Is Atheism (et al) a Worldview?

[Eli G]

You were debating with someone from Jehovah's Witness, if you've never debated with someone who believes in that religion before, I can tell you from experience that I have seen them debate with people many times, and every time, they always back out when someone makes a decent point which contradicts their own. My understanding of why they do this is because they want others to listen to their point, but they don't want to do the opposite because they believe they are 100% correct.

But I could be wrong since a bunch of people who believe in that religion that behave a certain way doesn't mean they automatically all do.

I don't really understand much of the relationship that this post may have with the topic being debated... but I feel some kind of prejudice. If I am a Jehovah's Witness, do my comments deserve any kind of different reaction than those who are not?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Those who believe that the origin of the universe has nothing to do with a Creator do not feel afraid when they make decisions that may have different consequences on other humans... and they can be very bad to others.

He who fears God, knows that if he harms his fellow man he will have a non-human Judge who will judge him.

Yeah, so this is rubbish. Plain and simple.

 

[vulcanlogician]

You've claimed to me that you have a degree in philosophy in a previous comment on another thread, yet you overly focus on how things seem only if you skim read my responses as you clearly have, not only that, but I have noticed many times when you've clearly just skim read my responses on another thread, yet acted like you didn't skim read them initially. I think an explanation is due at this point or I can't keep taking your responses seriously because it just feels like you're trolling me.

I'm not trolling you, man. I read back over what I said, and I don't see how I was trolling you. If you perceive it that way, I apologize. I do have a philosophy degree. But from a state university. Maybe that's the issue.

That's not what I'm saying at all, theistic worldviews mean worldviews that have theism in them, it does not mean that theism is a worldview by itself! How do you not understand this? I explained it very clearly if you read my entire comment.

Maybe you are at an intellectual level that I can't comprehend or keep up with the things that you are saying. Like, you are speaking at a high intellectual level, and my intellectual level is low. Maybe I bit off more than I could chew by even attempting to enter the conversation with you.

At any rate, I'll just kind of leave you alone so that you can locate your peers and have substantive conversations with them. I like to say hi to new folks I see on the forum. So that's mostly what I was doing. But I'll leave you alone from now on. And sorry if I bothered you, man.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't really understand much of the relationship that this post may have with the topic being debated... but I feel some kind of prejudice. If I am a Jehovah's Witness, do my comments deserve any kind of different reaction than those who are not?

You just finished suggesting atheists "do not feel afraid when they make decisions that may have different consequences on other humans... and they can be very bad to others." whilst "He who fears God, knows that if he harms his fellow man he will have a non-human Judge who will judge him."

And you're concerned that you are being prejudiced against?

That's quite the plank.

 

[Eli G]

Yeah, so this is rubbish. Plain and simple.

Thanks for confirming my understanding.

 

[Echogem222]

I don't really understand much of the relationship that this post may have with the topic being debated... but I feel some kind of prejudice. If I am a Jehovah's Witness, do my comments deserve any kind of different reaction than those who are not?

Jehovah's Witnesses from my experience tend to be like trolls, they seem like they're up for a good debate, but always back out instead of explaining their reasoning, or admit they're wrong, or at least admit that they can't refute the point being made. If you want to prove to me that you're not like every other Jehovah's Witness I've seen, then just do differently, problem solved.

In other words, treat others as you would want to be treated, and don't expect you'll be considered some type of exception. It's really not that hard.

 

[Eli G]

Jehovah's Witnesses from my experience tend to be like trolls, they seem like they're up for a good debate, but always back out instead of explaining their reasoning, or admit they're wrong, or at least admit that they can't refute the point being made. If you want to prove to me that you're not like every other Jehovah's Witness I've seen, then just do differently, problem solved.

In other words, treat others as you would want to be treated, and don't expect you'll be considered some type of exception. It's really not that hard.

Well, that's prejudice and discrimination. But I can't change the world. I can live with it... until there will be no more of that.

 

[Echogem222]

I'm not trolling you, man. I read back over what I said, and I don't see how I was trolling you. If you perceive it that way, I apologize. I do have a philosophy degree. But from a state university. Maybe that's the issue.




Maybe you are at an intellectual level that I can't comprehend or keep up with the things that you are saying. Like, you are speaking at a high intellectual level, and my intellectual level is low. Maybe I bit off more than I could chew by even attempting to enter the conversation with you.

At any rate, I'll just kind of leave you alone so that you can locate your peers and have substantive conversations with them. I like to say hi to new folks I see on the forum. So that's mostly what I was doing. But I'll leave you alone from now on. And sorry if I bothered you, man.

In other words, you haven't learned your lesson at all, but want to make yourself seem like the victim here. Ok, I'm blocking you.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It was suggested and refuted in another thread that atheism is a worldview. Is it? Is theism? Agnosticism? Apatheism? Ignoticism? Transtheism?

Or are they a part of what constitutes a worldview?

Explain your reasoning.

I wouldn't say atheism is a worldview, because it's just not enough to constitute one. However, it certainly informs worldviews.
Take a bunch of atheists, they can have a lot of varying views on the world, particularly if you move past broad brush generalisations.

You mentioned theism in your post, and I think that's a good analogue. Theism...in and of itself...isn't a worldview. I can't tell from that simple description what people believe in any great detail. I know they believe in some sort of divinity separate to humanity, and that belief may certainy be influential in how they see the world, but in and of itself...it's not a worldview.

