Thread: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms(video)

Originally Posted by O'nus

The only fundamentalist atheist I can imagine is one that refuses to believe in God not matter what (ie. if God itself appeared to the atheist and they denied God). Or an atheist that will not even regard or listen to any reasoning to believe in a God.

What do you think...?

~

If a bright light appeared to me and claimed to be God I wouldn't believe it was God.

It seems far more likely to either be a trick or an illusion of my mind.

Sartre talks about this with the whole "Anguish of Abraham" business.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Trivia: Hitler was a vegetarian.

Hitler was also not an atheist, as far I understand. I presume this is debatable. However, the swastika represented "in the name of God" or "for the name of God" etc. This is, presumably, why Hitler chose it. Thus, this is why I would also presume it is not the case that Hitler is an atheist as he wanted to go to war "for the name of God."

Of course, the only reason I would believe otherwise if I read it directly from Hitler's words himself (ie. Mein Kampf).

Anyone..?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Hitler was also not an atheist, as far I understand. I presume this is debatable. However, the swastika represented "in the name of God" or "for the name of God" etc. This is, presumably, why Hitler chose it. Thus, this is why I would also presume it is not the case that Hitler is an atheist as he wanted to go to war "for the name of God."

Of course, the only reason I would believe otherwise if I read it directly from Hitler's words himself (ie. Mein Kampf).

Anyone..?

~

Hitler was a believer, but there are some inconsistencies and stuff. Anyway, what does it matter? He was a dick, before all. :p

Respecting Fundamentalists seems a little absurd to me... Yes, they understood what it means to be religious, but they're also dicks.

I would say there's such a thing as a Fundamentalist Rationalist/Materialist: someone who takes our technical descriptions of physical phenomena as a literal and adequate, if not complete, picture of the universe, rather than using them as tools to personally engage and understand that universe, while rejecting all human wisdom not arrived at by the scientific method. Such a person overextends science to cover philosophy, ethics, and ontology in the same manner that a religious fundamentalist overextends their texts to serve as scientific and historical fact.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I would say there's such a thing as a Fundamentalist Rationalist/Materialist: someone who takes our technical descriptions of physical phenomena as a literal and adequate, if not complete, picture of the universe, rather than using them as tools to personally engage and understand that universe, while rejecting all human wisdom not arrived at by the scientific method. Such a person overextends science to cover philosophy, ethics, and ontology in the same manner that a religious fundamentalist overextends their texts to serve as scientific and historical fact.

There are some interesting attempts to apply the scientific method to all of human experience. As in, actually show that a mystic meditating for 5 years can be interpreted as an act of science.

A too merely scientific attitude can result in complete psychosis and lack of empathy. Which is very dangerous.

Now, here is the thing. I am not opposed to the idea of God. If someone, anyone, were to come with me with any shred of evidence, any particle of data that showed that God exists, I would be more than happy to consider it. In that sense, I wouldn't classify myself as a "fundamentalist atheist" (I think we may have invented that term ) because I am open to reason.

Originally Posted by Carousoul

A too merely scientific attitude can result in complete psychosis and lack of empathy.

Explain?

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

A too merely scientific attitude can result in complete psychosis and lack of empathy. Which is very dangerous.

Which is why I practice existential humanism.

~

hmm maybe respect was the wrong word for what i was saying. I'm not sure how to describe then, i have a tiny tiny tiny amount of more understanding of them? Basically what i am saying is they at least follow what they preach and what they God says slightly more then Christians do. Making them slightly less...hypocritical?

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Explain?

It is completely wrong and stupid; but people can end up with this idea:

We are all just atoms in the end so whatever I do is just a different movement of atoms. Morals and emotions are nothing more than this; so i can do whatever i want; be this murder rape or whatever else. It' all just atoms moving differently in the end and means nothing.

Like Kant said, taken to a new level: "If there is no God, everything is permitted."


Of course you can beat this argument relatively easily with humanism as O'nus suggested; but it is a danger of the more unintelligent.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

It is completely wrong and stupid; but people can end up with this idea:

We are all just atoms in the end so whatever I do is just a different movement of atoms. Morals and emotions are nothing more than this; so i can do whatever i want; be this murder rape or whatever else. It' all just atoms moving differently in the end and means nothing.

Like Kant said, taken to a new level: "If there is no God, everything is permitted."


Of course you can beat this argument relatively easily with humanism as O'nus suggested; but it is a danger of the more unintelligent.

Ahhh, I see. But something tells me that the number of instances of people doing insane things in the name of religion far outnumbers the number of instances of people doing insane things in the name of atheism, no?

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Like Kant said, taken to a new level: "If there is no God, everything is permitted."

Of course you can beat this argument relatively easily with humanism as O'nus suggested; but it is a danger of the more unintelligent.

