My theist-atheist article appeared in the April 2012 Issue of
American Atheist Magazine. The link is:
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo/atheist.html
Comments will be appreciated.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
[SIZE=7]
There is a hint of your viewpoint in the first paragraph and my scepticism was aroused.
My doubts about its intellectual honesty grew until your real position was revealed in paragraph eight. Like, nearly all, religious people, you try to build a facade of intellectual openness but the reality soon bites.
The conclusion you reach is both untrue and deniable;
One fact is undeniable: many professional theologians and scientists usually respect each other. And they know which methodology of validation is applicable in each field.
It uses a sweeping generalisation without any substantiation in the (vain) hope of providing a basis for the conclusion. In truth, both are without foundation. As a religious person, it seems to me you are seeking some validation of your, relatively new found, beliefs and I wonder whether you are really misguided or being disingenuous.
To be blunt, I can't see why the article was published. It contributes nothing to any sort of debate, rather rehashing many arguments the religious have used unsuccessfully over many years to try to establish a (meaningless and pointless) validity of an indefensible position.
If you want to believe in a fairy at the bottom of the fairy, at least be honest about it. Don't dress it up in a new suit and expect respect for a belief system based on ignorance and superstition. The hoary argument that religion has changed does not, and never will, address the fundamental problems with any religious text. AND don't get me started on Leviticus, one of the most blood thirsty weird books ever written, putting aside the wholesale genocide of Genesis where the Jews made Hitler look like an amateur.
If you were offended by the last sentence, I suggest you actually read Genesis and understand the brutal, cruel and murderous heritage Jews claim as the foundation for their claim on the stolen land of Palestine. The corollary is, of course, is that if Genesis is untrue, Jews have no claim to Israel.
Before anyone jumps on a moral high horse and becomes "offended", I suggest you also read the bible/talmud and a bit of history.
Physfan
My doubts about its intellectual honesty grew until your real position was revealed in paragraph eight. Like, nearly all, religious people, you try to build a facade of intellectual openness but the reality soon bites.
The conclusion you reach is both untrue and deniable;
One fact is undeniable: many professional theologians and scientists usually respect each other. And they know which methodology of validation is applicable in each field.
It uses a sweeping generalisation without any substantiation in the (vain) hope of providing a basis for the conclusion. In truth, both are without foundation. As a religious person, it seems to me you are seeking some validation of your, relatively new found, beliefs and I wonder whether you are really misguided or being disingenuous.
To be blunt, I can't see why the article was published. It contributes nothing to any sort of debate, rather rehashing many arguments the religious have used unsuccessfully over many years to try to establish a (meaningless and pointless) validity of an indefensible position.
If you want to believe in a fairy at the bottom of the fairy, at least be honest about it. Don't dress it up in a new suit and expect respect for a belief system based on ignorance and superstition. The hoary argument that religion has changed does not, and never will, address the fundamental problems with any religious text. AND don't get me started on Leviticus, one of the most blood thirsty weird books ever written, putting aside the wholesale genocide of Genesis where the Jews made Hitler look like an amateur.
If you were offended by the last sentence, I suggest you actually read Genesis and understand the brutal, cruel and murderous heritage Jews claim as the foundation for their claim on the stolen land of Palestine. The corollary is, of course, is that if Genesis is untrue, Jews have no claim to Israel.
Before anyone jumps on a moral high horse and becomes "offended", I suggest you also read the bible/talmud and a bit of history.
Physfan
QUOTE (kowalskil+)
I am a scientist, not a theologian (3). As a university student in Poland from 1949 to 1957, I was an aggressive atheist and subsequently became a member of the communist party. I am now a theist, believing in God and attending a synagogue.
Ludwik, what form of logic do you employ to justify your philosophical conversion to Judaism?
Ludwik, what form of logic do you employ to justify your philosophical conversion to Judaism?
wow this ties in nicely to the Give the Jewish there home land back.
You guy who wants to give them Montana. Go suck an egg. Montana is mine
You guy who wants to give them Montana. Go suck an egg. Montana is mine
No response?
Yep, defending the indefensible is still as hard as ever.
. . .That all men are created/evolved equal . . .
