Dangers of atheism -Sam Harris

a reply to: Gryphon66

Indeed you did, thank you. A one word statement that happens to have a very religious history and origin, no less. Just like everything else of religious origin, such a choice of words is dubious. You might as well call yourself a witch. But of course, those don't exist, but atheists somehow do.

a reply to: chr0naut

it's your prerogative man. I was more focused on "dangers of atheism"...the "imaginary God" thing is standard atheist lingo

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

excellent point. Having said that...I'm now beggining to see I have also been caught in that net...though I was never really religios from childhood...I kinda adopted the label to myself. But to be perfectly honest...nobody forced it upon me. I took it myself.

Atheism and agnosticism are theological positions, a claim, and only a claim, regarding the nature of God, something they supposedly do not believe in. It might be best to move past theology altogether.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

Indeed you did, thank you. A one word statement that happens to have a very religious history and origin, no less. Just like everything else of religious origin, such a choice of words is dubious. You might as well call yourself a witch. But of course, those don't exist, but atheists somehow do.

We all have our bêtes noires.

In what way is the modern use or meaning of the word "witch" equivalent to the modern use meaning of the word "atheist"?

Or is this a semantic quibble only?

Sam Harris is a very engaging speaker and author. I have a few of his audiobooks, "free will" and "waking up" both quite philospical books.

a reply to: Gryphon66

We all have our bêtes noires.

In what way is the modern use or meaning of the word "witch" equivalent to the modern use meaning of the word "atheist"?

Or is this a semantic quibble only?

A little bit of both. Forgive me.

Both have come from the same superstition, yet only one is given credence by non-believers.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

An erudite speaker but quite early on in the video, Mr Harris says that non-atheists believe in an "imaginary god". He states it as if it were fact, rather than as if it were a belief.

He is clearly 'playing to an audience'.

Every major philosopher has made argument upon Christian themes and ideas. Thinkers well into our future will continue to do the same. It is not all sewn-up and solved as Mr Harris would portray.

In this video, Mr Harris denigrates millennia of minds greater than his, regardless of which side of the belief argument they stand on.

He firstly derides faith (purportedly on the grounds of reason), referring to "psychopathology, and deliberate fraud, and religious delusion" and then starts talking about mysticism and spirituality as if it is compliant with his 'objective reasoning'. He doesn't have the intellectual honesty to to evaluate the motivations behind his own opinion.

I didn't bother with the second part of this speech.

He is not in a debate. It is a lecture. There are plenty of theists who lecture on God as existing through opinion and belief. If you want to see him argue his point watch his debate with WLC who is also a brilliant philosopher and a theist. It's one of the few times I see Craig stumble and get dismantled.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Atheism and agnosticism are theological positions

Hm...cant get around it...when you phrased it so. A theological position...I'm coming to terms with that. I would want to say...it's the absence of a position...but that wouldnt be correct for the atheists in general. Let's just say...that's my "atheistic" position.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I would have sworn that theos was Greek and wicce was Old English/Old High German.

Words do evolve beyond their etymology though.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Non-believer/non-theist, works for some.

Semantics.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: chr0naut

it's your prerogative man. I was more focused on "dangers of atheism"...the "imaginary God" thing is standard atheist lingo

I just found that several of the assumptions he made were actually insulting to his 'opponents', despite the measured tone.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I would have sworn that theos was Greek and wicce was Old English/Old High German.

Words do evolve beyond their etymology though.

Very true. It would be fallacious for me to say otherwise. But I would argue that for the theist, it has evolved very little beyond its etymology. The same goes with infidel or heretic. People still use these terms to condemn others in their hearts and minds.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Anyone who wastes time in the condemnation of others is wasting their lives.

I, myself, am trying to kick the habit.

a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah...I get that. This thread probably wasnt ideal for a theist member.

but can I ask you a question...why do you take it to heart so ?

Sticks and stones...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Anyone who wastes time in the condemnation of others is wasting their lives.

I, myself, am trying to kick the habit.

I would also add condemnation isn't a theist only idea. Traitor, criminal etc... It's just human nature. Without religion mankind finds just as many ways to be barbaric.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Non-believer/non-theist, works for some.

Semantics.

I'm afraid...those are already spoiled...and married to "atheists". Reputation by association

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Atheism and agnosticism are theological positions, a claim, and only a claim, regarding the nature of God, something they supposedly do not believe in. It might be best to move past theology altogether.

Atheists (agnostics are atheists) have not accepted the claims made by theists for the existence of god/s, nothing more nothing less, and the rejection of the claim (or any other claim) is not itself a claim. It's merely the response to a singular and incredible claim, anything you or anyone else assigns to it is superfluous.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Anyone who wastes time in the condemnation of others is wasting their lives.

I, myself, am trying to kick the habit.

It is not a waste of time if it is for good reason, in my opinion.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Of course, nothing outside of religious nomenclature would teach them that Atheist is what they are.

every idea implies an opposite, regardless of whether you put a label on it or not. presence implies absence, dark implies light, forward implies backward. and theism implies atheism. there is no shame in definition through mutual contrast.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Atheists (agnostics are atheists) have not accepted the claims made by theists for the existence of god/s, nothing more nothing less, and the rejection of the claim (or any other claim) is not itself a claim. It's merely the response to a singular and incredible claim, anything you or anyone else assigns to it is superfluous.

And theists haven't accepted the claims made by atheists and agnostics. A theological debate ensues.