Raithere
You're still not getting it. Atheism offers no alternative philosophy.
I don't see what I'm not getting, since that lack of alternative philosophy is part of the point. The very simple and narrow notion that there is no God, in addition to nullifying a specific and narrow idea that God is forms only a part of what atheism rejects in its anti-identification. The idea of God, for instance, provides people with a justification for morality. Atheism alone cannot provide this; it must be accompanied by another philosophy in order to begin to replace what the god-concept provides the most part of believers and, incidentally, the greatest portion of the idiotic believers we all, atheist or theist, need to reorient toward something more positive.
Leave you" and "give you" imply very different states. As I mentioned above.
And either case equals nothing.
If you find my comments acerbic then perhaps you should look to the tone in your own posts. I have a strong tendency to reply in kind.
Actually, what annoys me about your comments is that they're false. As I demonstrated, such a position is based upon evidence already included in the topic. I mean, really, what
is your problem here?
You asked what I based a specific assertion on, which is well and fine, except that you then went on your propagandous condemnation of the idea as having no support whatsoever, yet I showed you from ideas in this very topic how I reached that position. I suggest that you watch your mouth when you choose to be dismissive of something just because you have chosen not to examine it. Be acerbic if you want. It's better, though, if you have a proper reason.
What's funny, though, is that when you tell me I'm not getting it, and pointing out that
atheism offers no alternative philosophy, that is precisely the "typical theistic tripe" that points toward the position you've denounced in earlier posts.
I keep getting the impression that you're making far too big a deal out of the ocean and the ice cube than necessary, but I must confess I have absolutely no idea why the idea is such a big deal to you since you're reminding me of one of the essential points that leads to the analogy. The
fundamental point, in fact.
You were specifically referring to the "other things" not Atheism.
Whatever you say,
Raithere.
I can only wonder why
paragraphs are such disparate entities to people. Would you prefer the word "otherwise"?
Write me a style sheet.
Which is precisely the position I was stating.
Which leaves me wondering why you're raising such a fuss. Is it that you're looking for something to disagree with?
Please. The only thing that makes that statement reasonable is the modifier "it's possible". Other than that you're simply stating that Atheists are ignorant or stupid. Please realize that most Atheist were religious at some point. It is the failings of religion that caused most of us to seek answers elsewhere. Taking into account that most Atheists have considered or have been religious at some point and most Theists have never cognizantly considered Atheism it seems that the logical generalization is that Theists don't realize what their missing. You, excluded, of course considering your history.
Why don't we break that down.
•
The only thing that makes that statement reasonable is the modifier "it's possible". Well, it would be irresponsible of me to make a statement that violates my own observation. I've known atheists who
do in fact, understand what they're rejecting. It's rare, but even more rare is the theist who knows what s/he is accepting.
•
Other than that you're simply stating that Atheists are ignorant or stupid. I wouldn't go
that far. However, if you insist on silly points like that, it's possible that I might, someday, go that far.
•
Please realize that most Atheist were religious at some point. Of course. I wouldn't forget that. But for that to have any significant impact, it would syllogistically suggest a broader awareness of diverse religions in people that is observable. The underlying counterpoint is simple: Joe the Christian decides, as the result of certain ideas, that God doesn't exist. Joe is convinced because all evidence tells him that the Bible was inaccurate, wrong, or whatever. Since Joe has decided that God doesn't exist, he is automatically an authority on diverse religions? There are atheists who do make a point of learning about the religious social phenomenon, since that aspect of faith can directly affect them. But by and large most of what we hear atheists rejecting are ideas of God that many theists have already cast off.
•
It is the failings of religion that caused most of us to seek answers elsewhere. While I do know of atheists joining churches to find out what they say, I don't know of any, for instance, post-Christian atheists who have spent any amount of time giving other religions honest consideration. That is, the doctrinal explanation of a religion tells us much, the experiential qualities of those religions give different value to the doctrinal explanations.
•
Taking into account that most Atheists have considered or have been religious at some point and most Theists have never cognizantly considered Atheism it seems that the logical generalization is that Theists don't realize what their missing.I'll grant you that, with the note that I do, in fact, realize what I'm missing. I can handle any pseudo-existential mess as long as I have justified cause to accept standards of right and wrong. But silly, self-centered me thinks that the advancement of the collective is the self-evident purpose of things, so in order to stand on the logical conclusion that right and wrong tend toward the benefit and detriment of the community (e.g. town, nation, species) I must at some point put my foot down. Who here can
objectively tell me why murder and rape are wrong? It seems to me we're on that cycle somewhere around here. I'll get back to that point in a moment, though.
•
You, excluded, of course considering your history. Yes, considering that I've left religion behind for atheism and given atheism up for something that works, I've what? It is only after God ceases to have any stake whatsoever that it can be viewed objectively. That means accepting that something called God
is. For the theist, the stake is typically set in religious terms, a narrow set of principles of conduct based on a particularly narrow justification. For the atheist, the stake is the anti-identification itself. Have you ever noticed the atheist tendency to take issue with fundamental literalism? If this is the bulk of the focus on the religion most familiar to these new atheists (who have been religious prior to their atheism) I have no particular pattern by which I might expect broader, more considerate examinations of other religions. I mean, it's on record that an atheist once tried to debunk Wicca by pointing out that it wasn't from the ancient countryside immediately around Rome. (Had to do with the word
pagan.) Come on, complaining about happy people? I don't think I've excluded much, and given that I've gone through the very process of trying to fill the void, I consider myself well-enough grounded in both experience and observation to say that you've got to come up with something better than that.
You expressly selected an analogy that is loaded with negative connotations and then liken it to the Atheist experience
Would you have me pretend that atheism uniformly results in sunshine and friggin' rainbows?
Or do you expect me to believe now that you're not intelligent enough to have realized those implications?
Actually, what I don't believe is how specifically you read for things to get offended about.
See, a good number of devout Christians would take the willful departure of their wife better than they would the undeniable realization that God does not exist. A wife is just a wife. But that Christian God is ... well, everything. I tend to think I understated the issue slightly in order to respect diversity; for some people, the loss of God is not so devastating.
Personally, I find this a much better description of most institutionalized religions.
Sure. If you really insist on making that distinction. If it's that valuable to you to look at it that way, fine. Now, what happens when that most fortunate wife left with the kids to care for has no value on paper and no marketable skills? To simply leave it as atheism equalling liberation is deceptive. There is a drawback. Atheism, while it closes some avenues to accidentally making an ass of oneself, opens some others. I can point to a friend of mine, for instance, one of the brighter minds I know, but who devotes such energy to his atheism that it actually interferes with other progress. Or I can point to another bright, bright mind I know well, whose atheism has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with his disturbing perspective.
Now what do you think of the poor wife (Atheist) that finally finds herself free of the tyrant?
Shall I pretend that automatically she's capable of providing for herself? There still exist in our cities many women who live as victims of abuse because they either believe themselves or actually are unable to provide a living for themselves without resorting to prostitution. Having learned to drink in flesh bars, and having even dated strippers before, I can readily say that I was quite surprised at how desperate the conditions are at that level. Several women with whom I became acquainted performed on stage because at least there, they got respect and some cash for it. If the point is to cleanse atheism to a sparkling beacon, I will continue to reject such notions. However we look at it, we cannot pretend that atheism necessarily changes the quality of conditions. It can. But when the void where God was is filled with other moral necessities.
No, I did not. I indicated that non-theistic philosophies were available for consideration to the Atheist. Being an Atheist does not imply that one has nothing with which to fill the supposed "void" of religion. Stop trying to make it more than it is.
Are you implying then, that atheism is those other philosophies as well? Atheism by itself is merely that. I propose that you take your own advice.
I'm being as consistent as possible, after all these posts are not a pre-written dissertation that I've scoured for any possible contradictions. However, my position and my assertions have not changed.
That last part I accept easily. But consistency? If you say so.
As you pointed out, non-theistic philosophies are available for consideration by the atheist. Atheism itself is
not those non-theistic philosophies. Those non-theistic philosophies are required in order to fill the void left by the atheistic position, especially when we consider that many atheists are former theists.
thanx,
Tiassa