Only humans display the behavior called religion. No other animals, vegetables, or mineral on earth, can be demonstrated, by science, to practice the behavior called religion. Since atheist don't practice the religion behavior and they are human, this suggest that they have something more in common, with the rests of the animals, vegetables and minerals, compared religious humans.
The question one might ask, are atheists the missing link between that part of humans, who show this unique behavior, and the rest of the animals, vegetables and minerals which don't? The missing link premise could explain the atheist affinity for apes, over humans who practiced this behavior; bird of a feather flock together? They prefer to copy the ape behavior but not religious behavior.
What is unique about this religious behavior, compared to animals, is the visualization will cause the brain to depart from normal evolution, since natural sensory input will be perturbed via an overlay. Animals., vegetables and minerals do not do this.
Instead of just a seeing stick, like an ape or an atheist, the overlay conceptually allows the stick to become some thing it is not, naturally, like a staff, a hoe, a totem, etc. There is a connection to creation. This pertubation would come in handy for starting civilization from scratch. Once the procedures of civilization are invented and become a direct part of sensory reality, monkey see and monkey do allows one to copy.
The question one might ask, are atheists the missing link between that part of humans, who show this unique behavior, and the rest of the animals, vegetables and minerals which don't? The missing link premise could explain the atheist affinity for apes, over humans who practiced this behavior; bird of a feather flock together? They prefer to copy the ape behavior but not religious behavior.
What is unique about this religious behavior, compared to animals, is the visualization will cause the brain to depart from normal evolution, since natural sensory input will be perturbed via an overlay. Animals., vegetables and minerals do not do this.
Instead of just a seeing stick, like an ape or an atheist, the overlay conceptually allows the stick to become some thing it is not, naturally, like a staff, a hoe, a totem, etc. There is a connection to creation. This pertubation would come in handy for starting civilization from scratch. Once the procedures of civilization are invented and become a direct part of sensory reality, monkey see and monkey do allows one to copy.
QUOTE
Only humans display the behavior called religion. No other animals, vegetables, or mineral on earth, can be demonstrated, by science, to practice the behavior called religion. Since atheist don't practice the religion behavior and they are human, this suggest that they have something more in common, with the rests of the animals, vegetables and minerals, compared religious humans.
Religion is essentially a set of beliefs that are commonly demonstrated by an association of the imaginary with sensually perceived reality. It’s likely that most if not all birds and mammals exhibit this capacity to some degree. Definitely all humans do, be they theist or atheist.
My cat demonstrates this quality when it associates a harmless vacuum cleaner with some imagined danger. The sight of the a vacuum cleaner being brought into its presence will send this cat running for cover as if its life depended on it.
Here are some less anecdotal examples.
http://phys.org/news/2012-05-chimpanzee-fo...ods-humans.html
http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=798
I coined my own definition. A person that actively fights religion (whether in print or otherwise) isn't an Atheist but a Disbeliever (with a capital D and different from unbelievers). When one is 'religious' in his constant attack of religion, he is a religionist by default. An Atheist is simply a person without a religion. He or she is not subscribed to any religion. He wouldn't have known that is what he is called till he or she met someone with strange doctrine that is completely at variance with science. Not believing (unbelievers) will simply earn you the label Atheist.
You could also call them an anti-theist
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Jan 22 2013, 05:27 PM)
You could also call them an anti-theist
Yes. (Hyper)active disbelievers are anti-theists.
Yes. (Hyper)active disbelievers are anti-theists.
QUOTE (boit+Jan 22 2013, 10:27 AM)
I coined my own definition. A person that actively fights religion (whether in print or otherwise) isn't an Atheist but a Disbeliever (with a capital D and different from unbelievers). When one is 'religious' in his constant attack of religion, he is a religionist by default. An Atheist is simply a person without a religion. He or she is not subscribed to any religion. He wouldn't have known that is what he is called till he or she met someone with strange doctrine that is completely at variance with science. Not believing (unbelievers) will simply earn you the label Atheist.
Interesting. Yes, the prefix a does not mean against, it means not, as in 'atypical', so strictly speaking, an atheist is simply someone who is not a theist. But the way it is popularly used is "not deist". It goes beyond theism. And the popular definition for "agnostic" is pretty much the strict definition for "atheist". Strictly speaking again, an agnostic may or may not believe in a God, but there is no belief in theism. But I agree that someone who makes atheism a cause and is now a lobbyist for atheism may as well be given a moniker.