 

[Echogem222]

Well, that's prejudice and discrimination. But I can't change the world. I can live with it... until there will be no more of that.

Really? You're going to respond that way instead of just prove me wrong? I've made this super easy, all you have to do... is prove me wrong, that's it, super easy.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Thanks for confirming my understanding.

Which understanding is that?

 

[Eli G]

@Echogem222 I am putting you on my ignore list.
I can't dialog with people that already judge me before even engaging in a dialog with me.
Maybe you can read my posts somewhere and get an idea...
Happy staying in the back room.

Unfortunately I can't ignore others who got the tittle "Staff Member"... too many of those here, who knows who gives that tittle to them.

 

[John53]

@Echogem222 I am putting you on my ignore list.
I can't dialog with people that already judge me before even engaging in a dialog with me.
Maybe you can read my posts somewhere and get an idea...
Happy staying in the back room.

Unfortunately I can't ignore others who got the tittle "Staff Member"... too many of those here, who knows who gives that tittle to them.

Interesting comment for someone who judged all atheists a few posts back.

 

[Echogem222]

Interesting comment for someone who judged all atheists a few posts back.

And it's not like I was saying I believe with 100% certainty that all Jehovah's Witnesses are like that, I even recently said this: "But I could be wrong since a bunch of people who believe in that religion that behave a certain way doesn't mean they automatically all do.", yet somehow that's just too much, and I must be blocked.

All I wanted was for them to prove me wrong, that they're not like other Jehovah's Witnesses, just that. Is that really being judgmental at all?

 

[Nimos]

1. Certain ethicists want to make the claim that "x is good." (For example, a hedonist makes the claim that pleasure and happiness are good.)
2. It is possible to ask the question: "Is x good?" (In case of the hedonist, it is possible to ask her "Is pleasure and happiness REALLY good?")

3. Therefore, according to Moore, "goodness" is an irreducible concept. Because you can always ask "Is x REALLY good?" when presented with a reduction of what "goodness" may be."

Interesting argument, but don't get it.

In 2. when asked the question "Is X REALLY good?", the obvious answer would simply be "It is good because the absence of pleasure and happiness is worse"

So, why would it be an irreducible concept? again the absence/robbing a person of something they value would be worse for them.

Maybe I misunderstood the argument.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't really understand much of the relationship that this post may have with the topic being debated... but I feel some kind of prejudice. If I am a Jehovah's Witness, do my comments deserve any kind of different reaction than those who are not?

Of course not.

That is the point.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It was suggested and refuted in another thread that atheism is a worldview. Is it?

I know there is more than one worldview thread. I hope you are not referring to my thread on Secular Humanism. I was very, very clear that Atheism is not a worldview.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Interesting argument, but don't get it.

In 2. when asked the question "Is X REALLY good?", the obvious answer would simply be "It is good because the absence of pleasure and happiness is worse"

So, why would it be an irreducible concept? again the absence/robbing a person of something they value would be worse for them.

Maybe I misunderstood the argument.

If you misunderstand the argument, you are in good company. Moore himself misunderstood the argument. And I found it compelling when I first heard it. But it is logically unsound. It just takes a bit of thinking to get to where you realize that.

An ethicist starts with the question: "What is morally good?" or-- if you want to be more basic about it: "What is good?" or "What is goodness?"

A hedonist has an answer at the ready: "Happiness and pleasure are good. Pain and suffering are bad."

But Moore wanted to point out that you can ask the question: "Is happiness and pleasure good?" and by pointing that out, he thought the matter remained an open question.

But he was WRONG. It is not an open question. The hedonists already asked themselves the question of whether pleasure and happiness are good. And their answer was "yes." Opponents of hedonism also answered the question. Their answer was "no."

And it has to be one or the other. So the question is not open. It's closed. It must be one or the other. And even Moore admitted that himself.

If that's not a satisfactory answer, I'm more than willing to elaborate further. Just ask. It took me some time to fully grasp Moore's mistake (and my mistake). But one you see it, you can't unsee it. Moore made an error in logic. Thems the facts.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You say that is not correct, but then you also say that you don't fully understand what it is I'm even saying... yeah, I "totally" believe you're saying something reasonable.

Maybe your referring to philosophical thoughts associated with a worldview like that of Carl Sagon.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

@Echogem222 I am putting you on my ignore list.
I can't dialog with people that already judge me before even engaging in a dialog with me.
Maybe you can read my posts somewhere and get an idea...
Happy staying in the back room.

Unfortunately I can't ignore others who got the tittle "Staff Member"... too many of those here, who knows who gives that tittle to them.

Well, if you like I can avoid posting to you (after this).
But I would say I'm judging you based only on your posts in this thread. I've had plenty of interesting discussions with JWs here.
I guess it's then up to you to consider my posts and why I would have responded in the way I did.
I'd suggest you clearly judged a group (which I belong to), whilst I clearly judged you, based on your post.
You're now judging a second group (Staff member) when you would appear to have a problem more specifically with me, but that's fine.

Ultimately, I'm happy to be called out on my posts, my views, and my behavior. I'm less happy to be targeted due to my affiliation with a group, whether that group is atheists, or staff.

In any case, hope you have a good day.