Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by JGMetalhead, Mar 10, 2010.
Hallow as hell. You've ultimately got nothing but moral relativistic bullshit.
moral relativism = bullshit?
please elaborate on this
I lump that right in with existentialism.
Existentialism is both a dominant(albeit covert) form of mysticism and Platonistic philosophy that's plagued Western civilization for decades in the forms of Gestaltism, transcendental meditation, Zen Buddhism et al. Existentialism is really nothing more than clever irrationalism and contradictions that ironically heralds Kierkegaard's "individual responsibility", which existentialism ultimately negates, often cloaked in pragmatic non sequiturs or good-sounding rationalizations. Existentialism claims that reality does not exist. Thus, the meaning of existentialism is impossible to objectively define or understand. For existentialism is nothing. And nothing can only be attached to nothing.
Existentialism is nothing more than a wimpish irrationality that promotes stupidity, the negation of reality. Existentialism and religion both grow from mysticism. And both lead to the oppression of the individual. Existentialism and religion both reflect fear of the independent individual and even greater fear of individual pride. Most mystics denounce pride as negative, bad, or sinful. But individual pride is the result of moral virtue, which requires the rejection of the dishonesty inherent in mysticism.
Pride is the reflection of self-worth, which requires the rejection of mysticism. And that rejection of mysticism through the reflection of self-worth is what all mystics, existentialists, and proto-cheaters fear and attack. For if all value producers recognized their genuine self-worth and felt their earned pride, they would end mysticism and all of its collective hoaxes altogether.
So I can't be mystic and believe in self worth? It must be awesome to make the rules.
lumping Moral Relativism in with Existantialism???
those are 2 completely different things
That guy was raging in that video hahaha. Does this guy know that Athiesm isn't a victim being the fastest growing religious belief in the world?
I also don't understand how freedom of speech is sacred without being endowed upon man by god. If someone talks and im atheist ill just hit them in the mouth with a rock until they cant talk anymore. Or send them to the Goolag like the Soviets would.
Also he said religion deserves no respect at all but its actually religion which has civilized most of the world and has done more charitable things in third world country than any atheist entity.
Ha! A british guy is bashing Jerusalum for spreading black death amongst the world? HAHAHAHAHA!
It was faith remember, that Martin Luther King spoke of with the black community to gain civil rights. The gays want to marry which is a religious ceremony jackass. If the religion doesn't like it why make them, the gays can already get civil unions.
Either this guy is an Idiot or a troll from hell, either way im about 90% sure hes reading a pre-typed script to sound classy.
Athiesm isn't any more provable than religions. The whole chemical synthesis into life concept I've heard inst replicable in a lab through scientific method. I guess if I shit on a rock it will start walking around 10,000 years from now? Either way, your putting your faith into one side of the argument.
Very good point. Those people are stupid hahaha.
1. Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack of belief in deities.
2. Where are you statistics proving that atheism is the worlds fastest grow 'religion/philosophy'? Even if true it doesnt change the fact that it is still a minority and as such will receive persecution in some form or another somewhere.
3. So just because someone is an atheist it means that they will attack anyone who disagrees with them? So every atheist will behave just like Stalin? Perposterous. How many examples throughout history must one show of religious people persecuting and attacking others who disagreed with them? By your rationale I suppose that means that all religious people are liable to murder, steal from and persecute others who disagree with them too? There are good people and assholes who are religious and good people and assholes who are non-religious. Holding to a particular worldview does not automatically turn you into Stalin or Mother Theresa.
4. Who said anything about freedom of speech being sacred? Freedom of speech is HUMANE and RATIONAL. No deity is needed for either of those principles.
5. Religion certainly does NOT deserve any kind of respect or special status or privelage. After all religion teaches LIES and superstitions as some kind of divine revelation. Why should I respect that? Why should religion continue to be looked upon as some lofty wonderful thing when it advocates perposterous, childish nonsense? And yes many people are motivated by their religious beliefs to good. Many people are also motivated to help others by their own innate ability to empathize with people. Again no god or religious tennants necessary.
6. MLK may have used religious sentiments in his speeches to justify his point of view but many others used the SAME religion to justify the opposing view. For every abolitionist in the 19th century using the bible to show how cruel slavery was you could find another person armed to the teeth with bible verses arguing the other way around. You don't NEED religion to support equal rights. Equal rights are SELF-EVIDENT because all people whether black or white or gay or straight or atheist or christian are all human beings. Once again no god and not religion is necessary.
7. Atheism is not provable. Agreed. However unlike most religions though it has not been disproven. Furthermore there simply is no evidence for a personal creator or for miracles or whatnot. This is exactly what one would expect if in fact atheism were true.
8. Lastly the fundamental building blocks of life have been assembled in laboratory experiments from inorganic matter. Granted we still have very little information as to how the first living beings came into being... but a lack of information does not automatically prove that 'God musta done it!'
Definition 6 of religion on dictionary.com: something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
Census in Australia, New Zealand, European countries, and the United States. Also religion gets attacked much more since professors in colleges are at least 44% atheist according to a 1916 survey by psychologist James H. Leuba. Now a days Ive heard numbers closer to 51 in 52 scientist and 122 in 123 historians are athiest. Maybe atheist are being brainwashed, it seems more plausible than religion brainwashing people.
Religion is the worship of societies higher power. It also serves as a tool to control the masses by manipulating their guidance through life. Its basic Marx if you know anything about sociology. Without that guidance, its a end all be all competition for anything and everything.
The man from the video if you bothered to watch. Without being bestowed upon by some higher force, wether a diety or some new wave spirituality, it cannot be required. In any country practicing atheism such as Cuba, China, Soviet Russia, and North Korea, there is no freedom of speech because there is nothing empowering that idea. You piss someone off they shut you up. The demographics of countries requiring atheism having no freedom of speech is a lot worse than religious countries.
Religion teaches lies and superstition? Atheism isn't proven, just a bunch of lies and superstitions tbh. Its a lot easier to ignore a higher deity that will punish you than it is acknowledge them and obey them.
You do need religion to support equal rights. There is no scientific fact supporting that people are equal at all. According to Dr. Edwin Nichols Clinical industrial psychologist, specializing in organizational development for systemic congruence through cultural competent leadership for survival in the global economy (speaks at NC State, Wisconsin, Harvard), states that genetically races are culturally different. Whites have to be somewhere on time, and everyone should understand if blacks are not somewhere on time. Basically racism and states that we are not equal. This is one of those guys held up high by the scientific communities. I think their support for genetic differences of races wouldn't be refuted by Hitler?
Basically you have to have religion to support equality, because scientifically, its just not there.
Religion is quasi-science, which means it cannot be disproven. Read a book? Miracles are real, prove me wrong since no one knows any facts supported by evidence about them.
Your wrong. Scientist share three main theories about life. 1) Chemical synthesis of inorganic proteins sparked life (not proven) 2) life built off the backs of crystals through their mutations (not proven) 3) Aliens brought us to this planet from somewhere in the universe (definitely not proven)
i totally agree with everything mentioned here
1. Atheism is a PHILOSOPHY. Not a religion. Basic factual definition.
2. According to a 1916 census? Wow... that's current information. In any case I doubt that College professors are burning people at the stake for believing in Jesus or Allah or whatever. The FACT remains that atheism/agnosticism/skepticism is a far smaller group than religion which is somewhere over 90% of the entire human population. And yes... people can be brainwashed into atheism... just like they can be brainwashed into any ideology or religion.
3. Your idea that without religion then all society would be in complete chaos is persposterous. If you were right then EVERY atheist out there should be a murdering lunatic. In fact if you look at prison statistics for atheists versus religious people, atheists typically are less then 1% of the population. This idea that only with religion can people behave decently is insulting and childish. Basically if some stern angry deity isnt there to act like your daddy and tell you what to do and how to behave then you would go out there and commit every plausible act of violence imaginable? So stupid. If you really need such a deity to FORCE you to behave decently you are pretty pathetic and frankly atheists who do treat others well without any threat or promise of reward or punishment from a god are therefore more moral than believers.
4.I agree that countries that enforce atheism upon its populace have a terrible human rights track record. But there is nothing inherent in atheism per se that demands that atheists behave that way. Now perhaps there is in COMMUNISM which of course is a political philosophy which incorporates atheism, but simply saying that one does not believe in god does not therefore mean that that same person is going to force others to hold the same point of view.
