The Unreasonableness of Atheism

[_dartagnan]

Dart, it hasn't been my experience that atheists are any less likely to ask whys and be philosophical than theists.

Oh really?

Then please point me to any discussions among atheists where the questions:

"Why are we here?"

"What is the purpose to life?"

"How did the universe come to be?"

... are being hashed out in a philosophical manner. I can't even imagine such a "discussion" going beyond, "well, science doesn't say so who am I to speculate?"

These questions naturally gnaw at the iconsciences of most humans, but from my experience atheists aren't interested in them because they go beyond what science can answer. They're afraid that going beyond science might lead to some kind of religion, and they have built up defense mechanisms against this. So the result is a boring, uninteresting, and sometimes an anti-social being who is more interested in attacking religion than anything else.

Take for instance, EAllusion. The dude is smart as all get out, but when does he ever show up?

Only when he has something to say against ID or against someone else who tries to justify their own faith. That's it. Nothing else seems to interest him.

[_asbestosman]

"What is the purpose to life?"

I only care what God's intended purpose of life is inasmuch as I agree with it. Same would hold if I didn't believe in God. My purpose in existing is whatever I choose to make of it. If I choose to become like God becuase I agree with Him then good for me. If believe god is a psycopath and don't want to follow him into punishing infidels for breaking God's commandments but not harming others, then that's my choice too. If I don't believe in God (either because I don't see the evidence or I don't wish to be burdened with the thought of something more powerful and perceptive than humans, that is my choice too.

[_Moniker]

Dart, it hasn't been my experience that atheists are any less likely to ask whys and be philosophical than theists.

Oh really?

Then please point me to any discussions among atheists where the questions:

"Why are we here?"

"What is the purpose to life?"

"How did the universe come to be?"

... are being hashed out in a philosophical manner. I can't even imagine such a "discussion" going beyond, "well, science doesn't say so who am I to speculate?"

These questions naturally gnaw at the iconsciences of most humans, but from my experience atheists aren't interested in them because they go beyond what science can answer. They're afraid that going beyond science might lead to some kind of religion, and they have built up defense mechanisms against this. So the result is a boring, uninteresting, and sometimes an anti-social being who is more interested in attacking religion than anything else.

Take for instance, EAllusion. The dude is smart as all get out, but when does he ever show up?

Only when he has something to say against ID or against someone else who tries to justify their own faith. That's it. Nothing else seems to interest him.

Months ago I had a thread asking about the meaning of life for theists and atheists. It was rather simple...... yet, the question was posed and lots of different people piped up http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... highlight=

I enjoyed that thread because there was no "hashing out" and it was more a very civil discussion. That was lovely!

I can't recall anyone answering with "science doesn't say so therefore who am I to speculate". Renegade of Phunk had a Hume Is-Ought thread just a few weeks ago -- goes beyond science as to determining what is the ethical thing to do. I had a thread on the golden rule (ethic of reciprocity) and it devolved quickly mainly because of the theists participating. I've seen lots of threads on another board I frequent that are more philosophical as to How Did The Universe Come To Be -- I read the posts, yet don't post in the threads, merely because I am just interested in the topic. Tarski and Asbestosman pose some really interesting questions, at times -- really novel thinking.

All those questions you posed gnaw at me, dart. I can't recall a time when they didn't, actually. I think the more intelligent posters could probably start a thread with good intent and it would devolve quickly, most likely, on this board or people may be too intimidated to participate. When the celestial forum had some very interesting threads I read, yet, didn't participate. My threads usually get a good amount of participation because I use rather common language (and simple thoughts!) and I think everyone feels comfortable participating. :)

Why don't you start a philosophical thread and see what you get? I'd imagine you'd get a better variety of answers from atheists than you would from theists -- the default of God did it, God says so, etc...

[_Moniker]

I just thought about this: Tarski attempted to discuss cosmology just a few weeks ago with Dr. Peterson (Dr. Peterson wrote an article on cosmology and atheist beliefs and didn't want to discuss the article on MAD) and Tarski was banned from the thread at MAD. Maybe that thread could be started here?

Perhaps it's not so much that there aren't these discussions, it's more that you're running about fussing about whether or not Einstein was a theist to notice? :)

[_dartagnan]

Perhaps it's not so much that there aren't these discussions, it's more that you're running about fussing about whether or not Einstein was a theist to notice? :)

Well, that goes to further my point too. All I did was state a fact but the resident atheists couldn't handle it. Why? Why is it so important to them that Einstein can not have believed in God?

I wasn't "fussing." I was accused of misrepresentation and I defended myself.

