Arouet
Member
Mostly I think it gets derailed by people complaining about being asked for what they mean by a certain term. Imagine how the discussions would go if they just said: "sure, no problem, this is what I mean...."
Alex's view of Atheism
- Thread starter bishop
- Start date
Mostly I think it gets derailed by people complaining about being asked for what they mean by a certain term. Imagine how the discussions would go if they just said: "sure, no problem, this is what I mean...."
Johnny
New
I think so, it encourages debate and allows people to explore possibilities.
David Bailey
Member
To me, the fundamental question is not whether God exists, but whether pure materialism works - or whether the mind operates in a medium that is more conducive to its existence.
When materialists have finished hedging in the properties of mind - no genuine paranormal phenomena, no free will in the traditional sense - no sense in which any of us are responsible for our actions, my response is to say that the 'mind' they are describing isn't real mind at all. Extreme materialism reduces the concept Ad Absurdum, and hence proves it wrong!
David
When materialists have finished hedging in the properties of mind - no genuine paranormal phenomena, no free will in the traditional sense - no sense in which any of us are responsible for our actions, my response is to say that the 'mind' they are describing isn't real mind at all. Extreme materialism reduces the concept Ad Absurdum, and hence proves it wrong!
David
Johnny
New
There are tons of people who wish to debate William Lane Craig, And Craig has stood up to the plate against the most outspoken and leading atheists of his generation, and defeated the most prominent ones, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins declined, Selling two million copies of The God Delusion and bumping up his bank account, as well as being the most outspoken atheist on the planet, to only say he has no interest in debating Craig. No interest in taking on the worlds leading Christian apologetic in debate, which was organised by third parties because it was the publics most anticipated and demanded debate. you got to laugh.
Craig is not obligated to debate any Tom, Dick, Or Harry that throws a challenge his way, he would have a long list of people who think they could take him on in arguments, instead he takes the challenge of the most qualified representatives of Atheism, and does pretty well against them. I've watched many Craig debates. And he has whooped ass, the only one ive seen him struggle on was Sean Carroll, but to be fair he debated Carroll on his own field of cosmology and to take Carrolls view on things would leave you no wiser than what you began with, he props up alternative models of the universe which are not the currently held view of cosmology to begin with, such as an eternal universe to discredit the Kallam Cosmological Argument, but nevertheless they are alternatives. In other words Carroll leaves you with no conclusive answer, and employs less commonly held models than the currently held scientific view.
And to add, I'm not very fond of Craig's philosophy myself, but give credit where it's due, he whoops ass.
Last edited:
A non-belief in god is exactly what atheism is. Actually, it is a position that is forced upon us by the existence of theism. If there was no belief in deities, we would not need a word for non-belief in them.
Theism and atheism are, by nature, not logically similar. One (theism) is actively making an extra assumption. The other one (atheism) is the position that no extra assumption is needed, it is therefore a neutral position.
Atheism is not the -1 towards the +1 of theism, it is the zero before the 1 was ever added.
Therefore, at least to me, it seems that also agnosticism is strange position towards theism.
It is strange to me that two positions, so logically different from each other, are considered as possibly equally valid enough to warrant the use of that word.
Last edited:
Bucky
Member
Bollocks :)
Whatever position or philosophical view of life and the universe you have requires a label to be differentiated from others.
Nothing is forced on anybody unless you're so lazy you can't even come up with a name for your idea. Even not having any ideas on the matter has its own label :D
Bucky
Member
More bollox :D
There is no such thing as a neutral position on any matter besides the "I don't know and I don't care" one.
Atheism is just another set of well defined philosophical assumptions.
I think it's fair to call atheism a worldview. I don't think it's fair to call it a philosophy or religion, because there are no details to make it such.
I don't believe that aliens have visited the Earth. Is that a worldview? I don't collect stamps. That's probably not a worldview. Tough to draw the line.
~~ Paul
Bucky
Member
It is a philosophy of life, another way of defining a "world view"
Bertha Huse
New
The philosophy of metaphysics deals with questions like "what sort of things exist" or "do things exist if we don't experience them" or
"is there a god" or "what is the nature of space and time" or "what is the nature of consciousness"
Atheism is just another "ISM" that front and center contains lines of thinking and sets of beliefs addressing the metaphysical questions above.
As usual, Paul is incorrect.
My Best,
Bertha
Last edited:
Vault313
New
Bucky
Member
Most atheists adhere to materialism, which is just another metaphysic.
Then so is not believing in fairies or Santa Claus. Those are "sorts of things," too. Now, perhaps you have a "line of whackiness" that things can't cross in order to be considered metaphysics. Things that cross that line are not legitimate metaphysical subjects. But surely you would agree that, say, psi doesn't cross that line. In which case not believing in psi is certainly a metaphysic. What about just spoon bending? Is not believing in spoon bending a metaphysical philosophy? What about alien abduction?
Seems to me it's easier to say that not believing in X is simply not believing in X.
~~ Paul
I certainly agree that holding physicalism as one's preferred metaphysic is a philosophy. But not believing in god is just a lack of belief.
As I said in post #56, there has to be a line. If you draw it somewhere around god and insist that every lack of belief on the god side is a philosophy, while everything else is just a lack of belief, I can live with that. However, at least in my case, it's nowhere near as philosophy-ish as an actual positive-belief philosophy.
~~ Paul
Bertha Huse
New
It seems to me you're too much of an intellectual coward to admit your materialism/atheism is a philosophy. Because if you did admit it, you would have to admit you're on equal footing with the rest of us "proponents" here. And God forbid if that happened.
My Best,
Bertha
Vault313
New
That's a dead end question coming from you. I could talk until I'm blue in the face about it, but your a strict materialist and there is literally nothing I can say that would make a difference.
I can see why from your position you think that there is literally no difference in meaning between the existence of God and stamp collecting, since materialism posits that nothing means anything anyway.
Moreover, if you can ask that question in all seriousness, the notion of a god and/or all that that would entail for all life is completely beyond your ken anyway. However, I think it's just another slimy question asked not in the interest of real discussion, but a way to lure another victim into your snare and (in your mind) shred their answer to bits. In reality, all it accomplishes is an enormous waste of time and neuronal resources, of which I choose to expend elsewhere.
As the English might say, cheerio!