Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Problem with Atheism (Read 205322 times)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #200 –
Quote from: ersi on

Quote from: Colonel Rebel on

Must say I am terribly disappointed that Mr. Howie and Belfrager and mjmsprt40 aren't in here teaming up to debate us "heathens". :(
At least Belfrager was active in these threads when you weren't. Besides, you personally don't qualify as a heathen. You are a fresh convert into atheism. I remember when you declared that Bantay had converted you. Now stay where you are. Too much conversion is bad for you. Seriously.

"Fresh"? lol

I'd hardly call 5 years (2009) a "fresh conversion". Additionally, while I am pleased for you that you have such unlimited leisure time, not everyone is able to post at all times on here, or on D&D in the case you mention.

Bantay was quite useful. His arguments were interesting. He reminds me of Ken Ham. That is not to say that, that is necessarily a bad thing, but it certainly does help one decide where one stands on an issue.

I'll post in here as I please, thanks Ersi.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #201 –
Quote from: Colonel Rebel on

I'll post in here as I please, thanks Ersi.

This is only right, because so does everyone else. They all post as they please.

Btw, I meant seriously that too much conversion is bad for you. I know what I am talking about. I have seen people convert en masse at some turn of sociopolitical tides and at the next turn unconvert again. It left them feeling empty and aimless. Many of them recognised having been played like puppets on strings by hidden dark forces, which is a particularly devastating realisation for anyone, especially when it occurs collectively.

To put it more simply, it's bad for people's self-esteem. Let proselytisers on either side of the divide consider this and develop some conscience.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #203 –
Quote from: ersi on

Quote from: Colonel Rebel on

I'll post in here as I please, thanks Ersi.

This is only right, because so does everyone else. They all post as they please.

Btw, I meant seriously that too much conversion is bad for you. I know what I am talking about. I have seen people convert en masse at some turn of sociopolitical tides and at the next turn unconvert again. It left them feeling empty and aimless. Many of them recognised having been played like puppets on strings by hidden dark forces, which is a particularly devastating realisation for anyone, especially when it occurs collectively.

To put it more simply, it's bad for people's self-esteem. Let proselytisers on either side of the divide consider this and develop some conscience.


I understand well what you meant my friend. I have not regretted my decision once. Your advice is quite valuable though, and I appreciate it. :cheers:

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #204 –
Colonel, I'd like your input on this gem.
Quote
Three freshmen were expelled from their fraternity at University of Mississippi (popularly known as Ole Miss) Friday for hanging a noose on a statue of James Meredith, a civil rights hero who was the first African American to attend the university. The chapter has also been suspended indefinitely by the national Sigma Phi Epsilon organization.
Ole Miss and local police concluded that the three white 19-year-olds from Georgia were responsible for hanging the noose and plastering an old Georgia flag bearing the Confederate symbol on the statue’s face. The students could face criminal charges, if Ole Miss police get their way, and the FBI is investigating the incident as a possible hate crime.

The times, they are a'changing, but not everywhere at the same pace. I recognize that these idiots are ferriners from Georgia, but still.

Personally, I don't see it as a hate crime but as a severe infection of stupid. Recall that Tom Hanks gem from Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does."

Open-mindedness as per Sam Harris

Reply #205 –
To show that he is open-minded and capable of changing his mind, Sam Harris wrote this blog post http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-pleasure-of-changing-my-mind

He cites a recent case where he changed his mind (emphases added):
Quote
I watched Scahill’s Oscar-nominated documentary Dirty Wars—twice. The film isn’t perfect. Despite the gravity of its subject matter, there is something slight about it, and its narrow focus on Scahill seems strangely self-regarding. At moments, I was left wondering whether important facts were being left out. But my primary experience in watching this film was of having my settled views about U.S. foreign policy suddenly and uncomfortably shifted. As a result, I no longer think about the prospects of our fighting an ongoing war on terror in quite the same way. In particular, I no longer believe that a mostly covert war makes strategic or moral sense. Among the costs of our current approach are a total lack of accountability, abuse of the press, collusion with tyrants and warlords, a failure to enlist allies, and an ongoing commitment to secrecy and deception that is corrosive to our politics and to our standing abroad.

Any response to terrorism seems likely to kill and injure innocent people, and such collateral damage will always produce some number of future enemies. But Dirty Wars made me think that the consequences of producing such casualties covertly are probably far worse. This may not sound like a Road to Damascus conversion, but it is actually quite significant. My view of specific questions has changed—for instance, I now believe that the assassination of al-Awlaki set a very dangerous precedent—and my general sense of our actions abroad has grown conflicted. I do not doubt that we need to spy, maintain state secrets, and sometimes engage in covert operations, but I now believe that the world is paying an unacceptable price for the degree to which we are doing these things. The details of how we have been waging our war on terror are appalling.

I conclude from this that my evaluation of Harris was correct. On intellectual grounds I dismissed his case against religion from day one. Reason: All he does is yell that religion is immoral, while he does not put together a single philosophical argument to prove it. His case only consists of citing historical incidents - an emotional cumulative case that can be amounted with equal effect against atheism just as soon as misrepresentations, cherry-picking and double standards are dropped.

Now he has changed his mind about something. Based on what? A film touched his emotions. That's it. It was not a philosophical argument. It was the discovery that he didn't know enough to actually hold the opinion he held on the case. He understood that he had been making a case based on ignorance, not on knowledge. He even developed moral scruples. Notably, "I no longer believe that a mostly covert war makes strategic or moral sense." The proclaimer of morals actually developed a modicum of moral sense at last! This is what happens when morality is a matter of belief and feelings - and when you make noise about how righteous you feel.

