What do you, as an askydivist, have to offer?
Personally I want to start an Apatheist Church. We’ll invite preachers of various religions and denominations to come and give us a sermon every Sunday, we’ll listen politely, and then when he’s done we’ll all stand up and say “We don’t give a shit!”
As a Christian who believes Jesus is my savior I have an entire worldview. Without doubt there are problems with this worldview but I’m willing to deal with them.
I recognize that there are people that think this God is sadistic. That the actual probability of a “heaven” existing is nominal. I also recognize that the 2nd Coming may never occur. So I don’t get defensive when people ask me questions concerning these issues.
Whenever atheists go back to the definition of atheism, I get the feeling that they are becoming defensive.
Atheism is not a worldview, it is the lack of a particular one: belief in gods.
Do atheists have a worldview or philosophy of some kind? Yes, of course. But these are entirely separate concepts from atheism.
For example, I am an atheist and a libertarian, and a deontologist, and an existentialist, and a humanist, and a naturalist. I believe that Kentucky is the greatest college basketball program in history. I absolutely have a wordview, but it’s not atheism. Atheism defines part of what I don’t believe, so speculating on what atheists believe (as you have done, with empiricism) is wrongheaded. Atheists have beliefs, which are unrelated to atheism, but atheism isn’t a belief.
No one will tell you that atheism is the only position you need to hold to live your life, it’s not a religion or a philosophy.
Yes, but what do you, as an askydivist, have to offer? What is the askydivist world view?
Why should a lack of belief in anything have something to offer? Does a lack of belief in Bigfoot have anything to offer? Lack of belief in aliens? Lack of belief in leprechauns?
Try to guess how we feel when you continually misrepresent the definition of atheism.
To refine further: Christianity is not comparable to atheism for exactly this reason. Atheism is not a worldview.
Once again, those people ARE NOT atheists. Hating god is misotheism, which is a kind of theism. Atheists have no opinions on what god is like, because they don’t believe he exists.
I think what you’re detecting is frustration, at the way you claim to understand what atheism is, and yet clearly do not, which means you’re arguing against your own ideas, not one else here’s.
What other parts of mainstream Christian doctrine do you feel free to reject, and why?
They go back to the definition because every time you “start discussing something atheists are uncomfortable with” you do it making an assumption about atheists that does not correspond to what atheists, (a large and heterogeneous bunch), actually hold true. They resort to going back to the definition to demonstrate that you have made an erroneous assumption regarding what does or does not make them uncomfortable based on an erroneous assumption about who they are and what they believe.
Stop telling them what they believe and ask them, instead. Instead of making wide (and generally false) generalizations about their thoughts, ASK THEM what they believe, (understanding that you will get multiple conflicting answers because they do not think in lock step), or else cite a specific statement by an atheist as an atheist and ask what that means (to them).
As long as you imagine that you know what you are talking about when you clearly misunderstand, you are going to be talking about glory.
Because Ma Bell took them all away when cell phones replaced pay phones.
“Wherever one is gathered in his own name…”
It’s frustrating when this has been answered repeatedly, and you either don’t acknowledge or understand it.
Why does atheism, as a whole, have to offer anything?
It’s still clear you’re treating atheism as a form of religion when it is not. And further that it must mirror Christianity in the way its belief structure is propagated and how its members behave. Why? That’s not true for most religions throughout history.
From one of my previous posts:
Actually, there are religions that postulate most of the fundamentals of atheism-take Christian Science. CS teaches that the physical world is illusionary, and that everything is in the mind. An atheist would have no trouble with that (if he/she could be convinced of the illusory nature of reality).
pchaos, I am happy for you that you have a worldview based in your faith that works for you. What I am at loss to understand is why it is difficult for you that many others have worldviews, different from each other, that do not require a god-concept to justify them.
We are moral and ethical people because they are how we believe we should behave, not out of selfish desires to save our souls.
It is pretty simple.
This guy has a hidden agenda…I’m trying to explain I don’t. I was simply trying to find out more about atheism and now I realize that there isn’t much more to learn.
Right, because atheism is one idea rather than a religion or a philosophy or a system of ideas (although atheists can share many other views). And generally speaking, atheists don’t have much interest in spreading their viewpoint. They tend to be very suspicious of that on a visceral level, partly because they associate that kind of thing with religions and consider it manipulative. They can be vigorous about standing up for themselves and defending their rights as they see them and I admit there isn’t always a hard and fast line between that and spreading their views, but the basic interest is in having their rights respected, not in making sure other people come around to their way of thinking.
So instead of faith in God, there’s a faith in man’s logic. I wasn’t being facetious when I stated that I didn’t think that life was logical.
Let’s say objectively you could demonstrate that life was meaningless. Then the logical person would either sit around and do nothing or “end it all” when life became too much trouble.
But you say, perhaps people would still find life subjectively meaningful. That’s true, but in my experience that often leads people to become selfish and unconcerned about the world around them.
I don’t think that’s the case. At least it doesn’t have to be. And what is “man’s logic?” There’s no other kind of logic. We invented the concept.
[QUOTE=pchaos]
But you say, perhaps people would still find life subjectively meaningful. That’s true, but in my experience that often leads people to become selfish and unconcerned about the world around them.
[/QUOTE]
Then those people are selfish. But they’re not selfish because they’re approaching the meaning of life subjectively; they’re selfish on their own.
No. Not at all. And I cannot understand how you could possibly read what I wrote and understand it to mean that.
Logic has nothing to do with what is right and wrong. I have no faith in logic nor in the goodness, let alone rationality, of my fellow human. I do believe in doing those things that I believe are the right things to do … because they are the right things to do. By definition. I don’t need God or gods to tell me so and if there was a Biblical God who somehow appeared told me to do something that was wrong I would argue with him. Politely maybe, as you know, He (the character as written) can be a wrathful asshole, but argue nonetheless. He should stay out of our business I say.
Maybe you want to try again.