Ah are you one of these?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-I-swear-little-green-men-ghosts-mediums.html
Why atheism makes you mean
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Ah are you one of these?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-I-swear-little-green-men-ghosts-mediums.html
No, just someone who understands the definition of the word "supernatural."
It does offer freedom from superstition and an affinity with science and rationality. But you are right in that it doesn't pretend to be a complete anything.
Of course. You mean paranormal
It offers nothing of the kind. All it says is that these people lack faith/believe in no God. Thats all. Everything else is just religious toppings
That's good enough for me.
Which contradicts your idea that atheism somehow makes people mean.
Well, the possibility of intellectual and spiritual integrity is not perhaps nothing.SAM said:
But possibly you refer to the lack any particular spiritual belief or depth of insight derivable from merely not having a God in mind. That is a reasonable point, and one slighted by Dawkins IMHO - although, to be fair, he has a lot on his plate.
Lack of a deity, especially rejection of a deity, is not a defined state and brings no spiritual guidance of its own necessarily. It's possible to launch one's little spiritual boat out of the mud and find that it hasn't come with a paddle.
So? If you are arguing for crippling delusion on the basis that it fills a need, that is one thing. If you are arguing that something that fills a need therefore cannot be a crippling delusion, that is something else.
I suppose a crippling delusion that sustains society is better than a bunch of indiviualists that can't.
If you are defining religion as something that sustains and unites a society, you have eliminated the God aspect of it. A non-God idea that does the same thing would be equally good, right?
So you suppose 1 can be at peace believing people should suffer horribly for eternity?
Certain aspects of religion result from people's desire to live together in a community.
Atheism does not equal individualistic living.
Atheism is complete. It offers all it should offer. It is simply the lack of any belief in gods. Nothing more. Nothing less.
You're good at contradicting yourself.
Atheism is not a philosophy. Atheism covers 1 thing & 1 thing only.
1111
And thats exactly my point.
There is NOTHING about atheism that can succeed or fail. It's not an attempt at anything. There is no goal in atheism. Atheism is simply being an atheist. Being an atheist is simply not having any belief in any gods. It's simply not being a theist.
1111
1111
Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin would agree. Machiavelli would have reservations - although appropriate for the subjects, the Prince must take care to avoid such delusions in himself, and maintain the form only. Jefferson and apparently Lincoln would more or less agree with Machiavelli.SAM said:
Apparently most scientists would not. Is that a sign of the evil of individualism, in scientists, or do they get a pass because of the more immediately severe consequences of such delusion on their work?
But we have at last the basics of a discussion that can progress. The next question might be how a responsible member of such a society, one held together by a crippling delusion with all attendant effects and eventual fate, should act if they find themselves unable or unwilling to accept the crippling or the deluded state.