What do you feel is wrong with atheism?

[Rolling_Stone]

Choosing or not choosing what? Do you really believe it is an black and white decision?

Some things are black and white. Not choosing between, say, optional treatments for cancer (a choice I had to make) is a choice for cancer.

BTW, here's another thing wrong with athesim that recent posts have made plain: atheism has difficulty extrapolating meaning. All it sees is the surface of things.

 

[Magic Man]

BTW, here's another thing wrong with athesim that recent posts have made plain: atheism has difficulty extrapolating meaning. All it sees is the surface of things.

Yeah, you're right. That's a fault of atheism. It has nothing to do with the lack of meaning in the posts, or the lack of ability to explain that meaning. Again, it's never your fault, always someone else's. Look up the word "projecting". I think you'll find some meaning there.

 

[gnomon]

Well I've lost my copy of the atheist agenda.

Can another atheist loan me their copy. I still remember the handshake so I'm legit.

 

[Magic Man]

Well I've lost my copy of the atheist agenda.

Can another atheist loan me their copy. I still remember the handshake so I'm legit.

I'd loan you mine, but since you're an atheist, I know I can't trust you to give it back. Sorry.

 

[DallasApple]

Some things are black and white. Not choosing between, say, optional treatments for cancer (a choice I had to make) is a choice for cancer.

BTW, here's another thing wrong with athesim that recent posts have made plain: atheism has difficulty extrapolating meaning. All it sees is the surface of things.

I dont agree...Athiest (most) think about the meaning of life..and choices to be made..they measure as do many "theist" the outcome of any action non action..

After all...extrapolating "meaning" is a day to day venture...

Love(only becuase I believe in God)

Dallas

 

[fantome profane]

Some things are black and white. Not choosing between, say, optional treatments for cancer (a choice I had to make) is a choice for cancer.

But how many optional treatments are there? And what do we choose to treat? Are you treating the cancer or the person? Who is to say what is a treatment and what isn’t?

BTW, here's another thing wrong with athesim that recent posts have made plain: atheism has difficulty extrapolating meaning. All it sees is the surface of things.

It may appear so on the surface, but if you look deeper you will see that it is more complicated than that. There are more subtle distinctions that you don't seem to recognize.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

...hehe. Once again you demonstrate what's wrong with atheism...

And once again, your inability to convey a focused thought in a comprehensible manner forces you to rely on flippant dismissal of things you do not understand.

 

[Willamena]

That's the point. It's a forced decision. Not choosing is choosing.

The agnostic is not "the person who refuses to choose"; it's not about choosing or not choosing. I'd even go so far as to say that those who think it is, however distinguished a scholar and author they might be, are mistaken. The agnostic is the person who recognizes and acknowledges the unknown/unknowable in things, and in the case of the agnostic theist or the agnostic atheist, the all-thing. The agnostic knows that he doesn't know enough.

The only sensible position he can adopt regarding choice (although that's not what it's about) is to abstain.

To use your example of cancer, if you were diagnosed by the very best professionals with (instead of cancer) something, literally "some.... thing", would you consider that you had enough information with which to make an informed choice?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

...To use your example of cancer, if you were diagnosed by the very best professionals with (instead of cancer) something, literally "some.... thing", would you consider that you had enough information with which to make an informed choice?

Ooh, ooh!! Let me answer that for him.

He would make a decision based on too little information, and then condemn the surgeon for removing a perfectly good kidney - because the surgeon was guilty of "atheistic logic". :banghead3

 

[robtex]

You're jumping to conclusions, Rob, proving my assessment. I don't quote as an appeal to authority, but because what is said is said better than I can say it. Period. That you nor anyone else respond to them is your failure.

Actually I was trying to find you ammo so it wouldn't look like you are making up your assessment of reality out of thin air as you go along. However when I do that you come back with a statement of assumption which I translate as defense mechanism to "I don't read" and than take the 5 possible answers and answer them in one word or phrase without attempting clarify them in any way other than to change a few words in one sentence. For the ones that you find merit in could you expound on why you thing they merit?

Point 1 is stupid.

Point 2 is biased and simplistic (May be true in some cases, not in others.) See my original list.

Point 3 is stupid.

Point 4 has some merit. The demand for evidence to the exclusion of the inner life is not reasonable and living in a world ruled by ideas is not living.

Point 5 also has merit.

 

[Yerda]

BTW, here's another thing wrong with athesim that recent posts have made plain: atheism has difficulty extrapolating meaning. All it sees is the surface of things.

How often do you extrapolate meaning?

 

[Smoke]

How often do you extrapolate meaning?

