Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

How is it that some atheists are good people?

Page 18 of 26 [ 401 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 ... 26  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

25 Nov 2019, 10:31 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:

The three Abrahamic religions share so much---perhaps this knowledge is why they are at each other's throats constantly-----it's almost like they're siblings squabblng amongst each other.


From an outsider's perspective, it is like them looking in a mirror.
So many similarities.

It is perplexing why there is so much animosity, outside/beyond the annexation of Palestine by the Jewish settlers in 1948.
Was there animosity previous to the establishment of the "Jewish state"?
I could Google, but meh.
You seem to have a better handle on the situation than moi. :wink:



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 38
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

25 Nov 2019, 10:35 pm

Pepe wrote:
That is why I circumnavigate Mikah.


I don't really want to do this anymore. I've seen your response. After two apparent "concessions", you have again taken a step backwards in the argument. This only makes sense to me in one way. You typed those concessions only because some respectable atheist minds in this thread said "Mikah is right on this". But subsequent posts show you don't actually understand what you have conceded to. So I'm going to bow out.

My only hope is that those same minds have some way of explaining it to you, because I have failed.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

25 Nov 2019, 11:06 pm

Mikah wrote:
Pepe wrote:
That is why I circumnavigate Mikah.


I don't really want to do this anymore. I've seen your response. After two apparent "concessions", you have again taken a step backwards in the argument. This only makes sense to me in one way. You typed those concessions only because some respectable atheist minds in this thread said "Mikah is right on this". But subsequent posts show you don't actually understand what you have conceded to. So I'm going to bow out.

My only hope is that those same minds have some way of explaining it to you, because I have failed.


I gather you believe one of those "concessions" was admitting to having a (religious-like) faith?
I can see why you might think that but it wasn't the case.
It was a simple misunderstanding.
When I said: "Others might think the same about me",
I was referring to being "closed-minded" on the subject.

And yes, I guess I am since I see no *argument* or philosophical "tap-dancing" which could convince me about the existence of an "invisible friend".
Now, give me hardcore evidence and we're cooking. 8)

So, I will clarify my former position:
I am closed-minded unless I have convincing *evidence* to the contrary. 8)



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 38
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

25 Nov 2019, 11:32 pm

And these?:

Pepe wrote:
My choice which intellectual construct I embrace.

Pepe wrote:
I choose to believe in the non-existence of a god.


Apparently concessions that Atheism is both choice (as opposed to logical or reasonable conclusion) and an "intellectual construct", the same description you used earlier for Theism.

Regardless, I don't think I can be bothered to continue. You'll have to take it up with someone else who does get it and is not a theist, since you refuse to listen to me.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

26 Nov 2019, 12:20 am

Mikah wrote:
And these?:

Pepe wrote:
My choice which intellectual construct I embrace.

Pepe wrote:
I choose to believe in the non-existence of a god.


Apparently concessions that Atheism is both choice (as opposed to logical or reasonable conclusion) and an "intellectual construct", the same description you used earlier for Theism.

Regardless, I don't think I can be bothered to continue. You'll have to take it up with someone else who does get it and is not a theist, since you refuse to listen to me.


First of all, to be clear, I accept theists can be very intelligent people.
I will no doubt begin my in-depth investigative investigation at some point on where they go wrong. :mrgreen:

Atheists can and do choose to embrace a belief system based on reason.
This has nothing to do with a religious type of belief/faith.
And I have faith in my reasoning ability.
I think there is a semantic misunderstanding. <shrug>

I agree.
Let us move on. :wink:



magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

26 Nov 2019, 2:19 am

Pepe wrote:
"Agnostics" are atheists without Kahoonas. 8)

This is exactly what I meant by "too easily misunderstood".
Nope, I call off calling myself agnostic.
I choose to remain unlabeled.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,674
Location: Right over your left shoulder

26 Nov 2019, 2:34 am

I would argue ignostic atheism would be the most inherently neutral position, not believing while simultaneously not ever considering why one has never considered the question. All other positions, whether agnostic, materialist and atheistic, atheistic but not materialist, mono/pan/poly-theistic, etc would all require first considering the notion. They all involve having accepted at least a few ideas with a degree of faith.

Not that anyone asked. :nerdy:

Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
tl;dr


You sound like a teenager petulantly stomping their foot and shouting 'you just don't get it', and you're right. I don't get why you insist that anyone who doesn't accept that your perfect imaginary friend is real is ignorant, but the circular logic and constant 'well, what do you know compared to god' deflections you insist on using aren't convincing.

Anyways, I have to head to work now.


Not to be rude to AngelRho, but what is your motivation in conversing with him?
Psychological curiosity here from me.

He has a closed mind in regards to his faith.
(I guess it could be said the same about me).
I am assuming you have met people like this before and know there is nothing you can say to change their mind.
I doubt you are trying to seriously convince him of the errors of his ways. 8O

Are you having a bit of fun or simply refining/improving your philosophical position? :scratch:
Awaiting your answer with "baited" [sic] breath. <worm hanging out of side of mouth> :mrgreen:


Not sure which one you were addressing, but at this point I'm mostly not engaging him. When people insist on hectoring non-believers with the presumption that their faith is the only correct and enlightened worldview I enjoy challenging that presumption just to distract from the lecture. I don't typically make serious attempts to convince the person otherwise, because I generally don't believe it's a likely outcome and I have no real interest in being some sort of evangelical atheist. If someone makes claims that sound delusional am I out of line to challenge them? Maybe someday the guy claiming to be Napoleon Bonaparte will be, but until I meet the real Napoleon and he proves it I'm gonna keep telling people who insist to be Napoleon that they're not.