I think there may be many more atheists than Disbelievers. In my sphere, I have atheist friends. Obviously the fact that I know this means that the subject has come up, but I can't say any of them are Disbelievers. God is simply not an issue they are concerned with at all. Devoting any time for or against the belief in such would be uninteresting to them. Coffeetable conversation about it is has been acceptable when it has meandered to it, though they are in no way slouches if 'put on the spot', not at all.
Interesting. Yes, the prefix a does not mean against, it means not, as in 'atypical', so strictly speaking, an atheist is simply someone who is not a theist. But the way it is popularly used is "not deist". It goes beyond theism. And the popular definition for "agnostic" is pretty much the strict definition for "atheist". Strictly speaking again, an agnostic may or may not believe in a God, but there is no belief in theism. But I agree that someone who makes atheism a cause and is now a lobbyist for atheism may as well be given a moniker.
I think there may be many more atheists than Disbelievers. In my sphere, I have atheist friends. Obviously the fact that I know this means that the subject has come up, but I can't say any of them are Disbelievers. God is simply not an issue they are concerned with at all. Devoting any time for or against the belief in such would be uninteresting to them. Coffeetable conversation about it is has been acceptable when it has meandered to it, though they are in no way slouches if 'put on the spot', not at all.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Jan 22 2013, 07:42 PM)
Interesting. Yes, the prefix a does not mean against, it means not, as in 'atypical', so strictly speaking, an atheist is simply someone who is not a theist. But the way it is popularly used is "not deist". It goes beyond theism. And the popular definition for "agnostic" is pretty much the strict definition for "atheist". Strictly speaking again, an agnostic may or may not believe in a God, but there is no belief in theism. But I agree that someone who makes atheism a cause and is now a lobbyist for atheism may as well be given a moniker.
I think there may be many more atheists than Disbelievers. In my sphere, I have atheist friends. Obviously the fact that I know this means that the subject has come up, but I can't say any of them are Disbelievers. God is simply not an issue they are concerned with at all. Devoting any time for or against the belief in such would be uninteresting to them. Coffeetable conversation about it is has been acceptable when it has meandered to it, though they are in no way slouches if 'put on the spot', not at all.
I'm totally in agreement. There are more Atheists than Disbelievers. The world will be as unhealthy with proliferation of Disbelievers (anti-theists) as it is with proliferation of religious fanatics.
I think there may be many more atheists than Disbelievers. In my sphere, I have atheist friends. Obviously the fact that I know this means that the subject has come up, but I can't say any of them are Disbelievers. God is simply not an issue they are concerned with at all. Devoting any time for or against the belief in such would be uninteresting to them. Coffeetable conversation about it is has been acceptable when it has meandered to it, though they are in no way slouches if 'put on the spot', not at all.
I'm totally in agreement. There are more Atheists than Disbelievers. The world will be as unhealthy with proliferation of Disbelievers (anti-theists) as it is with proliferation of religious fanatics.
QUOTE (Hertz+)
In my sphere, I have atheist friends. Obviously the fact that I know this means that the subject has come up, but I can't say any of them are Disbelievers. God is simply not an issue they are concerned with at all. Devoting any time for or against the belief in such would be uninteresting to them. Coffeetable conversation about it is has been acceptable when it has meandered to it, though they are in no way slouches if 'put on the spot', not at all.
How about using the terms atheist vs. atheist activist? I’m what you’d call an armchair atheist or maybe a slacktivist.
I'm totally in agreement. There are more Atheists than Disbelievers. The world will be as unhealthy with proliferation of Disbelievers (anti-theists) as it is with proliferation of religious fanatics.
Well, Mr. Boit, I feel that it is highly unreasonable to portray atheists as mirror images of religious fundamentalists.
“Whether the term has any real meaning is debatable, as atheism doesn't have a system of beliefs that one can fundamentally adhere to.”
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheist_fundamentalism
Unhealthy?
When is the last time that you witnessed an atheists holding down a child to preform a clitorectomy, or an atheists encouraging someone to refuse a blood transfusion, practice safe sex, or blow themselves up, etc.
