Atheism 2.0

by Qcmbr 384 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    The corollary is that Atheism as practiced by Chairman Mao, Joseph Stalin and their ilk are every bit as deadly because of the Absolute nature of the authority they assert over others. There is no "practical" difference between consequences. Atheists cannot claim any moral superiority. Morality can only be moral when it is practiced as a positive rather than a negative.

    Atheism, imo, is a generally superior stance, morals don't have anything to do with it. An atheist can choose to have morals or not which is very dangerous.

    -Sab

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    No, Sab, it is the other way around. I am identifying myself as an atheist because of my intellectual honesty.

    As a believer you felt intellectually dishonest. That's the real kicker, imo, and the real motivation. Your position will always be subject to bias because of your past believing. You didn't like where you were that's all, there's no need to call believers intellectually dishonest. The experiment phase, for me at least, is not yet complete so it's counterintuitive to force a conclusion.

    -Sab

  • Nickolas
    Nickolas

    Chairman Mao, Joseph Stalin and their ilk were atheists, yes Terry, but you are making the common mistake of equating their immorality, pathology and insanity to the realisation they reached that God does not exist. The mass starvation of millions of people, political purges, pogroms and genocides are not the hallmarks of a rational mind.

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety
    An atheist can choose to have morals or not which is very dangerous.

    So can a theist.

  • DT
    DT

    "When you are talking to yourself you ALWAYS use language."

    Yes, but talking to yourself is only one form of thought. I'm constantly amazed when people assert that it is not possible to think without words. It sounds like a joke to me, but I've heard it said often enough that I have to conclude that at least some of these people are serious. I can only assert that I can think without words. I'm not talking about about just feelings or sensory impressions, but actual complex thoughts that are manipulated in my mind in a visual way rather than by means of language.

    I have to remind myself that many people find it difficult or impossible to think without words. Therefore, they may have a very different impression of the words themselves. I can see both advantages and disadvantages to this way of thinking. I'm sure it contributes to a greater ability to use words effectively, but I can see a danger of mistaking words, as a symbol for thoughts, with the thoughts themselves. Perhaps, this contributes to heated arguments that could be avoided by paying closer to the words as symbols that vary based on context and the minds of the people who use them.

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    So can a theist.

    Yes, but historically theists have had a written law that was designed to uphold moral values. Atheism explains morals with science which is lack luster, imo.

    -Sab

  • sabastious
    sabastious

    DT couldn't thinking without words be called meditation, right? Listening/focusing to music without words would be considerered thinking without words.

    -Sab

  • Nickolas
    Nickolas

    You are once again mistaken, Sab. I did not dislike where I was and did not embrace atheism so much as surrender to it. I still miss my faith sometimes. It was a comfort to me. Alas, that it comforted me did not make it true. As to morals, what is your definition of morality? If morality is provided to you by your faith and your desire to please or otherwise not displease God, then your morality is artificial. If your morality is based on alieviating the suffering of people, helping people achieve happiness and doing good rather than harm to people, then why is it necessary to believe in God to be moral?

  • bohm
    bohm

    Terry: Atheism CONCLUDES (as its very premise) the negation of something (god, gods, deity). How much clearer do I have to be?

    But you are confusing definition and how beliefs are actually held. For instance, heliocentrism conclude (or more accurately, postulate) as its very premise that the sun is the center of our solar system.

    but a person who subscribe to heliocentrism does so due to evidence, so it would not be accurate at all to say there is anything definitive about heliocentrism.

    It would be plain silly to suggest that one could not claim "i am a heliocentrist" and at the same time not be ready to subject heliocentrism to critical evidence-based examination; sure, heliocentrism do postulate (per definition) certain things about the solar system, but believing in heliocentrism is not the same as just having accepted those things "a priori".

    But that is exactly the type of claim you make about atheism! Sure, an atheist would say he does not believe in god (at least he would say so in plain language), but there is nothing definitional about that, it is in all cases i can think off a conclusion he has arrived at by examination of evidence and a conclusion he can be swayed from by evidence, just as you can convince me the sun is not the center of the universe by presenting the right type of evidence.

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    You are once again mistaken, Sab. I did not dislike where I was and did not embrace atheism so much as surrender to it. I still miss my faith sometimes. It was a comfort to me. Alas, that it comforted me did not make it true. As to morals, what is your definition of morality? If morality is provided to you by your faith and your desire to please or otherwise not displease God, then your morality is artificial. If your morality is based on alieviating the suffering of people, helping people achieve happiness and doing good rather than harm to people, then why is it necessary to believe in God to be moral?

    Before I answer I'd like you to define what you mean by "my faith."?

    -Sab

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit