What has Atheism given us?

[eagleskins]

Here is a much better question. What has religion given man kind?

[JohnStOnge]

Here is a much better question. What has religion given man kind?

I think it's been a factor in maintaining reasonably orderly civilization. No way to prove that because we'd have to see what would happen if it'd never arisen. But even if you're an atheists and just looking at things from a behavioral evolution standpoint you have to think that there's a reason why it's such a widespread phenomenon. I think that if someone believes that they will be held accountable for everything they do "wrong," believes that there is no getting away with it, it is likely to impact their behavior and make them more likely to live productively within the community. It's quite possible that groups holding "religious" beliefs enjoyed a selective advantage.

Atheists say that there are ways to support the idea of intrinsic morality without believing that. We've had numerous discussions about it. But I think they are wrong. None of the arguments I've heard them make represent paradigms that can be sustained. And they make their arguments in the context of moral backgrounds that evolved in the context of religious and/or spiritual beliefs. At this time, atheist though they may be, they are influenced by that background as well and they cannot let go of the need for intrinsic morality. They feel the need to find some rationale to replace the perceived basis that has historically been provided by the belief in something beyond humankind that sets the rules.

But there isn't anything if the atheists are correct. No matter what one says, there's always the question of why achieving what they hope to achieve by having a certain set of rules matters; why it is good or bad. And there is no answer.

[kalm]

But there isn't anything if the atheists are correct.

Except this moment. It's called "living in the present."

No matter what one says, there's always the question of why achieving what they hope to achieve by having a certain set of rules matters; why it is good or bad. And there is no answer.

Cooperation...which leads to egalitarianism...which leads to...the dark side!

[JoltinJoe]

I never met or read a genuinely intellectually curious or challenging atheist -- except Nietzsche, whom I suspect would have different beliefs today, having witnessed the 20th century consequences of collective atheism.

Agnostics, yes. Theists, yes. Atheists, no.

And without a doubt the most sublime metaphysics is Christian metaphysics (which includes the classical metaphysicists). It's nice to see that science is finally catching up to Christian metaphysics.

[kalm]

I never met or read a genuinely intellectually curious or challenging atheist -- except Nietzsche, whom I suspect would have different beliefs today, having witnessed the 20th century consequences of collective atheism.

Agnostics, yes. Theists, yes. Atheists, no.

And without a doubt the most sublime metaphysics is Christian metaphysics (which includes the classical metaphysicists). It's nice to see that science is finally catching up to Christian metaphysics.

"Isn't an agnostic just an atheist without balls?"
- Stephen Colbert

[kalm]

I never met or read a genuinely intellectually curious or challenging atheist -- except Nietzsche, whom I suspect would have different beliefs today, having witnessed the 20th century consequences of collective atheism.

Agnostics, yes. Theists, yes. Atheists, no.

And without a doubt the most sublime metaphysics is Christian metaphysics (which includes the classical metaphysicists). It's nice to see that science is finally catching up to Christian metaphysics.

What is Metaphysics?:


In Western philosophy, metaphysics has become the study of the fundamental nature of all reality — what is it, why is it, and how are we can understand it. Some treat metaphysics as the study of “higher” reality or the “invisible” nature behind everything, but that isn’t true. It is, instead, the study of all of reality, visible and invisible; and what constitutes reality, natural and supernatural. Because most of the debates between atheists and theists involve disagreements over the nature of reality and the existence of anything supernatural, the debates are often disagreements over metaphysics.

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyb ... hysics.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:[3]
What is there?
What is it like?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Hey man, don't let your need for the writings, commandments and crazy rules of bronze age nomads to give your life meaning affect what you THINK atheists believe about life. To many atheists things matter... a lot, like on this Earth, not in some afterlife where it's Groundhog Day for all eternity.

Exactly.

Why does one need a book of stories from thousands of years ago to be kind, or fund a purpose to their life?

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Or those same stories and messages can give someone a purpose or direction in their life.

[clenz]

Exactly.

Why does one need a book of stories from thousands of years ago to be kind, or fund a purpose to their life?

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Or those same stories and messages can give someone a purpose or direction in their life.

I get that,but why is it needed?

How mentally week must a person be that they need religion to find a purpose in life?

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

[polsongrizz]

Exactly.

Why does one need a book of stories from thousands of years ago to be kind, or fund a purpose to their life?

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Or those same stories and messages can give someone a purpose or direction in their life.

If you need some made up bullshit story/lie to get you through the day from centuries ago, I think you have a long list of problems.

[dbackjon]

Exactly.

Why does one need a book of stories from thousands of years ago to be kind, or fund a purpose to their life?

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Or those same stories and messages can give someone a purpose or direction in their life.

Or charlatan preachers whose 'purpose-driven life" leads his offspring to kill themselves??

[grizzaholic]

Or those same stories and messages can give someone a purpose or direction in their life.

