Atheism, a new look at things.

Well, this is a bit odd as i haven't been posting on this site in about two years, but i randomly had the impulse to see what a forum i spent many hours on is up to. I also found some of my 16 year old self posts funny and an insight into how much and little i have changed since two years ago when i first was on this site (eg. my tastes in movies). I swear the internet can be like a time capsule.

Anyway, i was on a random tumblr before and i discoverd this rant. I shared it with my friends and they found it somewhat intresting, so i thought it would be intresting to see people out side my imediate social circles thoughts to it.

http://castro****freetrade.tumblr.co...ists-are-****s

Its a new way of seeing aithiests, that i haven't looked at before and i some what agree with the guy.

Anyway, theres heaps of swearing so be warned. But what are your thoughts on it.

btw, if this doesn't need it's own thread, feel free to move it who ever the admins are these days.

__________________
http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=17475 - My movie reviews

Hey king, nice to see you around again.

Obviously the censor mucked up that link, but I found the actual version. Weird that he misspells "atheist" in the title but not anywhere else. Anyway, for those who'd rather not find and/or read it, it basically amounts to "religion has done plenty of good and it makes lots of people happy, so there's no reason for us atheists to try to talk people out of it." He makes an exception for really fringe, dangerous fundamentalists.

I suppose I agree with the basic premise in that I'm not sure true atheism or materialism is compatible with a militant desire to talk other people into it (or out of something else).

If anything, I have relaxed my Agnostic views a bit, approaching all schools of thought with a more open mind. I'm not a believer, but I certainly leave open the possibility at this point.

__________________

Yeah, that was a...really inspiring rant.

Yoda, he does misspell atheist elsewhere besides the title, but that's irrelevant, as I got his basic argument. Basically, he has a very care free idea of how the world/society operates in which he can just kick back and not care. I commend him for his ability to do that and I must say, in my opinion anyways, it is much more common among non-believers to have such an attitude. So yeah, if the guy ascribes to that sorta thing, then right on.

I could go on some more about the "well, religion makes people happy" sorta thing, but I don't feel like thinking this early.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

I've always said self-styled atheists who go around issuing commandments as to what is or isn't acceptable are practicing a nihilistic "religion" of their own to which they are just as dedicated as any member of any of the major religions. I would think a true atheist would totally dismiss religion and therefore would have no reason to argue over it. But I wonder why that guy would make an exception for "really fringe fundamentalists?" I also wonder where that fringe would start? How far out does a fundamentalist have to get before he's beyond the fringe?

Nice to see you King

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

You're right, religion makes some people happy; religion can also comfort them in hard times, so why take that from them? If a guy thinks wearing a certain shirt while he watches a game on TV will help his team win, what's the point of denouncing that as superstition and trying to get him to trash the shirt? If something works for someone, who am I to put them down for it.

I don't think exposure to religion does any harm to people and sometimes it can even do 'em some good, even if they don't accept everything about it. It's only when they take their twisted interpretation of it and try to apply it to someone else that it goes bad. But to me, the Ten Commandments make sense no matter who came up with 'em. People don't necessarily have to adhere to any certain religion, but good morals and manners apply to everyone.

And then there's me - pissing people off telling them that an unproven belief in alien life is alarmingly similar to a religion. I make no bones about the search for other intelligent life forms, but I find believing in it and attempting unsuccessfully to prove it real to be awfully close to .....faith. after all, a "religion" is just an organized system of beliefs. just saying!

__________________
something witty goes here......

Bit different, but alright.

Completely different in terms of "mapping". Phenomenologically, it's probably about the same.

In other words... "true atheists" shouldn't really have a desire to do anything, since there is no inherent meaning and whatnot? That seems strange since most of "us" claim that we are naturally filled with desires as part of our intrinsic biology. And our desire for power is probably the most fundamental. Desire is not an intellectual stance.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

I dunno about "anything," but yeah, that's roughly what I mean.

No, but it is something which we can overcome with our intellect, usually by recognizing it for what it is. The meta-battle of ideology takes place over a longer time frame than any current human's lifespan, so they won't see the fruits of winning converts, if indeed there ever is any.

Even if we were slaves to our own biology, it would still make militant atheism pointless because the people who believed would be just as much slaves to whatever influence had made them that way.

Also, while the idea that truth is inherently beautiful and valuable is something I happen to agree with, it's very rooted in theism. If we're all just particles reacting to one another, there really isn't much basis from which to value truth inherently. Truth can either be useful, or not, so any militant atheist not only has to contend with whether or not what they say is true, but whether or not something being true is reason enough to argue for it to begin with. To my mind, this is one of many assumptions that materialists/atheists unconsciously "borrow" from the thing they're arguing against in order to undermine it.