You just make it up.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I dont agree...Athiest (most) think about the meaning of life..and choices to be made..they measure as do many "theist" the outcome of any action non action..

After all...extrapolating "meaning" is a day to day venture...

Love(only becuase I believe in God)

Dallas

To some extent, you are right. I don't mean to imply they don't think about meaning. On the contrary, they think too much. VOR is a good example. I said that to deny the personality of God leaves two philosophical options: materialism and pantheism. The response, basically, was that I'm not smart enough to discern nuances in the various belief systems. VOR looks at the waves on the surface of the ocean; I look at the ocean beneath the waves. I swim.

What I'm trying to say is that religion experience (and I'm sure you're aware of this) transcends religious beliefs.

Love (only because I, too, believe in God),

RS

 

[fantome profane]

What I'm trying to say is that religion experience (and I'm sure you're aware of this) transcends religious beliefs.

Yes! Absolutely right! I am sorry that you can’t see that it also transcends the theism/atheism divide as well.

 

[McBell]

Yes! Absolutely right! I am sorry that you can’t see that it also transcends the theism/atheism divide as well.

When one has ones sites on the divide itself, one will not be able to see anything beyond said divide.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

To use your example of cancer, if you were diagnosed by the very best professionals with (instead of cancer) something, literally "some.... thing", would you consider that you had enough information with which to make an informed choice?

I'm going to expand on my illustration because it was for me a real experience.

Option 1 is effective, but has side-effects. Option 2 doesn't have the side-effects, but all the information pertaining to its effectiveness is not yet available. Option 3 isn't quite as effective, but doesn't have the side-effects. Option 4 is to wait for all the information is available for option 2. Option 5 is not to choose, which is itself a decision. What do YOU do?

Athiesm (option 5) says "none of the above"; agnosticism (option 4) says "I can't choose because I don't have enough information to make a completely informed choice." Because time is of the essence, both are effectively making the same decision.

Theism says one must have eyes trained to the task; atheism says there is nothing to see; agnosticism says since it is unsure, there's no sense in going to the trouble of training the eyes. No amount of sophistry (nuance) will relieve one of this dilemma.

 

[GadFly]

What a load of crap.

In philosophy, the term "absolute truth" refers to absolute truth.

When referring to God, the term "God" is most often used.

You desperately need to take some classes. Your tortured views on everything from philosophy to logic are completely unrecognizable from a classic standpoint.

You desperately need some classes in good manners. The true intellectual thinker can afford to be nice. The person who leads an argument with an insult illustrates his reasoning ability from the get go. You seem to have done that in most of your post on this thread. What is your problem? Have you been afflicted by the new disease called atheist logic? In the intellectual world it is the AIDS infection and it is often fatal.

The GadFly by nature has been around "loads of Crap" and I give you credit for a doctorate in that. Thanking is not where you deserve a doctorate or your use of philosophical terms would be much better. If that is the best you have to offer, you best bone up on your past classes in philosophy because the miss use of any discipline's terminology is a sure sign you are out of intellectual control in that discipline.

Look, the Monitors and Staff here on the RF always say to attack the person's ideas and not the person. Would you please leave the crap in the out house and debate the issues without the stink. That is not intellectual. When you greet another person, be nice. If you truly want to play intellectual, be nice.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Yes! Absolutely right! I am sorry that you can’t see that it also transcends the theism/atheism divide as well.

Oh, I see it quite clearly. But have you noticed that atheistic (and agnostic) aguments all point to idea-content of religion as though they were the same as the religion iteslf? The divide is a matter of degree: the life of a stone versus the life of a flower.

 

[GadFly]

I'm not sure a Philosophy textbook will help understand what you're saying. There is no way you got those ideas from any real philosophy book. This quote is simply false.

No it is not.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

You desperately need some classes in good manners. The true intellectual thinker can afford to be nice. The person who leads an argument with an insult illustrates his reasoning ability from the get go. You seem to have done that in most of your post on this thread. What is your problem? Have you been afflicted by the new disease called atheist logic? In the intellectual world it is the AIDS infection and it is often fatal.

The GadFly by nature has been around "loads of Crap" and I give you credit for a doctorate in that. Thanking is not where you deserve a doctorate or your use of philosophical terms would be much better. If that is the best you have to offer, you best bone up on your past classes in philosophy because the miss use of any discipline's terminology is a sure sign you are out of intellectual control in that discipline.

Look, the Monitors and Staff here on the RF always say to attack the person's ideas and not the person. Would you please leave the crap in the out house and debate the issues without the stink. That is not intellectual. When you greet another person, be nice. If you truly want to play intellectual, be nice.

My dear Gadfly, haven't you noticed there's a double standard?