Philosophy Now Forum

Address my points instead of making up your own misinterpretations.

attofishpi wrote:Address my points instead of making up your own misinterpretations.

That's cute.

If I could find your points, atto, I would happily address them. I was asking you to help me find them.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be insulting, so please keep a thick skin on. I'm just trying to figure out if you think "God" has any objective characteristics at all, or not. And you'll have to forgive me, but I just can't see a consistent position in what you've said prior to this. However, I'm very happy for you to clarify, and I promise not to attribute to you any other position but whatever one you choose to declare.

So? Do you or don't you think "God," as you conceive of Him, has objective characteristics?

Now, of course, all this is a bit of a sideline here. Atto believes in some concept of "God,"...I think...so our conversation is a bit far from the strand question above.

I don't want to lose the original thread, so I wonder if anyone has anything more to say in defence of Poor Richard and the Atheists?

Immanuel Can wrote:I wonder if anyone has anything more to say in defence of Poor Richard and the Atheists?

I certainly have no wish to defend him. I mean what's so great about stating the obvious? We can all do that (religious nut cases excepted).

Aetixintro wrote:It can hardly be said that Atheists can believe in Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real. ...

What do you mean by this 'real'?

Atheists are undeniably going to write those sizes off as psychological compulsions! ...

Well some might but others might say they are just reasoned choices or biological imperatives sieved by Evolution.

What can happen in light of this?

Presumably exactly what happened before the idea of a 'God' was thought up?

When Dawkins point out that Atheists can have just a positive attitude as the Religious believer, he fails to give the other story that Atheists may also at the same time and of some proportion of their group, not believe in any Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real and this can happen without breaking any duties inherent in the Atheistic system!

How do you explain that the religious believer can behave negatively if their Ethics/Morals are 'real'? And what is this 'real' anyway?

Also, what is this 'Atheistic system' you talk about?

Thus, I can soundly say that Dawkins and the Atheists are insincere about their message of Atheism and in Dawkins case, I think he fails an ideal of being a good scientist specifically for these two reasons of Ethics/Morals and Meaning!

What two reasons? As so far I don't think you've made your case for this 'atheistic system' nor for why atheists should not behave well.

Let's say the whole world turns Atheistic. This should be conceivable! The whole world goes to Hell, ends in catastrophe because riots have broke out and human kind has failed to make the exodus to other planets! Human life and consciousness end just there, it's all over! The "soul" of the Atheist says "so what? We would have been f**ked anyway, it has just been a matter of time and, ta-da, that time is now". My point is that the lack of dedication in Atheism of Ethics/Morals and Meaning may lead the human kind terribly awry! Still, the Atheists, spearheaded by Dawkins, fail to give recognition to this aspect! To the Atheists, there are no inherent duties to anything, social Darwinism including war and famine are just as rightful as promoting the good values!

I think you confuse Nihilism with Atheism. Why do you think humans would behave badly if they didn't believe in a 'God'? I don't. And can you explain why those who do believe in a 'God' appear to behave badly?

From Existence Is Pointless, Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:40 am: "I give you this picture. Imagine that you have a good deal of pebbles strewn out on the floor. All these pebbles represent truths. Atheism has this tendency to be the act of laying one's arms around most of these pebbles, but not all. Religiousness has this tendency to lay the arms around a much greater area than just the pebbles so you get a lot of empty room within those arms as well. What I'm trying to say is that Atheism is likely to cut the future too limited while Religiousness gets the future too wide and includes too much. Therefore, being religious can represent a better critical thought than Atheism! I think it's too easy to suggest Atheism represents critical thought!"

? By an' large most atheists are ex-theists and appear pretty bitter about it.

Me, I think all this belief in an after-life leads to an acceptance of one's lot on Earth and maybe that's a good thing but it allows a lot of bastards to get away with a lot of a shit.

Atheism may really f**k this over while Religious people just believe in some surplus in the worst case scenario!

Or they blow you all to hell for being unbelievers.

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:I wonder if anyone has anything more to say in defence of Poor Richard and the Atheists?

I certainly have no wish to defend him. I mean what's so great about stating the obvious? We can all do that (religious nut cases excepted).

Interesting. Well, there certainly are "religious nut cases," I won't deny, just as their are foolish Atheists whose antipathy to them is sponsored by nothing more than woeful ignorance or prejudice. Smugness is by no means the exclusive purview of the religious, but is rather a general human failing manifest across all ideologies. But I see no advantage philosophically to entertaining any of that here, as I'm sure you would agree.

Now, if one here were a sincere Atheist, he would surely be able to bring both evidence and reasons for his Atheism, no? For gratuitous Atheism, like gratuitous religion, or like superstition in general, can surely be of little philosophical weight and of little intellectual interest to anyone sensible.

