Dangers of atheism -Sam Harris

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier


That sounds like pantheism or spinozaism to me just based on the developed principle.

Both those believe in a God.

There is a difference in saying God does not exist as an absolute than I don't have a belief one way or the other.

No one can say God does not exist.

It is a belief to say God does not exist active. Rather than simply a lack of belief passive.

Acknowledge God, so I can then say he doesn't exist?

That is why it is defined as such in philosophy.

Philosophy just means belief. Atheism is lack of belief.

Spinozaism nor pantheism believe in a God rather it is all God. Not a being.

Philosophy as a decipline not a personal philosophy. There are no atheist philosophers?

atheists does not say there is no god. it can't, atheism is we do not accept any claims of a god existing.

now there is a thing called anti-theist, which i am a part of. i learned it from satanism then refined it thru philosophy and ethics. its the stance that is, I do not want there to be a god. not saying i know or believe there isnt a god, only that i wish there to be no god. and we can go into that as well, but a new thread would be better

just for the record if any evidence that is non-contradictory or too vague is provided, i will believe in a god.

i quoted the wrong post sorry

Check out Dr Barnes on common sense atheism. His lecture on Cosmology and fine tuning.

argument from ignorance. we dont know or possibly know, therefore there must be a prime creator or prime force. illogical. you dont know and i cant know, there is no need to presuppose something we cant prove.

watch some hitchens or sam harris, i recommend them. even low profile speakers like matt dillahunty, he speaks a lot about morals and TAG

I just said I saw Harris lecture. He is one of my favorites.

Hitchins himself says fine tuning is a strong arguement. He is actually what led me to Barnes.

Try actually listening to the lecture I recommended before you jump to conclusions. That very thing is addressed. Barnes also never claims anything about God. I am just saying its interesting.

mobile.twitter.com...

hitchens also makes a very good analogy using boats and another one on destruction.

if it the universe is so fine tuned then why are whole galaxies blowing up? where is their savior? if you want to claim that god brings all the good you have to also claim that he brings all the bad. if you want to believe in a god that doesn't care about whether you live or die, thats fine. i dont. i wont believe it until the evidence is shown not before.

the boat one... well you can go learn it for yourself.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee
Now that it appears we have finally established what atheism is.

I'm gonna go back and try to watch the video in its entirety.

Uh I just gave you three sources that say different what makes yours more important?

My source is American Atheist.

Done.

Why is it done? Is that really how you argue? Wow.
I gave you three other sources. All respected by academia and not theist.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: vjr1113

'the difference between atheism and religion is that one is a command from god himself. religion is the claim to know what god wants. you can think that way if you want thats fine.

if you want to disagree that atheism is denial of god claim thats fine too. but you're wrong.

I'm not saying it is a religion at all. But it is an 'ism' which I will say again, is:

"“a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement: of all the isms, fascism is the most repressive.”

Do you agree with this?

sure atheism is a practice of not believing claims of gods. also known as skeptisism.

btw i only use atheism as a label as convenience. i shouldnt have to have a label for not believing in santa clause, asantaclauseism. but its a good way to sum up a response or a stance.

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier


That sounds like pantheism or spinozaism to me just based on the developed principle.

Both those believe in a God.

There is a difference in saying God does not exist as an absolute than I don't have a belief one way or the other.

No one can say God does not exist.

It is a belief to say God does not exist active. Rather than simply a lack of belief passive.

Acknowledge God, so I can then say he doesn't exist?

That is why it is defined as such in philosophy.

Philosophy just means belief. Atheism is lack of belief.

Spinozaism nor pantheism believe in a God rather it is all God. Not a being.

Philosophy as a decipline not a personal philosophy. There are no atheist philosophers?

atheists does not say there is no god. it can't, atheism is we do not accept any claims of a god existing.

now there is a thing called anti-theist, which i am a part of. i learned it from satanism then refined it thru philosophy and ethics. its the stance that is, I do not want there to be a god. not saying i know or believe there isnt a god, only that i wish there to be no god. and we can go into that as well, but a new thread would be better

just for the record if any evidence that is non-contradictory or too vague is provided, i will believe in a god.

i quoted the wrong post sorry

Check out Dr Barnes on common sense atheism. His lecture on Cosmology and fine tuning.

argument from ignorance. we dont know or possibly know, therefore there must be a prime creator or prime force. illogical. you dont know and i cant know, there is no need to presuppose something we cant prove.

watch some hitchens or sam harris, i recommend them. even low profile speakers like matt dillahunty, he speaks a lot about morals and TAG

I just said I saw Harris lecture. He is one of my favorites.