I hate that step. Why is it presumed that if you are atheist you are immediately presumed to be an advocate of any debauchary?

Atheists are very well capable of having ethics and morals devoid of any supernatural implication. I have taken part in a plethora of ethical debates without the mention of anything relatively similar to a God or inferring a God. I think this is the very grounds for ethical and political debate because, if there were a definite God, then there would be no grounds for debate.

Right...?

~

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Ahhh, I see. But something tells me that the number of instances of people doing insane things in the name of religion far outnumbers the number of instances of people doing insane things in the name of atheism, no?

Yup.
Good people do good things, bad people do bad things but it takes religion to make a good person do bad things.

And also, religion has always had the monopoly on morals. It has taught us that we are inferior pieces of shit, born with sin. This has gone so far that, even in this thread, it is a matter of debate of whether secularism would lead to moral chaos. Morality is innate and it has greatly advanced through social movements. There's absolutely no debate that most all people would be far better off without having any set of fixed morals but would just listen to themselves.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I hate that step. Why is it presumed that if you are atheist you are immediately presumed to be an advocate of any debauchary?

Atheists are very well capable of having ethics and morals devoid of any supernatural implication. I have taken part in a plethora of ethical debates without the mention of anything relatively similar to a God or inferring a God. I think this is the very grounds for ethical and political debate because, if there were a definite God, then there would be no grounds for debate.

Right...?

~

I agree entirely; I was just pitching a possible thought process.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I agree entirely; I was just pitching a possible thought process.

Totally. (That is the first time I said that on its own). I was talking with you, not against you. (In case you thought I was directing that you).

Carousoul, would you consider yourself a humanist?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Totally. (That is the first time I said that on its own). I was talking with you, not against you. (In case you thought I was directing that you).

Carousoul, would you consider yourself a humanist?

~

Very much so



Also existentialism rocks my boat; I don't entirely agree with it but it is very good.

I'm liking some Nietzsche right now but I am not entirely Humanist or Existentialist or Nihilist.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Also existentialism rocks my boat; I don't entirely agree with it but it is very good.

I'm liking some Nietzsche right now but I am not entirely Humanist or Existentialist or Nihilist.

Have you considered Sartre's spin on existentialism? The thread linked in my signature is derived from his perspective. I feel it is very good grounds for an atheist to take and easy. So I am curious how you can relate your beliefs to such an ethical approach.

Or any of the rest of you. What can of ethical grounds can you fall on in conjunction with Atheist beliefs?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Have you considered Sartre's spin on existentialism? The thread linked in my signature is derived from his perspective. I feel it is very good grounds for an atheist to take and easy. So I am curious how you can relate your beliefs to such an ethical approach.

Or any of the rest of you. What can of ethical grounds can you fall on in conjunction with Atheist beliefs?

~

I like Sartre alot but I do disagree with certain things.

For example I don't believe every choice we make is entirely our responsibility. I believe in contributing factors we are not concious of. Also I don't fully agree with him on the issue of advice etc.

But morally I lean very similarly to you.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I like Sartre alot but I do disagree with certain things.

For example I don't believe every choice we make is entirely our responsibility. I believe in contributing factors we are not concious of. Also I don't fully agree with him on the issue of advice etc.

But morally I lean very similarly to you.

What you say is full of truth - there are many things which we cannot control no matter how hard we try (ie. grow a sixth finger). I want to make sure that my approach is not like "the Secret" in the sense that anything can happen but that you can feel anyway you want at any time.

I would like to willfully choose to be able to fly, but I cannot. This is only a limitation on my capabilities. The idea is to work with what you have and that you have the free choice to be eudaimonic at any time (there is no physical deficiency in that).

This is best shown in jobs. You may hate your boss, I may hate my boss, but I do not have to let that ruin my time at work. I can still have a good time and maintain my work integrity while virtually ignoring anything anyone else has to say.

What do you think...?

~

I wish religion was never brought up in the first place. What bugs me more is them burning down that science building, if it wasn't for that who knows where we might be technology wise, medicine wise, etc. We could have cured friggin cancer by now!
or we could all be dead, and this planet gone, which then we can all praise them for destroying the building and saving the world. Religion IMO is the biggest problem with the world today.....

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Dawkins has made me SO ANGRY at religious people. I used to be ridiculously tolerant. I've always been non-religious, but I never used to give two shits about what other people thought. Now I'm just pissed at the nonsense that people believe, and they cannot give a single shred of evidence to support anything that they believe. Could someone who is not religious please give me suggestions on how to not get worked up about this crap? I am serious. I don't want to turn into some angry, intolerant creep.

Get over it. Belief is belief...

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

Get over it. Belief is belief...

And?

You seem to ignore all the implications...

the implicatoins of?

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

the implicatoins of?

Religion's effect on the American political system for one.......