheists have weekly meetings in NYC, and monthly meetings in less populated areas; and daily discourse on Internet forums - shits and giggles about how stupid theists are???

. . . And, you and sHitchens don't believe it is to reinforce one's individual security with community???

(19-01-2012 07:47 PM)Thomas Wrote:  Atheists have been offensive to the religious because using logic and reason doesn't work. Ridicule seems to at least get their attention.
That does not seem to jive very well with this guy's response.


(17-01-2012 07:14 AM)Hamata k Wrote:  Atheism by itself has no vision. It's the people that have the vision. Your and my thought processes are vastly different even though we are both under the title of atheist.
How then, can atheists agree on anything???

Thought processes must have something to do with logic and reason, in fact, reason is the thought process - isn't it?

And logic is the confirmation of the validity of the reasoning - isn't it?

. . . are you following along?

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2012, 02:12 PM
RE: Atheism 2.0
Trainwreck! Not only am I surprised that you're still around (like holy shit for real?) But I am also surprised that you have a valid point.

It is right to surmise logic and reason as thought patterns. But logic and reason can actually get two different people to two different conclusions. It does not guarantee the same answers. Evidence goes a long way towards that. But to assume that two people who think along the same patterns, will agree on the same conclusions is a rush to judgement. Past experience will help to dictate the direction of thought, and no two people share the same past experience fully.

Thereby where atheists may agree that there is likely no god, as the evidence would suggest, they may not agree on what to do about it. Or how to solve an economical crisis, as there isn't always only one answer. Or what to do for dinner.
Sharing one point of view (which even all of us on this forum don't even wholly agree upon) does not guarantee agreement on all fronts.

Politically I`ve found the people on this forum to be as different as different sects of christianity. Even my own brain is conflicted. Some days I feel like a liberal humanist and other days I feel like a fascist dictator. Because I am both of those things. And more.

Anyways good to see you kicking around. How's the classification system coming along?

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes lucradis's post
24-01-2012, 03:35 PM
RE: Atheism 2.0
I'm just gonna post what I posted in the other thread with this same title, posted by Ghost. I might have something else to say about it, but not really. The guy is enthusiastic and can do what he wants, I'm just not much of a follower of anyone or anything. Shy

Quote:Hmm...so, he wants to make a non-thing, a thing. I don't need to buy this thing; I came by my non-thing naturally and it hasn't worn out. Maybe he's just wanting to sell his thing to ... people who don't want the non-thing? He comes off quite the busker, I'll give him that.... (groan, grumble, digs in pocket for loose bills -$2) Dodgy

Years ago, I felt humanity would enthuse itself to pay less attention to it's current, outmoded iconography and begin creating it's own. In other words; humanity on the whole, could re-describe and redraw itself. I'm an artist and that is from where that notion within me originates -not exclusively from my secular background.

I am, and that's enough. I'm not camera shy, but I really don't need my picture taken, either. I'm a member of this planet and if we all head for another, my passport photo will do nicely.
The thing is; humanity already does re-describe and redraw itself, we just have to wait to see what we look like. Then some wacky artist in the future can paint our collective portrait.

It's a bit early in the evolutionary day to sell rearview mirrors to people who've already driven off into the wild. Shy

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2012, 05:18 PM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2012 05:29 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Atheism 2.0
(24-01-2012 02:12 PM)lucradis Wrote:  It is right to surmise logic and reason as thought patterns. But logic and reason can actually get two different people to two different conclusions. It does not guarantee the same answers. Evidence goes a long way towards that. But to assume that two people who think along the same patterns, will agree on the same conclusions is a rush to judgement. Past experience will help to dictate the direction of thought, and no two people share the same past experience fully.
You've got something missing. In a modern society, such as ours, that values critical thinking and peer review, you would think that there would be some manner by which to scientifically determine the validity of any one person's argument.