Hitchins himself says fine tuning is a strong arguement. He is actually what led me to Barnes.

Try actually listening to the lecture I recommended before you jump to conclusions. That very thing is addressed. Barnes also never claims anything about God. I am just saying its interesting.

mobile.twitter.com...

hitchens also makes a very good analogy using boats and another one on destruction.

if it the universe is so fine tuned then why are whole galaxies blowing up? where is their savior? if you want to claim that god brings all the good you have to also claim that he brings all the bad. if you want to believe in a god that doesn't care about whether you live or die, thats fine. i dont. i wont believe it until the evidence is shown not before.

the boat one... well you can go learn it for yourself.

Why do you assume I haven't heard Hitchins? I am not a theist.

God doesn't mean a guy with a beard who loves people. God could have existed simply to write a computer program and has died. Again those aren't the arguments I am talking about. Barnes does address fallacies in reason however. Some of your points are addressed. It's worth a listen. It's on a Athesit website.
commonsenseatheism.com...

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee
Now that it appears we have finally established what atheism is.

I'm gonna go back and try to watch the video in its entirety.

Uh I just gave you three sources that say different what makes yours more important?

My source is American Atheist.

Done.

Why is it done? Is that really how you argue? Wow.
I gave you three other sources. All respected by academia and not theist.

Because there is no need to go to any source other then American Atheist.

But, I can also provide: Friendly Atheist: www.patheos.com...

And Austin Cline: atheism.about.com...

a reply to: vjr1113

sure atheism is a practice of not believing claims of gods. also known as skeptisism.

btw i only use atheism as a label as convenience. i shouldnt have to have a label for not believing in santa clause, asantaclauseism. but its a good way to sum up a response or a stance.

I would agree with that. So it is a little more than "a lack of belief in deities" after all. It is an active practice, a skeptical position, an intellectual commitment towards theological matters.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

simply saying i dont believe what you say, doesn't commit me towards anything.

you could say, Bach is the greatest living composer ever to live. i can disagree without saying he's not a great composer.

a reply to: vjr1113

simply saying i dont believe what you say, doesn't commit me towards anything.

You're not simply saying I don't believe what you say. You're saying "i'm an atheist".

a reply to: luthier

when it come to how the universe started id rather listen to Krauss, but thats my preference. i dont have unlimited time even though id like to. thanks for the link i will check it out.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: vjr1113

simply saying i dont believe what you say, doesn't commit me towards anything.

You're not simply saying I don't believe what you say. You're saying "i'm an atheist".

that's what is means to be an atheist, to not believe a god claim. so if that's all you want to say, im fine with that comment. we agree.

a reply to: luthier

I like this guy. Luke Muehlhauser. (your link/reference)

But, his site is about him - - and not straight factual atheism info.

Yes, I do actually read provided links and info.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee
Now that it appears we have finally established what atheism is.

I'm gonna go back and try to watch the video in its entirety.

Uh I just gave you three sources that say different what makes yours more important?

My source is American Atheist.

Done.

Why is it done? Is that really how you argue? Wow.
I gave you three other sources. All respected by academia and not theist.

Because there is no need to go to any source other then American Atheist.

But, I can also provide: Friendly Atheist: www.patheos.com...

And Austin Cline: atheism.about.com...

A blog and an internet writer.

Does Austin Cline have peer reviewed papers? Or debates I can watch? Those are the ways ideas are vetted on a higher level.

I know Dawkins, Meyers, Hitchins, and Harris do.

I can't stand Dawkins or Meyers. Hitchins and Harris are fantastic philosophers and actually respected in the field of philosophy.

Annee you can believe what ever you want that is fine and is reality. My problem was with you saying only theists label Atheists as such. Which I have disproven. Atheists and very well respected publications also classify Atheists differently.