Earlier I mentioned the essay contest that Harris announced http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-moral-landscape-challenge1 In keeping with the diagnosis of Harris's character, if an essay wants to win, it should not methodically dismantle Harris's case nor make a coherent logical point. Instead, it should appeal to emotions.

Re: Open-mindedness as per Sam Harris

Reply #206 –
Quote from: ersi on
All he does is yell that religion is immoral, while he does not put together a single philosophical argument to prove it.

If he said that, he goes overboard, perhaps, but a philosophical argument isn't required. Historical examples are required.

Re: Open-mindedness as per Sam Harris

Reply #207 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on

Quote from: ersi on
All he does is yell that religion is immoral, while he does not put together a single philosophical argument to prove it.

If he said that, he goes overboard, perhaps, but a philosophical argument isn't required. Historical examples are required.
The problem here is that historical examples against atheism are at least equal, if not worse. So, to prove his point, he really has to make a different argument.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #208 –
What's YOUR problem with atheism, Ersi? What "historical examples against atheism"? Can you remember actually atheistic societies - to have done either good or bad to the species's evolution? Don't feed me with various bolsheviks - they are not atheists, they are morons (a sect of Bullshit worshippers).

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #209 –
Quote from: Josh on
Don't feed me with various bolsheviks - they are not atheists, they are morons (a sect of Bullshit worshippers).
The case with historical examples against religion is exactly the same: Choose the historical incidents where idiots and morons prevail and forget the actual teachings and ideals - and also forget times and places where the ideals bore good fruit. Cherry-picking works both ways.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #210 –
Not exactly so, I believe.
The keyword is "idea", ideology. Ideology influences people's minds, creating "brain turf" for developing certain sorts of behaviour. (I don't say "wrongdoing" - nor "rightdoing" or some -- because I mean the principle not application.)
Now, religious ideology, IMHO, created such turf (with whatever consequences), -- because it existed and influenced on a LARGE  scale. What cases of societally organised existence have you show for atheism? Has it ever been applied as ideology on whatever scale???

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #211 –
Quote from: Josh on

The keyword is "idea", ideology.
This is the right keyword. It applies to all ideological propaganda, with equal effect in case of crusades and witchburnings, French Revolution, bolshevism, the utterly irreligious, purely patriotic expansion of United States, etc.

The point here is that when spiritual ideals are missing, then people are psychologically empty on spiritual level and subject to all kinds of other ideologies to fill up the vacant spot. French Revolution is a perfect example. Towards the end Robbespierre's anti-religious fanaticism took explicit religious form, because this is what he was missing. Same goes for personal cults of any dictator: they are replacements of religion, because religion is necessary, cannot be ignored. You cannot eliminate religion without replacing it somehow.

The point of religion is to meet people's spiritual tendencies in an as orderly way as humanly possible. The first step in this is to acknowledge that these spiritual tendencies exist. When you don't acknowledge this, you get all the historical examples that show what happens in case of lack of religion.
 

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #214 –
Quote from: Josh on

Quote from: ersi on
The point here is that when spiritual ideals are missing...
You're missing. The point
The point is that atheism is not exactly about your "missing ideas":P And on the contrary, bolsheviks&al. had very SWELL ideas to back their activity.:tutut:
Ideals, not ideas. The right ideals invite you to match your behaviour to the ideals. Wrong ideals fail at this. If the ideology is not making an essentially ethical point - in terms of actual moral behaviour and social stability -, then it is only making empty ideological points.

Edit:
Quote from: Josh on

O'k, I missed your "spiritual". Though, define "spirit";)

Considering what you are, the preliminary answer is that the word "spiritual" is there to emphasise the distinction between "idea" and "ideal". If you fail to acknowledge the distinction - with appropriate conceptual content -, there's nothing more to talk about.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #216 –
Frans, it's something wrong with smilies.
I'd better the old codes - to the old codes. For new ones -- new codes!:irked:

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #217 –
Rome wasn't built in a day.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #218 –
Frans, don't make that too atheistic complicated.
And I see it as to be folded by default. When done, I mean.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #219 –
Quote from: Josh on

Quote from: ersi on
The right ideals invite you to match your behaviour to the ideals.
This is a way, but not the only way.

Tell me the other way(s).

Quote from: Josh on

Still then, what incites people to favour an ideal to follow?:)

In a good case, the religion or spiritual ideal organically meets people's spiritual tendencies with favourable effect. In a worse case, there must be a teaching, a dogmatic tenet to explicitly remind thick people that the core of religion is ethical. Such as "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" <-- this is a rather unambiguous invitation to match your claimed ideals and actual behaviour. Vide also the parable of the pharisee and the publican, which knocks directly on the conscience of people in power.

Even the "worse case" as I termed it is actually very good when compared to atheism. Atheism has nothing in it to match this.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #220 –
Quote from: ersi on
Tell me the other way(s).
THE other ways??;)
All of them?:D
Quote from: ersi on
..organically meets people's spiritual tendencies..
"Organically meets" means that such people are already "in tune" with the ideas.
See my argument above.
Quote from: ersi on
..that the core of religion is ethical.
Really??
You mean 'ANY religion'?:D Religion IN GENERAL?:D Aww, I could tell ya...:rolleyes:...

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #222 –
Quote from: ersi on

Even the "worse case" as I termed it is actually very good when compared to atheism. Atheism has nothing in it to match this.

Why exactly is atheism so bad?  :scared:

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #223 –
I may not be knowing five. But to disprove a presumed uniqueness, only one alternative is needed.
You were talking about a way of dealing with those who don't get it - or haven't been given chance to. "A way" - because there must be others.
On the contrary, people capable of reasoning can apply pragmatism. Based either on individual or societal priorities. Or both. Usually in a certain "proportion".