Or perhaps, Dr. Boit was referring to psychological health, which would be even easier to dismantle.
How about using the terms atheist vs. atheist activist? I’m what you’d call an armchair atheist or maybe a slacktivist.
QUOTE
Despite the pejorative connotation of the term, a recent correlational study conducted by Georgetown University entitled “The Dynamics of Cause Engagement” determined that so-called slacktivists are indeed “more likely to take meaningful actions.” Notably, “slacktivists participate in more than twice as many activities as people who don’t engage in slacktivism, and their actions “have a higher potential to influence others.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Despite the pejorative connotation of the term, a recent correlational study conducted by Georgetown University entitled “The Dynamics of Cause Engagement” determined that so-called slacktivists are indeed “more likely to take meaningful actions.” Notably, “slacktivists participate in more than twice as many activities as people who don’t engage in slacktivism, and their actions “have a higher potential to influence others. |
I'm totally in agreement. There are more Atheists than Disbelievers. The world will be as unhealthy with proliferation of Disbelievers (anti-theists) as it is with proliferation of religious fanatics.
Well, Mr. Boit, I feel that it is highly unreasonable to portray atheists as mirror images of religious fundamentalists.
“Whether the term has any real meaning is debatable, as atheism doesn't have a system of beliefs that one can fundamentally adhere to.”
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheist_fundamentalism
Unhealthy?
When is the last time that you witnessed an atheists holding down a child to preform a clitorectomy, or an atheists encouraging someone to refuse a blood transfusion, practice safe sex, or blow themselves up, etc. Or perhaps, Dr. Boit was referring to psychological health, which would be even easier to dismantle.
What he's saying is that there is atheist, and atheist-activist, which he termed "Disbelievers". He likened Disbelievers to Fundamentalists in that both champion their cause and both have proselytizers. Where I see your point is that Boit's Disbelivers do not espouse a philosophy, they espouse shedding one, and that is different. Disbelievers - some of them anyway - would say to shed the deism, and decide from there based on critical thinking/reason/logic/common sense etc. There would be some Disbelievers that would say to not consider another philosophy at all, but only to fill that void with proven science, and move on from there. As to whether giant populations of modern atheists would yield to warfare in the name of their non-belief, in similarity to the self-righteous warfare ever displayed by eager Abrahamic nations, do you think Mao believed in a deity?
Now I'm not saying that atheists who went to war were trying to spread atheism alone as their modus operandi, but one curious thing that needs to be debated perhaps is the simple fact that three devout atheists - Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, were responsible for more human deaths than everyone else in history combined. And i haven't included more, such as Pol Pot and Mao's successor, who presided over a few years of the Cultural Revolution himself. The very least that can be distilled from this is that always it is that human horror sees it's way through the hands of a select few, whether they believe in God or not.
Now I'm not saying that atheists who went to war were trying to spread atheism alone as their modus operandi, but one curious thing that needs to be debated perhaps is the simple fact that three devout atheists - Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, were responsible for more human deaths than everyone else in history combined. And i haven't included more, such as Pol Pot and Mao's successor, who presided over a few years of the Cultural Revolution himself. The very least that can be distilled from this is that always it is that human horror sees it's way through the hands of a select few, whether they believe in God or not.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jan 22 2013, 06:46 PM)
QUOTE (Boit+)
I'm totally in agreement. There are more Atheists than Disbelievers. The world will be as unhealthy with proliferation of Disbelievers (anti-theists) as it is with proliferation of religious fanatics.
Well, Mr. Boit, I feel that it is highly unreasonable to portray atheists as mirror images of religious fundamentalists.
“Whether the term has any real meaning is debatable, as atheism doesn't have a system of beliefs that one can fundamentally adhere to.”
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheist_fundamentalism
Unhealthy? When is the last time that you witnessed an atheists holding down a child to preform a clitorectomy, or an atheists encouraging someone to refuse a blood transfusion, practice safe sex, or blow themselves up, etc.
Or perhaps, Dr. Boit was referring to psychological health, which would be even easier to dismantle.
ouooooaauuoooch
Foreskin removal< What is the advantage ? Is there , Not according to Dr, Dean Adel.