I lean towards agnostic, sometimes atheist, sometimes even a little Deist. Why? because I am open to work through very complicated issues I don't think it's all sown up. I also have substantial amounts of time writing papers for philosophy and having ideas torn apart by professors (years ago). And I am glad for it. There are lots of thoughts I had that were easily dismissed through logic and logic equations. My favorite professor in philosophy was an atheist. My favorite modern philosopher is an Atheist. That doesn't mean I believe everything they say.

I respect William Lane Craig because he is a great philosopher and extremely good at debating. A lot of Atheists feel that way too if they are open enough to not just be angry at Christianity.

I wasn't raised Christian. My mom took me out of Catholic school when I asked her why Jews don't go to heaven. After that I was on my own. So I don't feel the anger you and many do towards theism. I think it helps not jump to conclusions based on anger.

You will find I also argue for atheism all the time when theists commit fallacy. Anyhow we have to agree to disagree

a reply to: vjr1113

that's what is means to be an atheist, to not believe a god claim. so if that's all you want to say, im fine with that comment. we agree.

If that's what it means to be an atheist, you wouldn't be an atheist, for the exact same reasons you are not an asantaist, or atoothfairyist, like you stated. But we can agree to disagree.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: luthier

I like this guy. Luke Muehlhauser. (your link/reference)

But, his site is about him - - and not straight factual atheism info.

Yes, I do actually read provided links and info.

That link was for the Luke Barnes talk. He interviews him. It's a link on the page and about an hour long.

Would you rather have Christians that apply reason to their faith like thinking about the ontological, cosmological, and teleological reasons for God's existence or would you rather have back woods superstitious Christians using the bible as a crutch when argueing?

Personally I would rather talk to and argue with an apologist any day of the week than the southern evangelists I am surrounded by. Not that there personal faith isn't meaningful to them it just doesn't elevate the arguement or my own thinking. So I have come to terms with many Christian apologists at least believe in evolution and understand the stories are allegory most of the time about creation.

a reply to: luthier

Read whoever you want.

American Atheist has been around since 1963. They are the organization founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

They have fined tune all that anyone needs to know factually about atheism.

There is no need for other sources.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

actually i am all of those, but its rather pointless to call myself those labels no?

i dont feel the need to prove or disprove one imaginary being over another. a lot of atheist speaker including Richard Dawkins argue we shouldn't use the label atheist, i partly agree with him but in a world full of theists, its a nice way to bring attention to the discussion.

a reply to: vjr1113

actually i am all of those, but its rather pointless to call myself those labels no?

I would agree, but I would say the same about atheism. It is rather pointless, if not ridiculous, for the exact same reason.

i dont feel the need to prove or disprove one imaginary being over another. a lot of atheist speaker including Richard Dawkins argue we shouldn't use the label atheist, i partly agree with him but in a world full of theists, its a nice way to bring attention to the discussion.

Out of curiosity, do you call yourself an infidel in discussions of Islamic theology, as a nice way to bring attention to the discussion?

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: luthier

Read whoever you want.

American Atheist has been around since 1963. They are the organization founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

They have fined tune all that anyone needs to know factually about atheism.

There is no need for other sources.

Does that make sense really? Does the Catholic church have all there is to say about Christianity because it was founded by Peter? No. What matters is the reality of logic. If you can prove to me actively saying God does not exist and is make believe and saying I have no belief in God are the same position I will be quiet. Most of academia is saying there is a schism there. I am inclined to believe that but maybe you can convince me.

The Hitchins Craig debate is a good one to see two top minds battle it out. There are extremely good points made. I don't think Hitchins wins that one. The Harris Craig debate is even better and I do think Harris comes away cleanly with that one.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: luthier

Read whoever you want.

American Atheist has been around since 1963. They are the organization founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

They have fined tune all that anyone needs to know factually about atheism.

There is no need for other sources.

Does that make sense really?

Yes, it makes absolute 100% sense. Because atheism means one thing and one thing only. Lack of belief in a god.

Any thing added to it is a personal belief.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

well if someone asks whats your religion, i can go into a long discussion about the burden of proof and logic and morals, so i use a shortcut.

infidel does fit me, if someone wants to call me x or call me a negative term that's on them. i do call myself a satanist though just because it bothers christians and scares them, so that they will leave me alone.