The Unreasonableness of Atheism

[_dartagnan]

You don't 'see it' because you not only see what you want to see

Oh nonsense. I hold you out as an exception to the rule. I still remember when you were arguing with other atheists here because they were essentially attacking philosophy and preferring the "scientific method." You then pointed out that the scientific method IS a philosophy. That was priceless.

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.

Not true at all. If you think I am wrong then please point to some of these discussions that ought to exist with or without my existence. Where are they? Atheists generally don't care about these things. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, but people liek chap, EA and Guy Sajer usually pipe in only when religion is getting gang banged from every angle. That's their purpose here it seems. They show up on these threads more than they do LDS related ones. That's their passion.

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...

Like what? Since science has not presented any "answers" that precludes the existence of God, this statement is rather meaningless. Who is ignoring scientific answers?

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

William Schryver! KEP! dictation not copying!

Oh give me a break chap. Trevor rails on me all the time for discussing a wide variety of topics with the proper "expertise." So which is it? I am perhaps the most versatile poster here. I've discussed topics from biblical theology, Radical Islam, ancient Judaism, Christian history, the KEP, theism in general, etc. It is true I go in cycles, but on the whole I am not here to discuss strictly one thing. And the only reason I started arguing with atheists is because Ray pointed out last year that this was the only group I haven't argued with.Well, not any more. I argue with theists ans atheists now.

[_dartagnan]

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

No, my point is that these types of responses don't invoke further discussion. You had a bunch of atheists offer non-religious views and the thread immediately died. There is no interest amonst atheists to further speculate beyond what is scientifically proved. That is my point. That, for me, leads to a boring discussion.

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.

Yes, anything is possible, but for me it is more interesting to discuss the amazing coincidences in the Universe that strongly suggest it was designed for the purpose of human life. But this doesn't even strike the atheist as interesting because it doesn't matter to them. I was asked why I believe a divine intelligence exists on several occassions and I presented this as my reason, and nobody even gave a follow up comment. It wasn't interesting to them. Science can't explain teh coincidences so they won't speculate, because speculation could lead to something that resembles religion.

[_Ren]

dartagnan,

I'm not saying there isn't truth to what you're pointing out. I agree that - often - we don't dig as deeply as we should on all kinds of issues.
...but I do think you're cherry picking too. As has been noted, a large proportion of the people on the board are atheist. If you wanna find the cherries, you've got plenty of pickings to rummage though.

...would you like me to point out ridiculous philosophical nonsense on MAD? Or on Christian Forums? Believe me, I could find PLENTY of great stuff to fuel my charge of 'theists are philosophically retarded'... Except I don't say that - so, no need I guess...

[_dartagnan]

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.

You thought that was rude?
If that was the distinction in your question then it is even less philosophical than the one I proposed, and yet it still produced boring, unimaginative responses. Nothing to debate or discuss ... maybe that's because there were no theists around who were willing to take the bait and fight back.

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.

Negative how? It is a simple fact that atheists tend to be less philosophical and more scientific. I think it was Einstein who said a scientist makes for a horrible philosopher. That is why he didn't really feel qualified to get into it. But he never rejected philosophy as meaningless, as some atheists here have in the past.

I thought, for the most part, the thread wasn't attacking theism and was rather cordial.

That's because the few theists who were there, didn't bother to pick up the rocks that were pelting them in the head, and hurl them back.

[_antishock8]

It's funny. Believers are so sure about everything. But you know what? It doesn't matter. None of their assurance is worth the energy it takes to type these words. However, I'm sure of my life. I'm sure of my death. That's all we have. Believers aren't so much afraid of the unknown as they are the known. They know they're going to die. That's for sure. We all have a long night coming, and it's how we perceive our existence that ends up dictating how we live our lives. The fear Believers feel is transposed into evangelical passion. This is simply transference. So what is atheism? It's the grim acceptance of the inevitable clock striking midnight. It's also the realization that we're then free to be what we are, not what someone says we should be in order to attain abeyance.

There is no celestial interlocutor, no heavenly judge, no pie in the sky.

There is life. There is death.

That's it. Make of it what you will.

[_dartagnan]

I'm not saying there isn't truth to what you're pointing out. I agree that - often - we don't dig as deeply as we should on all kinds of issues.
...but I do think you're cherry picking too.

OK, do you have something in mind? Because I'm at a loss here.

As has been noted, a large proportion of the people on the board are atheist. If you wanna find the cherries, you've got plenty of pickings to rummage though.

Which was really my point to begin with. This forum is mainly atheistic, so you don't get a lot of the same types of discussions that you find on religious forums. It isn't interesting to them. Some were indulging Moniker with pithy remarks, but no real discussion ensued.

...would you like me to point out ridiculous philosophical nonsense on MAD? Or on Christian Forums?

Sure, but the issue is not who is being ridiculous; and as far as the purpose of life goes, I doubt we find many of these discussions over at MADB because you're dealing with a choir who share the same eschatological view. I was simply pointing out that atheists don't find the issue interesting or worth thinking much about.

Believe me, I could find PLENTY of great stuff to fuel my charge of 'theists are philosophically r******d'... Except I don't say that - so, no need I guess...

Again, I think you missed the point. I never said atheists were wrong about any particular philosophical point. I said they generally don't like to delve into it because many consider it below science. Philosophy gets into the questions of why and purpose and meaning. Science just tells us what's happening and how it happens. For most humans this isn't enough. You should know from your own experience here that some atheists ridicule philosophy the same as they do religion.

[_Ren]

Like what? Since science has not presented any "answers" that precludes the existence of God, this statement is rather meaningless. Who is ignoring scientific answers?

I don't science can 'disprove' the notion of God. But I do believe it can (potentially) - within it's own 'framework' - declare the notion 'redundant'.
NOTE: I'm not saying it HAS. That totally depends on how you view the 'scientific' evidence. But I'm saying that's a conclusion that can be - at least potentially - legitimately reached.

It's up to individuals to decide what that really means - in the end...

[_dartagnan]

See? You guys are already attacking believers!!!!

WHY???

It is like clock work. That's the only thing you're interested in it seems.

[_asbestosman]

It is my understanding that Ren like libertarian philosophy.

I'd be willing to be that Renegade would not lean on science to support his libertarian views. Rather he might use science to explain why cooperation is more mutually beneficial than strict competition. That is one can use science to explain why certain beliefs are appealing without using science to say that those beliefs are the correct choice.

[_Ren]

dartagnan,

Yeah - I think I might not have latched onto the underlying point you were making. It's an interesting angle...
I'm gonna consider it a bit and maybe get back to ya... :)