Certainly you, and most atheists, would agree that the general opinions and organizational doctrines of Republicans, Christians, Rush Limbaugh, and Newton Gingrich are ludicris and not valid for the better progression of society; but as long as you and all the atheists continue to champion the argument that you yourselves cannot organize some amount of precepts as to how to guide the progression of society your arguments and opinions against their doctrines are invalid.

(24-01-2012 02:12 PM)lucradis Wrote:  Thereby where atheists may agree that there is likely no god, as the evidence would suggest, they may not agree on what to do about it. Or how to solve an economical crisis, as there isn't always only one answer. Or what to do for dinner.
Sharing one point of view (which even all of us on this forum don't even wholly agree upon) does not guarantee agreement on all fronts.
It would be somewhat curteous to society, if atheists could at least determine and describe the possible solutions to our social problems so all the fucking half intelligent Christians could at least review the solutions and maybe realize that all of the atheist solutions are better than how the Christians only rely on prayer to guide society. And, what I am getting at is that this suggest that atheists are not qualified to judge the validity of any arguments, because of this doctrine that guides atheists, yet most atheist will opine that believing in god is detrimental to decision making, and subsequently detrimental to guiding society.

I am wondering, how do you atheists square that knot???

Atheists cannot do anything like figuring out three possibilities to anything,because all atheists are worried about is whining about being oppressed.

(24-01-2012 02:12 PM)lucradis Wrote:  Politically I`ve found the people on this forum to be as different as different sects of christianity.
Exactly, and then you will find that within the different sects there are differences of opinion as to how to organize and perpetuate community (politics); and those factions of the sects organize into political parties that gather from all the sects. But each sect reserves the privelidge to judge the validity of any and all political organizations against the logic system (precepts, doctrines) of their organization.

And what I am saying is that the organization of atheism has to be the doctrinal precept that belief in god, and the subsequent morality associated with any god, is detrimental to the better guidance of society, and that is the foremost reason why atheism is a political organization.

Nobody seeks atheist organization for education enhancement - they seek it for political commardre - the complete seperation of church and state.

Nobody seeks Republican organization for anything other than the complete seperation of other political control of the state.

Democrats are stupid - they're like atheists. They say they want secularism, but cannot accept compromise with competing ideology, because they do not understand reason,logic, and social organization.

Except me, I'm the only one in the world who has it straight.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2012, 05:37 PM
RE: Atheism 2.0
(24-01-2012 12:42 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(19-01-2012 07:47 PM)Thomas Wrote:  Hitchens addressed this briefly in one of his debates when he stated that atheists did not hold "church" to reinforce the fact that they don't believe. We don't need the reinforcement of other non-believers' non-belief to support our non-belief.
So, why do atheists have weekly meetings in NYC, and monthly meetings in less populated areas; and daily discourse on Internet forums - shits and giggles about how stupid theists are???

. . . And, you and sHitchens don't believe it is to reinforce one's individual security with community???

(19-01-2012 07:47 PM)Thomas Wrote:  Atheists have been offensive to the religious because using logic and reason doesn't work. Ridicule seems to at least get their attention.
That does not seem to jive very well with this guy's response.


(17-01-2012 07:14 AM)Hamata k Wrote:  Atheism by itself has no vision. It's the people that have the vision. Your and my thought processes are vastly different even though we are both under the title of atheist.
How then, can atheists agree on anything???

Thought processes must have something to do with logic and reason, in fact, reason is the thought process - isn't it?

And logic is the confirmation of the validity of the reasoning - isn't it?

. . . are you following along?

Logic by no stretch of the imagination represents absolute potential knowledge in terms of infinity and infinitude. Valid isnt true from a logical perspective.

As for atheiism and the need for a Church, I know of at least one particularly atheistic church (Unitarian) that largely pushes Stalinism.
Validity lies in proper sentential structure or deductive reasoning.High orders of probability, involving hypotheis and testing, is the result of inductive reasoning.

Where quite harmless religious thought persists it need not be thwarted, in my view, by hard line thougtless atheistic extrermeism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: