It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dangers of atheism -Sam Harris

page: 13
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not so sure. It's Greek origins would suggest a religion of Ancient Greece.


Right. But you seemed to have a specific "church" in mind, based on context.

I.e. European Roman Catholic circa 1300-1600 perhaps?

Your thought is very strong. I have learned to listen to you (when you're not being merely snipish) but perhaps, in some cases, you might acknowledge that others do not have (or have not cultivated) the control of their intellect (and emotional reactions) that you have.

Just a thought or observation ... I'm learning to really enjoy what you say about 30% of the time.




posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I was attempting to be metaphorical by using that word, but I'm sure if we looked hard enough we could find specific churches. In the case of Bruno, for instance, it was the catholic church of the 16th century. It seems that it is usually the orthodoxy of the time that uses it against the unorthodox, to justify derision, and even worse.



Just a thought or observation ... I'm learning to really enjoy what you say about 30% of the time.


30% is a huge margin. I'll take it.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: luthier

Who said I didn't "see the difference in the active and passive beliefs"? We haven't discussed that.

Perhaps, you might ask yourself why you jumped to that conclusion, eh?

~~~~~

Your Patheos article refers to the sense of "the numinous" or the endorphin rushes of religious ecstacy.

There is no statement in that article that our brains are "wired" with Southern Baptist Christianity or Second Temple Judaism or Wicca I Learned While Hiding Behind the Bleachers During PE, for example.

From your article:



The common thread among mystical and spiritual practices is that while people are engaged in them, the lobes of their brain can be seen working together to create a powerful emotional experience.


So, you're referring to brain anatomy, chemistry and mechanics/function ... not religion per se. Religion/gods is merely the cultural artifact that gets equated with that organic/biological experience.

~~~~
No, the God of a Westborough Baptist is not the same as the God of a Deist as I understand those terms, though it is something akin to comparing the relative merits of Superman and Captain Marvel.

Why would I care if a "strong" atheist said anything? You seem to be overly concerned with what other people believe/perceive.

I certainly can speak of "a most honest definition" ... as I did above. Nothing requires you to accept it, certainly not me ... I don't care! LOL.

*PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS DELETED, BEG PARDON (old habits)*


I jumped to that conclusion since you rambled on without addressing the issue.

I am actually saying not all Atheists can be classified by your definition. That not all Atheists are the same. Yet you are implying there is a definition that all atheist would fit your definition.

I am saying no. What about a atheist Deist. They exist in their definition.

It's not about caring what people think I don't understand your presumption. As I said earlier a debate is what brings out the beliefs in their specificity.

If you want to debate something you don't have to hide behind questions and give vague rebuttles come out and be specific. Why would you care? You seem to have jumped into the debate about defining atheism. I am merely showing you there are other points of view.

I argued firstly its not theists that only define atheism. It's atheism itself.

I argued there is a history of debate about the existence of God which comes into play with what people perceive Atheists to be.

I argued atheism has more than one definition and your pure form is not an absolute nor pure to atheist with a different point of view.

What exactly are you argueing? Why the strawman about superheroes? They have zero to do with metaphysics.

So are you sniping or coming up with an arguement? It appears your purpose is to distract and comment without laying your cards out. Which is fine. It appears as it is in text.

If you want to have a meaningful debate you need to put forth substance.

Can you find me a culture as a whole anywhere that has no form of belief? How can you say its not natural? What is natural? Define that first before moving on.

Asking what does it mean is natural. The first presumption was non understanding natural phenomenon and concluding God. God was the first cause to the first people reasoning. Seems pretty natural to logic progression. Just because it wasn't a satisfying answer doesn't mean it wasn't an important evolutionary step in thought. Thought beyound I am hungry. Or that hurts.
It was what does this mean. Just because they were wrong doesn't mean it was not a necessary evolutionary step. Plenty of science has been wrong as well. Some scientists completely disregard modern theoretical physics.

Let me ask you are there rational arguements for the existence of God? Or are they all superstitious?



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

well you could say atheism is a bad word but that's a misunderstanding of what it means. i wouldn't expect a christian to stop calling themselves christians because of pedophile priests.

instead of saying atheism is bad because of the soviet union, id say the soviet union is bad because of the soviet union. their philosophies about murder and torture cannot be logically be derived from the reaction of a god claim.

you say atheism is a bad term, i say it isnt. the reason i use it is because you think its bad. and finally, i really dont care what you think a word might mean. atheism is defined, if you want to attack extra baggage onto it, that's on you.
edit on 26-1-2016 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

LOL. Bruno is an excellent example of what you're talking about as I understand it and the history surrounding.