Someone repeating for the 9001st time that 'Elvis never did no drugs' is still just as wrong as the first time they claimed it.


_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

26 Nov 2019, 2:53 am

funeralxempire wrote:
I would argue ignostic atheism would be the most inherently neutral position, not believing while simultaneously not ever considering why one has never considered the question. All other positions, whether agnostic, materialist and atheistic, atheistic but not materialist, mono/pan/poly-theistic, etc would all require first considering the notion. They all involve having accepted at least a few ideas with a degree of faith.

The position without "first considering the notion" would be any position inherited from those who raised you.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,674
Location: Right over your left shoulder

26 Nov 2019, 2:58 am

magz wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
I would argue ignostic atheism would be the most inherently neutral position, not believing while simultaneously not ever considering why one has never considered the question. All other positions, whether agnostic, materialist and atheistic, atheistic but not materialist, mono/pan/poly-theistic, etc would all require first considering the notion. They all involve having accepted at least a few ideas with a degree of faith.

The position without "first considering the notion" would be any position inherited from those who raised you.


Not really, because there would first be a period where you can't comprehend even the most basic understanding of what's being discussed. I'd say it's fair to say believing a 'barely considered' version of what your home believes would be what follows that for most people.


_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

26 Nov 2019, 3:05 am

funeralxempire wrote:
Not really, because there would first be a period where you can't comprehend even the most basic understanding of what's being discussed. I'd say it's fair to say believing a 'barely considered' version of what your home believes would be what follows that for most people.

Well, I would disagree with this, as humans are fundamentally cultural creatures, we have evolved as cultures and we get our fundamental tools to explore the world from the culture that raised us. There is no pre-culture form of a human being.
Meeting people from all around the world (especially East Asia) made me realize my culture is not something external to me, it's an important part of who I am.
Studying history of philosophy gives another magnificient example of long and complicated evolution that resulted in mental tools (like logic) we take for granted today.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


nickolasprohas
Butterfly
Butterfly

Joined: 26 Nov 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 11

26 Nov 2019, 3:19 am

That would be a smart move.... they can use the sense of hearing to hear other people state that there are no monsters in any particular region.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Nov 2019, 8:55 am

nickolasprohas wrote:
That would be a smart move.... they can use the sense of hearing to hear other people state that there are no monsters in any particular region.

How can they be certain the people they hear aren’t lying to them?



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

26 Nov 2019, 9:01 am

The blind person wouldn’t rely on the testimony of one person. The smart blind person would seek corroboration before journeying to the purportedly “monsterless” land.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Nov 2019, 9:30 am

magz wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Not really, because there would first be a period where you can't comprehend even the most basic understanding of what's being discussed. I'd say it's fair to say believing a 'barely considered' version of what your home believes would be what follows that for most people.

Well, I would disagree with this, as humans are fundamentally cultural creatures, we have evolved as cultures and we get our fundamental tools to explore the world from the culture that raised us. There is no pre-culture form of a human being.
Meeting people from all around the world (especially East Asia) made me realize my culture is not something external to me, it's an important part of who I am.
Studying history of philosophy gives another magnificient example of long and complicated evolution that resulted in mental tools (like logic) we take for granted today.

I like this.

The history of philosophy is interesting, and I think you’re right. Ayn Rand even pointed out that ancient religion served a positive purpose. Human progress appeared to have brought more dependence on rational thought independent from religion and, specifically, magical thinking.

The issue I have with “religious thinking” is it often breaks down, for the individual, into switching off the mind in favor of the opinions or agendas of some human authority. At that point it fails as a true religion, for instance becoming a man-made god as some will point out, that serves the greed of those in power.

I can’t remember—maybe it was Ayn Rand—who formulated out the “Atheist’s Wager” in response to Pascal. If God exists and He made man in His image (note that this is a distinctly atheist argument and assumes God doesn’t exist), then God must also be a rational being. If God values reason, then that makes reason is a desired virtue. God would see that those who logically came to the conclusion that He doesn’t exist are virtuous, “good” people and would welcome them into heaven.

The underlying assumptions are wrong, of course, and even logically flawed. But against the backdrop of independent thought and the abuses organized religion has inflicted on humanity, the atheist wager is something to at least think about.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Nov 2019, 9:45 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
The blind person wouldn’t rely on the testimony of one person. The smart blind person would seek corroboration before journeying to the purportedly “monsterless” land.

Are you saying that mass hysteria isn’t logically possible?



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

26 Nov 2019, 10:23 am

I don't believe "mass hysteria" is rational in and of itself. It rarely solves anything. It almost always causes irrational destruction, to the point where people cannot recover for months.

Though, in retrospect, this "mass hysteria" might cause people to cooperate more----after experiencing the cumulative effects of the "mass hysteria."