5. Yes religion teaches lies and superstition. Ridiculous fables about how our race was created some 6000 years ago in a garden in the middle east. Or nonsense about a worldwide flood or any of the host of stupid fables in every religion. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god. How is that a superstition? Show us the clear evidence for the existence of a personal god and you win. There isn't any. Why should one therefore believe in it? Because you're afraid of what said being might do to you? Wow. Really mature reason for believing in god. Fear.
6. And yes there is plenty of evidence that all human beings are essentially equal. All human beings are descended from the same ancestors in Africa some 100,000+ years ago. Therefore ideas of racial superiority are nonsense. All human beings have African ancestry. All races of people have the same moral and intellectual capabilities. This is a testable scientific FACT.
7. Ok the three theories you mentioned. First off inorganic materials have been shown in lab experiments to be assembled into the organic building blocks of life. True that's not proof they were made into living things. But likewise there is no evidence that some deity was there creating lifeforms ex nihilo either. Secondly NO scientist in the world speaks about crystals mutating into life. Crystals dont mutate! Only living things are capable of mutations. Lastly no scientist in the world belives that aliens created life on earth... at least no scientist that is taken seriously by the scientific community.
there are scientists that believe "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y Cromosomal Adam" were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_life
but of course these scientists are definetely not taken seriously by the scientific community
I try not to be argumentative with my views... but he does put forward some very good points.
who is he?
who she is talking aobut should be clarified
I'm intolerant of intolerance.
chapman cohen woot woot
I'm only aggressive when provoked. I think a lot of the time the reason atheists get in peoples' faces about their beliefs is when they willfully ignore things, like the evidence for evolution. Look up Richard Dawkins' interview with Wendy Wright on YouTube, that'll sum up the whole issue.
I haven't read many of the posts here, but I did watch the video. The guy has some ok points, but, like many atheists, oversimplifies many crucial aspects of what it means to be an aggressive atheist. So, here's my take on the whole thing.
First of all, this post is going to assume that a benevolent, authoritative deity does not exist, or, in other words, there is no god. I'm an atheist myself, but the existence of God debate should be saved for some other thread; it doesn't have much to do with this topic. So, for all of the theists out there, lets just assume there is no such thing as god. I know it'll be difficult, but bear with me.
Now, the main reason for being an "aggressive atheist" would be to strive for the eradication of religion on earth. Lets say the opposite way of living one's life as an atheist would be called "passive atheism" (something I just made up, it sounds kind of stupid, I know). Assuming that a passive atheist would live his/her life by ignoring religious rhetoric, arguing about various religious topics only when in the presence of friends or family, and being overall non-confrontational about the topic, an aggressive atheist would strive for confrontation, hoping that their argumentative lifestyle would convert believers into non-believers, and eventually lead to a world without religion. If we can accept that this is the lifestyle/purpose of an "aggressive atheist" (this is my definition; you may have your own) then three main issues arise: 1) practice, 2) results, and 3) practicality (this may seem ambiguous now, but, again, bear with me).
What I mean by practice is how an aggressive atheist would argue their points and what might occur because of it. If the goal of an aggressive atheist is indeed to eradicate religion on earth, then, in order to be truly effective, a group would have to form. These atheists would need to band together and form a social institution in order to truly affect society. Individual aggressive atheists without structure would be about as effective as the weirdo at the party who's trying to tell you why 911 was an inside job, meaning not very. Now, this structure would be scarily close to religious institutions themselves. Some may argue that atheism is already a religion, and adding a structured institution to our unbelief would only fuel the fire. Personally, I think there needs to be some sort of supernatural or other-worldly being at the center of a belief system in order for it to be called "religion" but that's just me. Regardless, an atheistic institution would be similar to their religious counterparts. But by forming this institution, atheists could affect society in ways they cannot do presently. Theoretically, this institution would help atheism spread and spread quickly. The problem with this is that an atheistic institution would only add fuel to the fire. Assuming this institution becomes powerful, their ideas would obviously butt heads with other powerful groups such as the evangelicals who are very powerful themselves. The question is, would this additional strife necessarily do good for the atheist cause. Most atheists agree that it is religious institutions, not the belief itself, that is the root of much religious violence in the past and in the present. This atheistic institution may turn out to be just another problematic and strife-causing group. Evangelicals could target members of this institution just like Michael Bray targeted an abortionist. There are countless possibilities. The problem with my post so far, is that it is purely theoretical. But it can only be theoretical because the rise of an atheistic institution in a capitalist society has yet to come.