Still, the considerable merits of your argument are suffering in general here due to semantics.

Anyway, just some observations. Best.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113




well you could say atheism is a bad word but that's a misunderstanding of what it means. i wouldn't expect a christian to stop calling themselves christians because of pedophile priests.

instead of saying atheism is bad because of the soviet union, id say the soviet union is bad because of the soviet union. their philosophies about murder and torture cannot be logically be derived from the reaction of a god claim.

you say atheism is a bad term, i say it isnt. the reason i use it is because you think its bad. and finally, i really dont care what you think a word might mean. atheism is defined, if you want to attack extra baggage onto it, that's on you.


It's a more comprehensive understanding of what the word means, actually. I never said it is a "bad term", I said it was a pejorative term, a slur. If that's why you use it, I would have to wonder what other slur you might wear next.

About the soviet union, yes, they implemented gosateizm, literally state atheism, banning religion, destroying religious monuments, killing priests, and so on.
edit on 26-1-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Bah.

You spent all that time composing what you thought was an air-tight argument, but now you're just being snide and petty (and verbose) and honestly ... there's so little benefit or novelty in what you're saying I'm quickly losing interest.

Your sophomoric debate tricks are predictable. I'm sure you did well in the "Argumentative" portion of your class.

Briefly though ...

Again, I'm not implying anything. I'm responding to you (and in general, the forum) in exactly the terms I intend to.

Your tendency to draw out what you INFER from what others say and name it IMPLICATION tells me pretty much all I need to know about the evolution of your thought-processes.

The only "debate" you're having here is a puerile attempt to control the argument.

Read what you wrote above and count how many times you tell me what I'm saying or meaning without directly quoting anything I've actually stated.

They didn't cover "straw-man" in your Freshman Philosophy 101? Pity.

Not only that, you're self-contradictory ... you condemn me for asking questions and then you flood the screen with the same.

Don't mistake boredom with arguing the same topic for the 1000th time as inability to do so.

Your "arguments" that you seem so proud of are straightforward and obvious to anyone who has ever considered the subject to any degree.

You're just not as dramatic or groundbreaking as you seem to think.

Yawn. Argue with yourself. I wanted to give you a chance, but you've proven to be exactly what you seemed to be.

Cheers.
edit on 26-1-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: luthier

Bah.

You spent all that time composing what you thought was an air-tight argument, and now you're just being snide and petty (and verbose) and honestly ... there's so little benefit or novelty in what you're saying I'm going quickly lose interest.

Stop the sophomoric debate tricks if you want to have a discussion with me.

Again, I'm not implying anything. I'm responding to you (and in general, the forum) in exactly the terms I intend to.

Your tendency to draw out what you INFER from what others say and name it IMPLICATION tells me pretty much all I need to know about the evolution of your thought-processes.

The only "debate" you're having here is to attempt to control the argument. Read what you wrote above and count how many times you tell me what I'm saying or meaning without directly quoting anything I've actually stated.

They didn't cover "straw-man" in your Freshman Philosophy 101?

Not only that, you're self-contradictory ... you condemn me for asking questions and then you flood the screen with the same.

You apparently don't think anyone else went to college ... don't mistake boredom with arguing the same topic for the 1000th time as inability to do so.

Your "arguments" that you seem so proud of are straightforward and obvious to anyone who has ever considered the subject to any degree.

You're just not as dramatic or groundbreaking as you seem to think.

Yawn. Argue with yourself. I wanted to give you a chance, but you've proven to be exactly what you seemed to be.

Cheers.


And agian just snide, without specifics, and useless ranting without proving an arguement in anyway. Must be nice from the ivory tower to not have to explain yourself.

Yeah I took philosophy 101 as well as many others and no I don't assume other people didn't go to college just that a few people haven't used any logical debating stances.