Yeah might be a little easier to wash , but sensation experiences a loss from what I understand . Well with me maybe that is a good thing . Didn't seem to diminish anything , buit how would I know.
Now total clit removal . Nothing nada zip null nixa,
The extremes to control a woman is beyond believable
I missed you . Can I kiss you . Smack right on your cheek . Oh I like that .
Sneaked one , Sneaky me
Well, Mr. Boit, I feel that it is highly unreasonable to portray atheists as mirror images of religious fundamentalists.
“Whether the term has any real meaning is debatable, as atheism doesn't have a system of beliefs that one can fundamentally adhere to.”
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheist_fundamentalism
Unhealthy?
When is the last time that you witnessed an atheists holding down a child to preform a clitorectomy, or an atheists encouraging someone to refuse a blood transfusion, practice safe sex, or blow themselves up, etc. Or perhaps, Dr. Boit was referring to psychological health, which would be even easier to dismantle.
ouooooaauuoooch
Foreskin removal< What is the advantage ? Is there , Not according to Dr, Dean Adel.
Yeah might be a little easier to wash , but sensation experiences a loss from what I understand . Well with me maybe that is a good thing . Didn't seem to diminish anything , buit how would I know.
Now total clit removal . Nothing nada zip null nixa,
The extremes to control a woman is beyond believable
I missed you . Can I kiss you . Smack right on your cheek . Oh I like that .
Sneaked one , Sneaky me
Hi Nymphaealba. Long time. Just to clarify, it is just as soundhertz has said. The people you call atheist activist (or hyper activists) are the ones I liken to religious fundamentalist. The ones that refuse to give up on an argument and also refuse to change the subject. They shouldn't hide behind such a polite name as Atheist. They deserve a different name lest they hijack this respected name. Suggestions I'm getting are anti-theists, atheist activists, atheist fundamentalist (I don't know what they are fundamental about), atheist fanatic e.t.c. I'm introducing Disbelievers into the mix. All this to save the noble name Atheist whose defining characteristic, as soundhertz noted, is currently being enjoyed by Agnostics.
Thanks for the Wiki link. I see Stalin and a few crop of tyrants were real Atheist fundamentalist. The rest (that we wrongly term atheist fundamentalists) are actually atheist militants, thumpers or just plain passionate (should I add stoned). Arseh0le would do just fine (so says the piece).
It is easy to think the worst of a group that you already dislike at some level. It is also unfair to tar all atheists with the same brush. Some people are just rude, obnoxious, and arrogant, regardless of what they believe.
Every SS man is free to be a member of a church or not. It is a personal matter, which he has to answer for to God and his conscience”. However, SS men should not be atheists, for: “that is the only world or religious view that is not tolerated within the SS
~Heinrich Himmler
“This labeling of the Nazis as “atheist” is common among the religious, despite the opposite being true. It is understandable that Christians want to disassociate themselves from the Nazi Holocaust — the vilest crime in Christendom, perpetrated by an overwhelmingly Christian nation. It is also fair to regard the Nazi ideology as having departed so far from mainstream Christianity, in mixing Christianity with Nazi racial ideology, that it was not mainstream “Christian”, even though nearly all Nazis regarded themselves as Christian. However, “atheists” they were not.”
http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/...d-to-darwinism/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_and...drich_Nietzsche
QUOTE (Hertz+)
Now I'm not saying that atheists who went to war were trying to spread atheism alone as their modus operandi, but one curious thing that needs to be debated perhaps is the simple fact that three devout atheists - Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, were responsible for more human deaths than everyone else in history combined. And i haven't included more, such as Pol Pot and Mao's successor, who presided over a few years of the Cultural Revolution himself.
Well, I feel like that's the same as equating Jeffrey Dahmer with the LGBT movement.
Well, I feel like that's the same as equating Jeffrey Dahmer with the LGBT movement.
No N/A, this doesn't mean i look down on atheists. Neither do I look down on Christians. I disagree with both povs, but in principle I have no actual issues with whatever belief one has as long as basic human expectations that we all agree on are met. But there might be a tie to the fact i presented that has nothing to do with atheists having less morality than theists, which is a silly notion.
I'm OK with atheists. I'm OK with theists too. The extremists are the problem. As NA correctly pointed out, obnoxious people are to be found everywhere. These we all abhor.