If you need some made up bullshit story/lie to get you through the day from centuries ago, I think you have a long list of problems.

Having never attended a service from The Church of PolsonGrizz, unless that is what we do at the Rhino , I am not sure how your church differs from traditional churches, besides the copious amounts of IPA's and Tequila.

[polsongrizz]

If you need some made up bullshit story/lie to get you through the day from centuries ago, I think you have a long list of problems.

Having never attended a service from The Church of PolsonGrizz, unless that is what we do at the Rhino , I am not sure how your church differs from traditional churches, besides the copious amounts of IPA's and Tequila.

Well in " The New Church of Polson Griz" we don't try try to pass laws to force others to think and do as we do, unless of course it is to rid the world of Mass Produced slop.

[grizzaholic]

Having never attended a service from The Church of PolsonGrizz, unless that is what we do at the Rhino , I am not sure how your church differs from traditional churches, besides the copious amounts of IPA's and Tequila.

Well in " The New Church of Polson Griz" we don't try try to pass laws to force others to think and do as we do, unless of course it is to rid the world of Mass Produced slop.

Glad to hear that Flaggy and his bestest bud AZ aren't allowed.

[polsongrizz]

Or those same stories and messages can give someone a purpose or direction in their life.

Or charlatan preachers whose 'purpose-driven life" leads his offspring to kill themselves??

Pro Gun, Anti-Gay one at that.

[polsongrizz]

Well in " The New Church of Polson Griz" we don't try try to pass laws to force others to think and do as we do, unless of course it is to rid the world of Mass Produced slop.

Glad to hear that Flaggy and his bestest bud AZ aren't allowed.

Well I do believe that AZ had to drink an IPA in front of me to get his Acolyte shirt...

[D1B]

I never met or read a genuinely intellectually curious or challenging atheist -- except Nietzsche, whom I suspect would have different beliefs today, having witnessed the 20th century consequences of collective atheism.

Agnostics, yes. Theists, yes. Atheists, no.

And without a doubt the most sublime metaphysics is Christian metaphysics (which includes the classical metaphysicists). It's nice to see that science is finally catching up to Christian metaphysics.

The atrocities and totolitarianism of the 20th century were the direct result of religion making men weak. He used the term "sheep." He warned us of this in almost all his writings.

If I may, Joe, you should read more Nietzche and less of his sister.

To answer dipshit's question, atheists gave us the truth.

[D1B]

I never met or read a genuinely intellectually curious or challenging atheist -- except Nietzsche, whom I suspect would have different beliefs today, having witnessed the 20th century consequences of collective atheism.

Agnostics, yes. Theists, yes. Atheists, no.

And without a doubt the most sublime metaphysics is Christian metaphysics (which includes the classical metaphysicists). It's nice to see that science is finally catching up to Christian metaphysics.

Hitchens would eat you and your dress-wearing theologians up.

You need to read more.

[JoltinJoe]

I never met or read a genuinely intellectually curious or challenging atheist -- except Nietzsche, whom I suspect would have different beliefs today, having witnessed the 20th century consequences of collective atheism.

Agnostics, yes. Theists, yes. Atheists, no.

And without a doubt the most sublime metaphysics is Christian metaphysics (which includes the classical metaphysicists). It's nice to see that science is finally catching up to Christian metaphysics.

Hitchens would eat you and your dress-wearing theologians up.

You need to read more.

Hitchens can't beat me in a debate. Let's see him try.

One of Hitchens's tactics was to distort philosophical writings and beliefs. When I read Hitchens, I often asked myself is that he doesn't understand what he is writing about, or is he intentionally distorting it.

I think it was the latter.

Hitchens was a genius, but he was lazy and full of himself. He realized early in his career that he could make easy money by writing contrarian opinion pieces and books for the pseudo-intellectual market.

Ultimately he will fade away and be forgotten because, for all his writing, he added nothing of substance to fields of philosophy and theology. His writings are worthless without the force of his personality to market them.

We are already seeing this happen. Gone and becoming forgotten.

[D1B]

Hitchens would eat you and your dress-wearing theologians up.

You need to read more.

Hitchens can't beat me in a debate. Let's see him try.

One of Hitchens's tactics was to distort philosophical writings and beliefs. When I read Hitchens, I often asked myself is that he doesn't understand what he is writing about, or is he intentionally distorting it.

I think it was the latter.

Hitchens was a genius, but he was lazy and full of himself. He realized early in his career that he could make easy money by writing contrarian opinion pieces and books for the pseudo-intellectual market.

Ultimately he will fade away and be forgotten because, for all his writing, he added nothing of substance to fields of philosophy and theology. His writings are worthless without the force of his personality to market them.

We are already seeing this happen. Gone and becoming forgotten.

Debate: You ever see the catholic clowns trying to debate him?