And maybe that's the real reason why so few would feel the need to defend Mr. Dawkins.

Immanuel Can wrote:...
Now, if one here were a sincere Atheist, he would surely be able to bring both evidence and reasons for his Atheism, no? ...

What would a theist accept as evidence and reason?

As it's fairly clear what the ex-theist atheist accepts.

For gratuitous Atheism, like gratuitous religion, or like superstition in general, can surely be of little philosophical weight and of little intellectual interest to anyone sensible. ...

What's 'gratuitous Atheism'? Or 'gratuitous religion' for that matter.

And maybe that's the real reason why so few would feel the need to defend Mr. Dawkins.

He doesn't need defending, he does a pretty good job all by himself. Why so many appear to want to attack him is of more interest, insecurity I think.

Immanuel Can wrote:Now, if one here were a sincere Atheist, he would surely be able to bring both evidence and reasons for his Atheism, no? For gratuitous Atheism, like gratuitous religion, or like superstition in general, can surely be of little philosophical weight and of little intellectual interest to anyone sensible.

And maybe that's the real reason why so few would feel the need to defend Mr. Dawkins.

Please let us know when your superiority complex, due to a gratuitous simple-minded bible story, is about to burst so we can all get out of the way. Wouldn't want, by coincidence, to be gratuitously wrapped in holier-than-thou ectoplasm like some of the victims in a ghostbusters video.

Immanuel Can wrote: Now, if one here were a sincere Atheist, he would surely be able to bring both evidence and reasons for his Atheism,

If this thread is about arguing for and against the existence of God, then yes, one would be expected to provide reasons for their beliefs or lack of them.

For gratuitous Atheism,

Gratuitous is a strange choice of adjective to apply to atheism.

And maybe that's the real reason why so few would feel the need to defend Mr. Dawkins.

The reason I would not defend Dawkins is because he is no better than a religious zealot. I do happen to agree with most of his views but he's a knob head for shouting them from the roof tops. Why believers and non believers feel the need to belittle each other is beyond me, I mean, I'm certainly not above "gratuitously" causing offence to others but even I think that is pointless. Religion is a different matter, many religious practices and attitudes deserve to be attacked.

Immanuel Can wrote:Now, if one here were a sincere Atheist, he would surely be able to bring both evidence and reasons for his Atheism, no?

You still don't understand atheism. I think the problem you have is that it is not in your interest to acknowledge the difference between 'I do not believe there is a god' and 'I do believe there is no god'. It is only by insisting that the latter defines atheism that gives any weight to your argument. It is presumptuous of you to doubt it, but I sincerely do not believe there is a god. I am not, therefore, committed to believing that there is no god. Can you really not tell the difference?

Immanuel Can wrote:For gratuitous Atheism, like gratuitous religion, or like superstition in general, can surely be of little philosophical weight and of little intellectual interest to anyone sensible.

So now we can add gratuitous to insincere and irrational to your insults. You must have had an irony bypass:

Immanuel Can wrote:Seriously, I'm not trying to be insulting...

Indeed; you apparently do it without effort.

Immanuel Can wrote:...so please keep a thick skin on.

That's rich given your refusal to engage.

Immanuel Can wrote:And maybe that's the real reason why so few would feel the need to defend Mr. Dawkins.

That's Professor Dawkins. In the unlikely event that he chooses to join this forum, I'm sure he will look after himself. As for evolution, the lack of sophistication shown by religious thinkers such as yourself is compelling evidence; there is clearly something of the macaque in your cerebral processes.

Harbal wrote:...

The reason I would not defend Dawkins is because he is no better than a religious zealot. I do happen to agree with most of his views but he's a knob head for shouting them from the roof tops. ...

I think this a touch unfair. What happened was that in the 70's he wrote a book about his subject and since then has been continuously hated and pilloried by American godbothering creationists who made him the poster-boy for everything they hate. I'm not surprised it's changed him and made him more militant.

uwot wrote:...

Immanuel Can wrote:...so please keep a thick skin on.

That's rich given your refusal to engage.

Be fair, he's scared he'll go to 'Hell' for talking to us as his 'God' is the vengeful bastard one from the OT.

Arising_uk wrote:What would a theist accept as evidence and reason?

Entropy. (for the reason part)

attofishpi wrote:Entropy. (for the reason part)

You'd accept this as evidence there is no 'God'?

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Entropy. (for the reason part)

You'd accept this as evidence there is no 'God'?

Surely.. If it stands to reason it stands to reason - i would be a fool not to accept evidence, but you know it points the other way.