Enjoy yourself. It seems you very good at personal attacks. Good luck with that

And yes I was a fairly good debater academically and on a team. Now I make guitars and record peoples music for a living. Which I am about to go to work to do. So you won't have to respond to any more sophmoric debating.
edit on 26-1-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

it subjective that its a slur and a misunderstanding, religion means small minded to me. although thats not the definition and i would never call a religious person that because its vulgar and slander.

i condemn gosateizm. if someone wants to kill someone because they dont believe in a god, id have to say they were illogical and wrong. although if you go to the middle east, the final words a suicide bomber is likely to say is allah akbar. with full conviction that they are acting in accordance with their religion.

it really gets us nowhere to count points and point to horrible people. id rather talk about why they did it and if their philosophies makes sense.
edit on 26-1-2016 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Okay ... I feel like we're all waaaaay off-track.

"Dangers of Atheism"

Sam Harris

Go.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

nope its fine, he's saying stalin was evil because he was atheist. im saying stalin was evil because he was evil and happened to be atheist, lets not mention he was the head of the catholic church.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Dishonest Debate 101 Technique: Reflect Your Opponent's Arguments and Try to Claim Them as Your Own

#utterlyborednow



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: Gryphon66

nope its fine, he's saying stalin was evil because he was atheist. im saying stalin was evil because he was evil and happened to be atheist, lets not mention he was the head of the catholic church.


Right. I don't think LesMis is saying what you think, but that's neither here nor there.

I'm saying I think we're all (me included) way off track here in light of what OP wanted to discuss.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: luthier

Dishonest Debate 101 Technique: Reflect Your Opponent's Arguments and Try to Claim Them as Your Own

#utterlyborednow


Again just words no specifics no reference all adhominem.
Must be hard to be such a genius.

Cough.


And if you watch the video you may see where the topic is.
edit on 26-1-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Okay ... I feel like we're all waaaaay off-track.

"Dangers of Atheism"

Sam Harris

Go.


LOL, yeah, I tried that.

I first tried to clarify what atheism actually is.

Some think they know better and apparently need validation, even if they're wrong according to American Atheist.


edit on 26-1-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
So let's clear up the word atheism first. How I see it there are only two choices of what to be. Theist or Atheist. No other terms apply because they are in their own group. Like you have Gnostic or Agnostic. Sexual or Asexual. So there is Theist or Atheist. Now, while this may not fit the definition which everyone else likes to use, to me it works just fine. Theist would be anyone who believes in a God of some kind and Atheist would be anyone who doesn't believe in a God.

Which would also mean that a Buddhist or Taoist would also be considered an Atheist as well since they don't believe in a God either even though they are both considered by most to be a Religion.

Why not start there. Is that ok with everyone??? Can we agree on that simply to further our conversation??



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113




it subjective that its a slur and a misunderstanding, religion means small minded to me. although thats not the definition and i would never call a religious person that because its vulgar and slander.


It was objectively a slur for thousands of years. I don't see how this can be doubted.


it really gets us nowhere to count points and point to horrible people. id rather talk about why they did it and if their philosophies makes sense.


I am only saying there is a risk, as I hoped to point out. Given the nature of the beliefs we are speaking about, tribalism and group think is inevitable. I'm not saying you are evil because you are an atheist, but that's not to say theists won't think you are evil. They will see the label before the person.

My argument is that atheism, that one can be without God, is a superstition. Theists must believe there is a God before they can believe that there are people without a God. I have a complicated argument that follows this, but I doubt it will have any effect.

Cheers.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
So let's clear up the word atheism first. How I see it there are only two choices of what to be. Theist or Atheist. No other terms apply because they are in their own group. Like you have Gnostic or Agnostic. Sexual or Asexual. So there is Theist or Atheist. Now, while this may not fit the definition which everyone else likes to use, to me it works just fine. Theist would be anyone who believes in a God of some kind and Atheist would be anyone who doesn't believe in a God.

Which would also mean that a Buddhist or Taoist would also be considered an Atheist as well since they don't believe in a God either even though they are both considered by most to be a Religion.

Why not start there. Is that ok with everyone??? Can we agree on that simply to further our conversation??


That's close.

I don't like using the word believe, but for sake of these 2 choices, I'll accept it.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

For now I'm just trying to find a place for us all to start from without having to argue about which words mean what.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

yes you are right . that argument has no traction. in your opinion a rejection of a claim is superstitious. i believe it to be skeptical.

you have a right to believe in whatever you want. i just like to point out where you are wrong, gives me a smile.




top topics



 
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join