Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Atheism is contentless.

You and I are not disagreeing. Other than a bald negation of any gods, it has nothing. In terms of values, Atheism is simply an empty vessel.

But that's the point. It doesn't give any warrant for "better" or "worse" deaths. Death is death -- final, irreversible, and ultimately meaningless, if Atheism is right..

But why did you bring it up?

Immanuel Can wrote: But Humanism is a creed, a religious belief...an unjustifiable exaltation of the human. It has to be overlaid artificially on top of Atheism. A committed Atheist would have to regard it as a sort of cancerous 'faith' imposed on the body of "pure" Atheism, corrupting it from hard-nosed Materialism, and reducing it to soppy sentimentalism. For why should we think humans so privileged?

Why "but". I mean you are talking and talking and saying nothing. Maybe you've not bothered to read the account of the person whom the thread is about. In fact you insult him, he is an atheist and an a humanist. And probably a much better person, alive or dead than you will ever be. The only cancerous thing is the lung cancer he is dying of. So fuck you and the horse you ride in on.
In light of the fact that he has stage four cancer you words are as sick as your mind.

Is all this bluster simply a reaction to the word "cancer"?

But what is the greater cancer: that which kills the body, or that which kills the soul?

I submit to you that the term "cancer" is not excessive, but is rather too mild for the case. Atheism is worse -- far, far worse -- than any cancer, if what it does is what I think it does.

Immanuel Can wrote:Is all this bluster simply a reaction to the word "cancer"?

But what is the greater cancer: that which kills the body, or that which kills the soul?

I submit to you that the term "cancer" is not excessive, but is rather too mild for the case. Atheism is worse -- far, far worse -- than any cancer, if what it does is what I think it does.

No the reaction is to a self obsessed insensitive ****. What did you not understand buy fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

As you have agreed that atheism is contentless, then it is incapable of doing all the things you accuse it of. I'd ask you to think about it. But I know you are too pig stupid to do that.

Immanuel Can wrote:Is all this bluster simply a reaction to the word "cancer"?

But what is the greater cancer: that which kills the body, or that which kills the soul?

I submit to you that the term "cancer" is not excessive, but is rather too mild for the case. Atheism is worse -- far, far worse -- than any cancer, if what it does is what I think it does.

Icy.
Insensitive
Idiocy

Inappropriate.

'How can or does a committed atheist confronted with death find consolation?'

Hell if I know.

It's the BIG IRREVOCABLE, the point of no return, the one-way street...I'd like to think I'd be very brave (assuming the certain death was some time away giving me time to think on it). but...*shrug*...hell if I know how I'll respond.

Mebbe I'll convert (making Mannie happy) but that won't get me nuthin'...pretty sure god (any that might happen to be flittin' around the ether) takes a dim view of panicky declarations of (false) faith.

Mebbe I'll permanently settle the score with folks who I'm damned certain the world would be better off without...a much better use of my time than taking to my knees to pray, and certainly more in keeping with who I am.

Mebbe I'll do nuthin' except love my friends and family a little harder, get laid, then wait for the inevitable.

Don't know and won't know till the day comes (assuming I have the time to think on it...a big-ass truck jumping lanes on the interstate really give no time for contemplation).


As for Mannie and his 'callousness': give 'em a break...it's in his nature to proselytize. If your hackles rise every time a believer works to change your mind, you're gonna suffer daily and continuously.

Counter him if you must; ignore him (his peachiness) as you can.

MB and HC:

Interesting.

So you would both have me ignore what's wrong with Atheists, and send them to their doom. You would have me pretend that all was well for the author of Atheists in Foxholes even though I am concerned his time is short and he does not know what follows. You would, then, perhaps have me utter unctuous platitudes, perhaps slimily flatter your chosen ideology of Atheism or your Humanism instead of pointing out the only remedy that exists? You would have me smile and literally let the author "Go to Hell"?

Meanwhile, I would save him from such a fate if I could...and would gladly endure your abuse on the mere chance that I might do it...And would gladly do the same for you...

However, the conclusion is I'm insensitive, inappropriate, and so on?

Interesting.

P.S. -- Hi, Henry. So nice to hear from you again. Does it frighten you that it would seem you're the voice of reason here?

"Does it frighten you that it would seem you're the voice of reason here?"

Frighten me? Hell no, I've come to expect it...

Dear Ducking Christ
Not taking advice from a shrugging expert.
Countering Icy is a waste of breath.
Ignoring his insensitivity - not an option.
But these will be my final words in this thread.

Best wishes to those brave enough to withstand religious nonsense.
Love and Peace.

I find IC's reasoning exactly right. I'll never understand atheists devoid of angst/despair. I.e. happy atheists. There must be two kinds of people - those who find a world without meaning 'just fine' and those who despair. The latter group then divides between religious folks and, for lack of a better term, philosophers.

Poor blues: got no steel in his shorts.

#

"those who find a world without meaning 'just fine' "

That would be me, and - yeah - it's just fine.

I find the alternative unappealing (and unsupported).

Yeah, Henry...but the thing that's going to be your Achilles heel is your sincerity. You have this thing about seeing things as they are...very dangerous, from an Atheist point of view.

As the one-time Atheist C.S. Lewis put it after his own encounter with faith, “Really, a young Atheist cannot guard his faith too carefully. Dangers lie in wait for him on every side..."

Young you may not be, but God likes sincere people. You're one of the kind of people He reaches. They don't stop asking until they get answers. Eventually, they get some.

Good luck fighting him off.

Wyman wrote:I find IC's reasoning exactly right. I'll never understand atheists devoid of angst/despair. I.e. happy atheists. ...

Who said this makes one happy?

There must be two kinds of people - those who find a world without meaning 'just fine' and those who despair. The latter group then divides between religious folks and, for lack of a better term, philosophers.

Disagree, as in the former are those of a philosophical bent who dealt with Nihilism's challenge. To top it off I'd probably despair if the world was as the religious and these 'latter' philosophers wish it to be as that is one with no freedom at all.

Immanuel Can wrote:... So you would both have me ignore what's wrong with Atheists, and send them to their doom. You would have me pretend that all was well for the author of Atheists in Foxholes even though I am concerned his time is short and he does not know what follows. ...

Neither do you.

Philosophy Now wrote:David Rönnegard asks how a committed atheist confronted with death might find consolation.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/105/At ... _A_Foxhole

They find consolation in the fact that they have in no way bent nor bowed to the lies.

Systematic wrote:

Philosophy Now wrote:David Rönnegard asks how a committed atheist confronted with death might find consolation.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/105/At ... _A_Foxhole

They find consolation in the fact that they have in no way bent nor bowed to the lies.

Let's suppose that's right. Humour me.

Let's suppose that everything BUT Atheism is a lie.

What would it matter? An "honest" dead Atheist is precisely on the same par as a dead "dishonest" one: an Atheist-Nihilist and an Atheist-Humanist are both dead, and arguably, because of his chosen delusion the Atheist-Humanist may have experienced less angst than the Atheist-Nihilist. It would seem, therefore, that the Atheist-Humanist is ahead on that score.

In a Godless universe, "honesty" is not a virtue: in fact, there are no virtues in such a universe. There are only pragmatic advantages and pragmatic disadvantages. The Atheist-Humanist has a pragmatic advantage over the angst-filled Nihilist.

So then, on what basis ought an Atheist to prefer an unpleasant "truth" above a comforting "lie"? If "consolation" is the issue (and here, the author thinks it is) then the Atheist-Humanist surely wins over the Atheist-Nihilist...but the Theist beats them both. He has more "consolation."