QUOTE
We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out. ~Adolf Hitler
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out. ~Adolf Hitler |
Every SS man is free to be a member of a church or not. It is a personal matter, which he has to answer for to God and his conscience”. However, SS men should not be atheists, for: “that is the only world or religious view that is not tolerated within the SS
~Heinrich Himmler
“This labeling of the Nazis as “atheist” is common among the religious, despite the opposite being true. It is understandable that Christians want to disassociate themselves from the Nazi Holocaust — the vilest crime in Christendom, perpetrated by an overwhelmingly Christian nation. It is also fair to regard the Nazi ideology as having departed so far from mainstream Christianity, in mixing Christianity with Nazi racial ideology, that it was not mainstream “Christian”, even though nearly all Nazis regarded themselves as Christian. However, “atheists” they were not.”
http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/...d-to-darwinism/
QUOTE
Zoroastrianism, an early monotheistic faith that influenced Judaism, Christianity and Islam, was originated among a people who called themselves Aryans, including Persians. Friedrich Nietzsche's writings like Thus Spoke Zarathustra (another name for Zoroaster) were interpreted by Nazis as being a foundation for their ideas of the Aryan superman and white supremacism. Nazis also appropriated the symbol of the faravahar of Zoroastrianism.
Many political leaders of the twentieth century were at least superficially familiar with Nietzsche's ideas. However, it is not always possible to determine whether or not they actually read his work. Hitler, for example, probably never read Nietzsche, and if he did, his reading was not extensive. However, the Nazis made very selective use of Nietzsche's philosophy; this association with National Socialism caused Nietzsche's reputation to suffer following World War II. Mussolini certainly read Nietzsche, as did Charles de Gaulle.
Many political leaders of the twentieth century were at least superficially familiar with Nietzsche's ideas. However, it is not always possible to determine whether or not they actually read his work. Hitler, for example, probably never read Nietzsche, and if he did, his reading was not extensive. However, the Nazis made very selective use of Nietzsche's philosophy; this association with National Socialism caused Nietzsche's reputation to suffer following World War II. Mussolini certainly read Nietzsche, as did Charles de Gaulle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_and...drich_Nietzsche
There's a big difference between presenting one's take on reality as something to be discussed and proselytizing it aggressively. That's why I believe religion should not be taught in school, because the educational institution itself sort of legitimizes it, and 'it' is what? We are a vast melting pot here. I'd bet we have a sizable Sufi population here. So what should be taught is a course on "comparative" religions? Better yet, incorporate "comparative religions" within a broader "Philosophies of the World" course.
And then it is necessary to include, even mandate, Atheism as one of the entities in the course, and in this case Atheism is not merely the lack of a belief in Divinity, it becomes an actual belief system based on an ontology as defined by science. I think that though some may react to Atheism being a belief rather than a lack of belief, and science being put into a philosophy course, this has to happen in order for Atheism to be an entity to be presented and discussed at the same roundtable as other philosophies and religions, because people can use these kinds of courses to start making up their minds about reality or at least finding a chosen path to explore, and for Atheism to also have a shot at being a chosen path, the roundtable is this educational course. And so science has to be in this course too, as the foundation for the Atheist philosophy.
Every philosophy has a foundation. I would think atheists should want to see atheism presented as an alternate philosophy, since it is so compelling to the mind that relies on critical thinking. I personally would lobby for Atheism being presented along with other philosophies/religions. My reason is that I believe true Atheism is a way of unlearning falsehood, while keeping the mind open to what it finds.
And then it is necessary to include, even mandate, Atheism as one of the entities in the course, and in this case Atheism is not merely the lack of a belief in Divinity, it becomes an actual belief system based on an ontology as defined by science. I think that though some may react to Atheism being a belief rather than a lack of belief, and science being put into a philosophy course, this has to happen in order for Atheism to be an entity to be presented and discussed at the same roundtable as other philosophies and religions, because people can use these kinds of courses to start making up their minds about reality or at least finding a chosen path to explore, and for Atheism to also have a shot at being a chosen path, the roundtable is this educational course. And so science has to be in this course too, as the foundation for the Atheist philosophy.