Now on to number 2, results. Would being an aggressive atheist result in the eradication of religion? Obviously a sole aggressive atheist could not possibly influence the world so much as to eradicate religion, but the aforementioned institution may. But is it even plausible for us to eradicate religion? I really don't think it is possible it the next 100-200 years. While atheism is indeed on the rise, religion is so strongly implanted in so many cultures and it very hard to change this. If we look at the Middle East and the extremist Muslims who inhabit it, their religion is very much cultural. Children are born into a way of life that indoctrinates them with the belief of a beautiful afterlife that can only be achieved through violence. Logic will not deter these types of people away from their belief, no matter how much scientific proof one might have. While liberal Christians in democratic states may be more susceptible to a logical, scientific argument; many cultures throughout the world will simply not buy it. Many cultures who practice Hinduism are not simply practicing a religion in a secular government, they are practicing a lifestyle as well. Their social structure is based on the religion itself, meaning that, in order for an atheistic world to come about, these cultures would have to be stripped down to the bone; something that seems highly unlikely.
Moving on to the last issue: practicality. Now lets say that an atheistic institution did indeed arise and that they successfully made the world an atheistic one. Again, this is a purely hypothetical situation. Would this atheistic world be better than our current one? If we look back to atheistic society's in the past, all we see is violence. But could this atheistic world be different? There are two main aspects that I would like to explore: the individual and the national. On the individual scale, an atheistic society would mean that there is no possible way to have a universal moral code. While, currently, there are two deterrents to violence: law and religion (as in Christians believing that they will go to hell if they comitt an immoral act, I understand that other religions may implore their followers to committ murder), an atheistic society would only have one: law. No longer would individuals hold back their violent or conflict-arising actions in fear of eternal unrest, the law would be the only strong deterrent of immoral action. Again, even if some moral code is adopted by a particular nation, it does not hold the weight that it would if it were religiously supported. One could choose to break the moral code with no consequences from higher authority. At the national level, I feel as if war may be severely restricted if an atheistic world were indeed possible. If one looks back at the history of war, it is almost always started because of religion, or, if it was not initially religiously fueled, the war was justified through religion in order to continue it. Without religion, one of the most powerful causes for war would be gone. Obviously, war may still rise due to a sense of nationalism, or, as stated in the scarce resource theory, due to a lack of a particular resource, whether it be tangible or intangible (i.e. one nation may feel their safety is in danger; therefore, safety becomes a scarce resource and, as a result, that nation goes to war in order to feel safe again). But, no longer could a sacred space such as Jerusalem be the reason for an ongoing war. No longer could inane, archaic passages from a holy book support acts of violence. No longer could one justify strapping a bombs to one's chest through the belief in a virgin orgy. No longer could groups indoctrinate their members to be thoughtless soldiers of a ridiculous cause. Again, I'm not saying war would not be possible, but I am arguing that war, without religion, would be less frequent and more practical. It is also hard to see how different governments would be affected by this. What would an atheistic India look like? What would an atheistic Iran look like? Its hard to tell.
I know a lot of what I just said is purely theoretical, but it has to be. I fail to see the point in being an "aggressive atheist" unless your goal is to eradicate religion. The man in the video speaks of his intolerance to religion. He seems very passionate about this intolerance. Therefore, it seems people of this nature would indeed join an atheistic institution if it came about. I know some atheists will disagree and say that "aggressive atheism" is purely an individual effort. But it does not seem that way. Dawkins (who likes the term militant atheism instead of aggressive atheism) certainly resembles a man who could be an initiator of the aforementioned atheist institution. Furthermore, would this institution be better or worse for the atheist cause. Would they successfully impose their beliefs on others or would they become an institution as conflictual as the religious one's they so strongly despise. And if their dream came true, would the world be a better place anyway? In conclusion, I'd say that if us atheists are supposed to be "aggressive", this would only lead to an atheistic institution that would only cause more conflict and be ineffectual in the grand scheme of things (i.e. the eradication of religion). However, if we were to somehow rid the world of religion; I would think it to be a better place than it is now (I know I only explored very few things in this theoretical atheistic world but I can only say so much)
So basically, aggressive atheists are Nazis with a nicer name. Sweet.
i guess i would consider myself a "passive atheist" inso much as i don't try to convert people to atheism, or even talk about myself being atheist (except here) there have been moments where i have thought about being an "agressive atheist" but i'm just too lazy