Hoops wrote:I would be interested in why you think so. My supposition is this: an atheis is self conceited because they do not believe in a higher power. Therefor, by default, the only power they recognize is their own. And they believe they create their own morality.
How am I wrong?
You are wrong because your implied imaginary picture of 'an atheist' popping into the universe all on his own as a fully formed intellect, without a past, without a social context, without innate drives, without a human childhood and upbringing, is so simplistic and naïve that it does not even provide the beginning of a possibly illuminating discussion.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
I would be interested in why you think so. My supposition is this: an atheis is self conceited because they do not believe in a higher power. Therefor, by default, the only power they recognize is their own. And they believe they create their own morality.
How am I wrong?
I don't know much about atheism, so perhaps you can answer a question for me:
Why does one have to recognize *any* power in the absence of a belief in god?
H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker "Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir
Hoops wrote:I would be interested in why you think so. My supposition is this: an atheis is self conceited because they do not believe in a higher power. Therefor, by default, the only power they recognize is their own. And they believe they create their own morality.
How am I wrong?
You are wrong because your implied imaginary picture of 'an atheist' popping into the universe all on his own as a fully formed intellect, without a past, without a social context, without innate drives, without a human childhood and upbringing, is so simplistic and naïve that it does not even provide the beginning of a possibly illuminating discussion.
Hoops, I would say very much the same thing as Chap has done. People don't live in a historical and cultural vacuum and the birth of secular modern society was one that not only demoted "god," but enthroned man's reason as enshrined in his ability for social reform: legal systems and democratic societies (vs. the hierarchical society of god-king-priest-man). Enlightenment man was not a hedonist or an anarchist but rather a believer in law and order. That is not to say that what I'm using "the Enlightenment" as a giant shorthand for is not beyond critique, but that you miss that the "atheism" you presumably argue against is enmeshed in a number of social, historical and philosophical conditions that you aren't seeing.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Chap wrote:You are wrong because your implied imaginary picture of 'an atheist' popping into the universe all on his own as a fully formed intellect, without a past, without a social context, without innate drives, without a human childhood and upbringing, is so simplistic and naïve that it does not even provide the beginning of a possibly illuminating discussion.
Chap wrote:You are wrong because your implied imaginary picture of 'an atheist' popping into the universe all on his own as a fully formed intellect, without a past, without a social context, without innate drives, without a human childhood and upbringing, is so simplistic and naïve that it does not even provide the beginning of a possibly illuminating discussion.
Which is why I asked Blixa, a**hole.
Hold on there, Hoops. I said I pretty much agreed with Chap. Had I replied first, my response would be pretty much the same, even down to characterizing the position you seem to be articulating as simplistic. I think Chap's response is mildly more pugnacious than mine would have been, but I don't think its merely the retort of an a-hole. (Of course, I haven't followed this thread in its entirety, so I don't know the tenor of your previous exchanges with Chap.)
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Blixa wrote: Hold on there, Hoops. I said I pretty much agreed with Chap. Had I replied first, my response would be pretty much the same, even down to characterizing the position you seem to be articulating as simplistic. I think Chap's response is mildly more pugnacious than mine would have been, but I don't think its merely the retort of an a-hole. (Of course, I haven't followed this thread in its entirety, so I don't know the tenor of your previous exchanges with Chap.)
I doubt it. But, if you say so, I'll accept it.
Nonetheless, I'm just trying to stake out a defensive position in keeping with enforcing the board's moderation policy.
Chap wrote:You are wrong because your implied imaginary picture of 'an atheist' popping into the universe all on his own as a fully formed intellect, without a past, without a social context, without innate drives, without a human childhood and upbringing, is so simplistic and naïve that it does not even provide the beginning of a possibly illuminating discussion.
Which is why I asked Blixa,a**hole.
A red siren is probably going off in Jersey Girl's living room right now.
H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker "Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir
Blixa wrote: Hold on there, Hoops. I said I pretty much agreed with Chap. Had I replied first, my response would be pretty much the same, even down to characterizing the position you seem to be articulating as simplistic. I think Chap's response is mildly more pugnacious than mine would have been, but I don't think its merely the retort of an a-hole. (Of course, I haven't followed this thread in its entirety, so I don't know the tenor of your previous exchanges with Chap.)
Regardless of how you would have responded, I am terribly interested in how you did respond. At your request, I'll take Chap's words as essentially your own.
I'm not sure how your explanation refutes my assertion. For an atheist, the only thing that is relevant is atheism.