This is the greatest response ever.

That's been my basic view all along. If we were talking about a Superman comic book instead of the Bible, would I try to dissuade anyone who thought Superman were real? I had a strong and frequent exposure to the Baptist church in my youth, and it never did me any harm. In fact, that's where I learned to start questioning things instead just being told it's true. Seems to me that unquestioning acceptance of faith is just a house built on sand, but that's just my opinion. But even if you don't accept the religious aspects of it, the Bible as a whole (not just cherry-picking and warping certain parts) won't do anyone real harm and could make them a better person if one takes some of the lessons to heart.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Materialism is not synonymous with Atheism. Idealists can also be Atheists. Materialists get all their "motivations" from material things like labor for Marx or "creativity" (propagation of difference) for Deleuze. Generally, materialists always have their own reasons for valuing truth, at least those that do value it in the way that you're speaking of. Take a look at Deleuze's conception of philosophy:

"A book of philosophy should be in part a very particular species of detective novel, in part a kind of science fiction. By detective novel we mean that concepts, with their zones of presence, should intervene to resolve local situations. They themselves change along with the problems. They have spheres of influences where, as we shall see, they operate in relation to "dramas" and by means of a certain "cruelty". They must have a coherence among themselves. They must receive their coherence from elsewhere."

In other words, philosophy for Deleuze is the creation of concepts, which fits in with his grand view of material as "univocally speaking through creation". His is a philosophy of the creative---in Spinozan terms "expressive"---qualities of the material universe and how we are to live within it and express ourselves through it. There is really not a huge valuing of "truth", as it is simply just the self-consistency of certain representations, which are always fundamentally wrong for Deleuze.

But if one looks at Marxist materialism and you have yet another principle univocality: the class struggle or the exploitation of human energy. Notice however that human energy is a material and not a concept like "truth". Why freedom of human energy is a good thing is justified solely by the nature of the material itself. Marx takes Hegel's idea of a material process called dialectic that "speaks" the direction of progress in its becoming. Material itself, you find, often has an arrow or a "motivation".

Knowing how much is on your plate, you don't really even need to reply to this. There's nothing to argue really.

Not sure if this will help or hurt the thread. I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact i get a couple of negs of every thousand pos, so what the hell either way.

having said that, I found the following interesting. Its from "The Hour" easily my fave interview based show.



&feature=fvwrel

And then a week or so later they had this guy




then this guy..

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

"For me what matters is... the truth".

See, the main problem I have with Dawkins is that he has a mistaken view, or rather non-view, of what relation religion and science with "the truth" or, for that matter, what "the truth" is.

I think there are two vital aspects about religion/science that he doesn't address.

1) What belief is---i.e. what does it mean to believe and how people who claim to believe in religion actually express this belief. 2) What science is---i.e. what does it mean for something to be true in science, how this scientific truth relates to reality, and how people should relate to this truth.

It seems to me that 1) irrational belief is much more complex, ingrained into our very being, and difficult to escape than he gives credit to and that 2) the space that remains when religion is taken away cannot be adequately filled by scientific truth, since it is rather mysterious exactly what scientific truth is.

In other words, science is not a replacement for religion and religion might be more formal than literal.

You have read his God Ilusion then PN i presume?

I think it's The God Delusion, though at this point he's made it pretty clear what's in the book, so you don't need to read it to disagree with its core premises. He's talked at length about his philosophy, obviously.

Anyway, I agree; Dawkins' worldview is kind of naive, in a way, about humanity's needs. As a theist, he doesn't "worry" me at all because his ideology will never, ever catch on much as long as people are people.

@Dexter: I not only read his book, but also his The Selfish Gene, an excellent exegesis of evolutionary theory I would continue to recommend to anybody. In addition, I also read God is not Great by Hitchens, The End of Faith by Harris and Breaking the Spell by Dennet. this was all around freshman year of high school back when these guys were really huge and all over the media. You could say that I was, back then, their biggest fan. However, it is obvious from your botching of the title that you yourself are not familiar with the book or its arguments. I would advise you to familiarize yourself with the relevant texts before engaging with me any further in your typically hostile, condescending manner. I'm happy for you and your infinite wisdom culled from decades of life experience and that you actually think you just discovered New Atheism.

No
PN as obvious as it may be to you, i jus happen to be a crappy typer.

but thanks for playen