A discourse on Atheism (not a religious debate)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

ca c'est correct.


And Bien, I did mean to stress "general" - as, no not everyone subscribes to this, but there is a view I have seen expressed regarding atheists time and time again that: because the foundation of atheism is based on deconstructionism, atheists will jump into an argument about anything - taken to a satirical point: about absolutely nothing.

---

I think that you are noting a small minority of "pious" Christians, or even militant Christians, for there are those fundamentalist Christians out there that do not want anyone believing any different than they themselves. There are good people out there in both camps, but unfortunately we like to label everyone according to the extremists out there.

I've been labeled both pious and fundamentalist, but as far as I know, I don't think that I am either. I'm just a Christian, and I care about the well-being of all my fellow humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I've been labeled both pious and fundamentalist,

---

And both in the same sentence, no less. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

Well, metaphysics and epistemology are not by themselves in the museum. Have fun, champ.

---

Metaphysics and epistemology are branches of philosophy. How can the trunk be long-dead and decomposing while the branches are alive and flourishing? Why don't you just quit with the farcical "philosophy is dead" posturing. You're only making yourself sound ill-informed and under-educated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

Metaphysics and epistemology are branches of philosophy. How can the trunk be long-dead and decomposing while the branches are alive and flourishing? Why don't you just quit with the farcical "philosophy is dead" posturing. You're only making yourself sound ill-informed and under-educated.

---

Definitely under-educated. What a relief it is! Ha!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

Metaphysics and epistemology are branches of philosophy. How can the trunk be long-dead and decomposing while the branches are alive and flourishing? Why don't you just quit with the farcical "philosophy is dead" posturing. You're only making yourself sound ill-informed and under-educated.

---

What do you expect from someone who can't tell the difference between his dissected bug collection and a Shakespeare sonnet? :D

I'm not sure that atheism could ever have any 'positive points' It is simply the belief that God does not exist. This belief may be a feature of a 'positive' system of ideas as in humanist thinking,say, but in and of itself it is essentially just the negation of a specific assertion. A religous person may well say atheism negates morality too. An atheist may accept this and so here there is i suppose a 'positive point' in the liberation from the constraints of virtue. But such a position is not essential to atheism in as much as many atheists would accept the existence of morality and probably argue that their atheism has no bearing on this. An atheist might infer the meaningless or indeed richness of their existence from their atheism but could these ever be essential features? Really the question is 'is atheism the belief that God does not exist and nothing more?'
Or does it have necessary implications that would entail something 'positive' something more than just its obvious negation?

I don't know, Russell, but I enjoy being an atheist. I enjoy freedom from religion. :)

i guess what you are saying Varenne is that there may be more to atheism than simply denying the existence of god and that it frees one from the strictures of religion. However, i would say that in modern liberal theology there is a great emphasis on freedom and autonomy. The unitarian church speaks of 'building your own theology, and this can include embracing atheism. Here at least atheism and religion are not incompatible.

Good points. Every individual is different. I became an atheist during college (though I was always skeptical of stories in a sort of telephone game from ancient peoples), mainly while studying the anatomy of the brain. Fascinating stuff. I could never personally join any religion. For me, my atheism does prevent it. I think of it as being aware that I haven't unlocked all of the answers to the questions of the universe and existing. If there are other people who agree with me, I still don't think it can be called a religion. There aren't specific rules or groups that I adhere and belong to. I'm an earthling. Is that a religion? The good of it all for me is that knowing I only have one life to live (based on the only physical information I have), makes me want to live my life well and without injury to other persons. I can't say how atheism effects other people.

i think there is so much about this universe that we don't understand but there is no terminology for this. Atheist agnostic theist all define attitudes towards GOd. I would like a term that pertained to the sheer mystery of it all. As it is i can be pretty fluid in my outlook and I waver somewhere or other around the three positions

Okay. Now to business. Religion will never die. But the power of religion over the state has been dead for many decades. So what's the point in endless discussions on this boring issue, be it atheist, theist or agnostic. Let's move on to where the action is: freedom of choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russellb

i think there is so much about this universe that we don't understand but there is no terminology for this. Atheist agnostic theist all define attitudes towards GOd. I would like a term that pertained to the sheer mystery of it all. As it is i can be pretty fluid in my outlook and I waver somewhere or other around the three positions

---

I have heard God referred to as "The Ground Of Being", - it was theologian Paul Tillich. (Just looked it up).

he also says:

Philosophy formulates the questions implied in human existence, and theology formulates the answers implied in divine self-manifestation under the guidance of the questions implied in human existence. This is a circle which drives man to a point where question and answer are not separated. This point, however, is not a moment in time

If I were Christian, it would be a more appealing approach than the God, Eternal Father Figure which seems an unsophisticated view of a proposed ultimate being.

It occurred to me that many Christians might think that viewing God as 'the ground of being' is to think of 'Him' in rather impersonal terms. Perhaps the psychological appeal of Christianity (and a reason for its historical success) is due to the idea of a personal (and parental) God in heaven. However psychological accounts of religion can tend to be stereotyped We could even say that each 'faith' is different and that say Tillich's is of a more intellectual variety. What is suitable for one person makes little sense to someone else. But then i guess this goes back to psychological generalizaions,,.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I have heard God referred to as "The Ground Of Being", - it was theologian Paul Tillich. (Just looked it up).

he also says:

Philosophy formulates the questions implied in human existence, and theology formulates the answers implied in divine self-manifestation under the guidance of the questions implied in human existence. This is a circle which drives man to a point where question and answer are not separated. This point, however, is not a moment in time

If I were Christian, it would be a more appealing approach than the God, Eternal Father Figure which seems an unsophisticated view of a proposed ultimate being.

---

This is old hat. The purpose of filosophy in ancient Greece was to produce an environ directed by the areopagus to generate ancient theology to finish with pagan mythology. Some of the philosophies that started with Thales and many of his friends already had marked bits of theology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

This is old hat. The purpose of filosophy in ancient Greece was to produce an environ directed by the areopagus to generate ancient theology to finish with pagan mythology. Some of the philosophies that started with Thales and many of his friends already had marked bits of theology.

---

Thales was under the direction of the Aeropagus in Persian occupied Ionia long before the days of the Athenian Empire? This is interesting. Tell me more. I've never heard this before, this link between the Aeropagus and philosophy.