Influence: Maybe to you, but he was and still is highly respected. Got a Hitchens channel on satellite radio.

Lazy: You obviously just read Bill Donohue's opinion of him. He was prolific, fearless and thorough. You slight him for being entertaining, which betrays your agenda.

Legacy: He can certainly take partial credit for the millions of intellectually sound white people leaving your church and religion every year. You already lost Europe, America is next.

[D1B]

One of Hitchens's tactics was to distort philosophical writings and beliefs. When I read Hitchens, I often asked myself is that he doesn't understand what he is writing about, or is he intentionally distorting it.

I think it was the latter.

Everyone "distorts" or interprets other's writings, especially philosophical and religious texts. You do it, Hans Kung does it...hell, your entire religion is based on a massive distortion of the gospels and the supposed life of Jesus Christ... Some get it right, some do not. It's not all math.

In defense of Hithcens, and really all atheists, he didn't have to defend fairy tales.

[Wedgebuster]

Freedom from religion.

[JoltinJoe]

You know, D, no truly rational or reasonable person can look themselves in the mirror and think we have information at our disposal, and all means available to us, to form such firm opinions about the nature of reality or the lack of existence of God. We know and understand but a fraction of what is objectively true (and I'm talking about science here), and we have but five imperfect means of perception. We know, for example, that there are sound waves which exist which are not capable of perceiving, and quantum physics tells us there are dimensions which are imperceptible to man's sensory perception.

So Hitchens was neither reasonable nor rational.

I believe that there is a repository of all objective scientific truth somewhere, and I also believe that there is a repository of all objective moral truth, and I believe that these repositories are what we call God. I believe that this God is a personal God, not an impersonal God. I believe this because I feel it, and I know that it would be unreasonable to think I can discount this belief based on my knowledge, experience, and perception (because they are so noticeably incomplete).

Hitchens's trick when he debated is that he would attack someone for their religion, rather than their faith. So he would stand up there and make snarky comments about a crucified savior and eating his flesh as cannibalism, while avoiding any philosophical discussion about the existence of God.

The fact is that the existence of God and the nature of God (and how he manifests himself) are two different debates. Having a debate about the nature of God only makes sense if both parties agree on the existence of God. Hitchens realized this, and his tactic was to attack his opponent's religion, ridicule it, and then say this proves there is no God.

The fact is Jesus, as the most perfect manifestation of a personal God who so much desires a relationship with us that he becomes one of is, is perfectly defensible once there is an agreement of the existence of a personal God. Jesus, however, makes no sense if you do not accept the existence of a personal God.

And there is the hole in Hitchens's theory. He rejects out of hand (irrationally and without any serious, honest discussion of metaphysics and epistemology) the existence of God. Having so emphatically rejected the existence of God, he ridicules the concept of a personal God incarnate. And then, having ridiculed the concept of a personal God incarnate, he reasons back that this proves he is right about the existence of God.

Ridicule is a great rhetorical tool before the semi-learned. But it doesn't carry the day in legitimate academic debates -- which is why Hitchens will never make an inroads as a "philosopher" who must be read and remembered, and who will never be read in college level philosophy or theology courses.

But he's on Satellite Radio -- which actually proves my point.

[Ibanez]

My town has an annual Azalea Festival every April. It was held this past weekend and was a great. Of the many booths, we alwasy see the local Baptists and a few non denomination churches. This year there was an "American Catholic Church". I inquired and found out that they are a Catholic Church, they don't answer to Rome, they have been APPROVED by Rome even though they don't follow all the dogma and teachings. They openly accept and approve of gay marriage, women in the church and priests marrying. In fact, their priest got married after he became a priests and has two wonderful kids. I found this very interesting. Here is a church that has such a history of staying the past yet they approve of a progressive branch.


What does this have to do with the thread? I'm not sure. It's just an interesting thought.

[D1B]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUR4OH7_0PE[/youtube]

Debate on the value of the catholic church.

Catholics and christians should be ashamed.

Where did they get this fucking clown of a cardinal? What an idiot.

*Note the smug, guilty smiles on the faces of the catholic apologists as they get pounded with simple questions they cannot and don't answer.

Reminded me of the Goerring's smiles in Nuremberg.



The debate topic was "Is the catholic church a force for good in the world?"

Hitchens and Fry destroyed them.

They polled the audience before the debate and those for this motion were 678, against 1102, and undecided 346.

After the debate: For the motion 268, against 1876 and undecided at 34 undecided

This is way things are going for the church. If only we could have done this 1700 years ago, we would be in much better shape as a civilization.

The church has hurt mankind exponentially greater than the good, they say, they've done.

It wasn't and isn't worth it.

[dbackjon]

Or charlatan preachers whose 'purpose-driven life" leads his offspring to kill themselves??

Pro Gun, Anti-Gay one at that.

yup