Every philosophy has a foundation. I would think atheists should want to see atheism presented as an alternate philosophy, since it is so compelling to the mind that relies on critical thinking. I personally would lobby for Atheism being presented along with other philosophies/religions. My reason is that I believe true Atheism is a way of unlearning falsehood, while keeping the mind open to what it finds.
@MDT
You are one of those people for whom logic and reason presents an insurmountable challenge.
First, you start with a premise not even a four year old would be proud of; that to believe in some mystical, murdering, paedophile, invisible monster is a noble thing and then completely misrepresent what evolution is about. Then, it only gets worse.
In case no one has had the heart to tell you directly, I will; you are a complete total and utter imbecile, a buffoon incapable of rational thought. It is as you represent the reverse evolution of human to ape-like common ancestor.
@Capracus
Any point you try to make the the above imbecile is a waste of time.
@Boit
Ditto the first two paragraphs for you; no logic and logical fallacies by the bucket full.
@soundhertz
You started well but went off the rails in cherry picking history. You left out all of the religious despots who murdered many and also made the mistake of saying Hitler was an atheist. he was raised a Catholic and espoused many Catholic thoughts in his writings. Where do you think he got his hatred of Jews from; it was straightforward Catholic dogma at the time. Like all despots, he later came to believe he was god-like and so he mentally usurped his Catholic god.
As for this, "this doesn't mean i look down on atheists. Neither do I look down on Christians", what then do you believe? It must be one or the other, or are you one of the "superior" types who think that the "middle ground" is the correct option? The Middle Ground Fallacy
@soundhertz
For someone who claims logic, you are remarkably devoid of it, at times, with this doozy: "Atheism is not merely the lack of a belief in Divinity, it becomes an actual belief system based on an ontology as defined by science". It is not, and has never been a "belief system". It is specifically the LACK of a belief system and trying to make a false commonality is logically wrong.
@tonydisalva TROLL
Hi NA, still trying to be "nice", I see, as if "nice" is a virtue in this situation and a way of making the world a better place and "nicer".
Physfan
You are one of those people for whom logic and reason presents an insurmountable challenge.
First, you start with a premise not even a four year old would be proud of; that to believe in some mystical, murdering, paedophile, invisible monster is a noble thing and then completely misrepresent what evolution is about. Then, it only gets worse.
In case no one has had the heart to tell you directly, I will; you are a complete total and utter imbecile, a buffoon incapable of rational thought. It is as you represent the reverse evolution of human to ape-like common ancestor.
@Capracus
Any point you try to make the the above imbecile is a waste of time.
@Boit
Ditto the first two paragraphs for you; no logic and logical fallacies by the bucket full.
@soundhertz
You started well but went off the rails in cherry picking history. You left out all of the religious despots who murdered many and also made the mistake of saying Hitler was an atheist. he was raised a Catholic and espoused many Catholic thoughts in his writings. Where do you think he got his hatred of Jews from; it was straightforward Catholic dogma at the time. Like all despots, he later came to believe he was god-like and so he mentally usurped his Catholic god.
As for this, "this doesn't mean i look down on atheists. Neither do I look down on Christians", what then do you believe? It must be one or the other, or are you one of the "superior" types who think that the "middle ground" is the correct option? The Middle Ground Fallacy
@soundhertz
For someone who claims logic, you are remarkably devoid of it, at times, with this doozy: "Atheism is not merely the lack of a belief in Divinity, it becomes an actual belief system based on an ontology as defined by science". It is not, and has never been a "belief system". It is specifically the LACK of a belief system and trying to make a false commonality is logically wrong.
@tonydisalva TROLL
Hi NA, still trying to be "nice", I see, as if "nice" is a virtue in this situation and a way of making the world a better place and "nicer".
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Jan 24 2013, 03:09 PM)
Hi NA, still trying to be "nice", I see, as if "nice" is a virtue in this situation and a way of making the world a better place and "nicer".
Physfan
Hey there, Physfan.
I know. It's a hard habit to break. I'm working on it, though.
C'ya later.
Physfan
Hey there, Physfan.
I know. It's a hard habit to break. I'm working on it, though.
C'ya later.
The OP still has not responded. So much for courage of conviction, but, as I said earlier, can't defend the indefensible.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.