[_Ren]

dartagnan,

You don't 'see it' because you not only see what you want to see, but because 'serious' philosophical consideration doesn't seem to be worth much to you if it doesn't reach the conclusions you think it ought to.

There are many questions that science cannot answer. But you don't ignore the answers it does give you, and you don't ignore the lessons it teaches you either...

EDIT:
In relation to treating science like our 'sacred cow' - you might wanna check out this thread where, to my count, most of the atheists involved in it were more than willing to throw plenty of criticism at the scientific method...

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... php?t=2443

[_Chap]

... you're running about fussing about whether or not Einstein was a theist to notice? :)

You may end up really regretting that you said that. Quickly, get him interested in something else.

William Schryver! KEP! dictation not copying!

[_dartagnan]

I flipped through that discussion to linked us to and I found exactly what I expected to find, and I think it pretty much reinforces my initial point.

Schmo was the first atheist to respond, and he did so with the following, "Here's the problem with this "meaning of life" proposition..."

WK is an agnostic who then said:"Atheists and theists are all shooting for the same thing - happiness. Theists are just hoping to have it in the next life, while atheists want to have it now."

TD said: "The purpose of life is to transform energy. The meaning in that is whatever one puts on it."

Again, boring. Tell that to your kids when they start asking about the meaning of life.

Gad starts attacking Christians. Why? Why not answer the question without dragging in the usual attacks on religion? Because atheists on this board are more interested in bashing religion than anything else. That is the one thing that drives them.

EAllusion goes on to prove my point when he responds with sarcasm and attacks ID (what a shocker!) How does that answer the question?

GoodK notes that there are no theists in the discussion, and said that it is a shame because their existence gives him something to argue against. But why argue? I thought this was just a question?

Sethbag said there isn't a "cosomological meaning" to life at all. And JAK entered with the usual anti-religion diatribes.

DonBradley says that there can really be no "ultimate meaning" for atheists, only temporary meaning.

So yes, I think the thread proved my point. You brought in a philosophical question to scientific minded people. The shrug their shoulders with pithy comments and leave it at that. It isn't particularly interesting to them, and this is natural since they believe we are here by accident. Dumb luck. For them there is no scientifically verified intelligence beyond ourselves, so who cares about these questions? When we die, we no longer exist. That's all she wrote, so let's eat, drink and be merry.

[_Ren]

TD said: "The purpose of life is to transform energy. The meaning in that is whatever one puts on it."

Again, boring.

Ahhh - so if a philosophical idea isn't 'interesting' to you, then it is de-facto 'not worth much'?

The universe may well have no more intrinsic meaning than what conscious beings bring to it themselves... I'm sorry if that potential 'reality' bores you, but the truthfulness of the proposition is not affected by your interest in it.

[Guest]

I flipped through that discussion to linked us to and I found exactly what I expected to find, and I think it pretty much reinforces my initial point.

Schmo was the first atheist to respond, and he did so with the following, "Here's the problem with this "meaning of life" proposition..."

WK is an agnostic who then said:"Atheists and theists are all shooting for the same thing - happiness. Theists are just hoping to have it in the next life, while atheists want to have it now."

TD said: "The purpose of life is to transform energy. The meaning in that is whatever one puts on it."

Again, boring. Tell that to your kids when they start asking about the meaning of life.

Gad starts attacking Christians. Why? Why not answer the question without dragging in the usual attacks on religion? Because atheists on this board are more interested in bashing religion than anything else. That is the one thing that drives them.

EAllusion goes on to prove my point when he responds with sarcasm and attacks ID (what a shocker!) How does that answer the question?

GoodK notes that there are no theists in the discussion, and said that it is a shame because their existence gives him something to argue against. But why argue? I thought this was just a question?

Sethbag said there isn't a "cosomological meaning" to life at all. And JAK entered with the usual anti-religion diatribes.

DonBradley says that there can really be no "ultimate meaning" for atheists, only temporary meaning.

So yes, I think the thread proved my point. You brought in a philosophical question to scientific minded people. The shrug their shoulders with pithy comments and leave it at that. It isn't particularly interesting to them, and this is natural since they believe we are here by accident. Dumb luck. For them there is no scientifically verified intelligence beyond ourselves, so who cares about these questions? When we die, we no longer exist. That's all she wrote, so let's eat, drink and be merry.

Dart, I specifically asked what was the meaning to each of our lives and how that may differ from atheists to theists since theists often tell atheists there is no meaning to their life without a belief in a deity. So the answers were appropriate. Like I said before, someone else that could pose a more philosophically challenging question could probably get a better conversation going. I'm happy with the lala threads I have where people feel free to participate. I think you're really quite negative. I thought, for the most part, the thread wasn't attacking theism and was rather cordial.