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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

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.





Agnostics are not atheist. Though the words have spread into subgroups lately. Atheists make a claim. Agnostics do not make a claim. In the simplest definition. It's gets more complicated as you add subgroups.




posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Prezbo369

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


Atheists have made no claims, did you even read my post?

And agnostics are atheists, lacking a belief in a god as they do...



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




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.


Theism implies atheism from a theological perspective, not a scientific or rational one.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
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...




Why do you feel the need to spread a 40 minute + speech that someone made?

Perhaps it interests you because it reinforces your opinion?

It interests me despite being contrary to my opinion. I enjoy being challenged and facing my opponent. Isn't that what forming into opposing teams is all about? Competition?




edit on 25/1/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369




Atheists have made no claims, did you even read my post?

And agnostics are atheists, lacking a belief in a god as they do...


Obviously I read your post, I just think it false. "Lacking a belief"—no one lacks belief. Such an abuse of reality is obfuscation at best.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

And exactly which claim is it you think they're making?



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

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.


Thank you, that sounds interesting.




posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: luthier

And exactly which claim is it you think they're making?

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Which Atheists though. Harris and the New Atheists definetley make a claim gods do not exist. They are made up.

Read my post. It gets more complicated as you get I to subgroups and the actual philosophy of.

Is a pantheist an atheist too?



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




there is no shame in definition through mutual contrast.


The problem with this opposite in this context is that it creates ludicrous constructs like...the Church of Atheism. I do not want to be associated with it...as Im sure Mr. Harris doesnt. Hence my interest in the thread subject.

As long as atheism is considered an opposite "belief" system...I want to remove myself from it's association.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Prezbo369
Obviously I read your post, I just think it false. "Lacking a belief"—no one lacks belief. Such an abuse of reality is obfuscation at best.


Hmm I can see now how/why you'd attempt to distort the meaning of the word.....no-one lacks belief?.....




posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Prezbo369




Atheists have made no claims, did you even read my post?

And agnostics are atheists, lacking a belief in a god as they do...


Obviously I read your post, I just think it false. "Lacking a belief"—no one lacks belief. Such an abuse of reality is obfuscation at best.


and what part of reality is being obfuscated, if you dont mind my asking?



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




Why do you feel the need to spread a 40 minute + speech that someone made?


you answered it...



Perhaps it interests you because it reinforces your opinion?







It interests me despite being contrary to my opinion. I enjoy being challenged and facing my opponent. Isn't that what forming into opposing teams is all about? Competition?


Well...I dont do it for competition. Even though I engage in much debate, even sometimes agressively so, I shy away from true confrontation. It makes me uncomfortable to see someone humilliated. I even switch the channel on TV when stuff like that happens


I do like to compete in sports or games though



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: TzarChasm




there is no shame in definition through mutual contrast.


The problem with this opposite in this context is that it creates ludicrous constructs like...the Church of Atheism. I do not want to be associated with it...as Im sure Mr. Harris doesnt. Hence my interest in the thread subject.

As long as atheism is considered an opposite "belief" system...I want to remove myself from it's association.


i think churches are a dumb idea in general. you do not need a shiny piece of pretentious architecture to pay homage. same with paying said homage in public places. if you need an audience, then its performance art and not prayer.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Prezbo369




Atheists have made no claims, did you even read my post?

And agnostics are atheists, lacking a belief in a god as they do...


Obviously I read your post, I just think it false. "Lacking a belief"—no one lacks belief. Such an abuse of reality is obfuscation at best.


thats not true i dont believe in the reality of Zeus. therefore i lack a belief in said god. i dont have to say there is no Zeus (claim), only that i dont believe in claims asserting Zeus exists (theism)

agnostic and atheism are two different things. atheism addresses what you believe, agnosticism what you know. agnosticism is pretty much irrelevant, because to me, i dont care what you think you might know, i cant disprove a personal revelation, only reject it due to insufficient evidence (atheism).

a lot of time can be saved if we just define terms and lables.
edit on 25-1-2016 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




and what part of reality is being obfuscated, if you dont mind my asking?


The opposite of belief is doubt, not "lack of belief". Belief and doubt are active positions on any given argument, both involve a commitment to the evidence and logic, while lack of belief is, well, nothing. "Lack of belief" is an atheist-conjured word to distance himself from belief in general, which is an utter mistake, and also wrong. There is simply no such thing, action, position called "lack of belief". Belief does not turn to lack of belief. Belief does not end where lack of belief begins.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.


Correct


In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.


Incorrect, the only people that attempt to define atheists like this are theists attempting to shift the burden of proof.


Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.


Correct, atheists do not posses the belief that gods exist, that's not the same as saying gods do not exist.....they've just not been convinced by the claims that god/s do exist.


Which Atheists though. Harris and the New Atheists definetley make a claim gods do not exist. They are made up.


Indeed they might, but to describe them as atheists saying nothing other than they have not accepted the claims made by theists for the existence of god/s.


Is a pantheist an atheist too?


It can depend on their definition of a god, but generally...no
edit on 25-1-2016 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
dp
edit on 25-1-2016 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm




and what part of reality is being obfuscated, if you dont mind my asking?


The opposite of belief is doubt, not "lack of belief". Belief and doubt are active positions on any given argument, both involve a commitment to the evidence and logic, while lack of belief is, well, nothing. "Lack of belief" is an atheist-conjured word to distance himself from belief in general, which is an utter mistake, and also wrong. There is simply no such thing, action, position called "lack of belief". Belief does not turn to lack of belief. Belief does not end where lack of belief begins.


again not true. the opposite of guilty is not innocent its not guilty. watch some sam harris man, i think you might enjoy it.
edit on 25-1-2016 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113




thats not true i dont believe in the reality of Zeus. therefore i lack a belief in said god. i dont have to say there is no Zeus (claim), only that i dont believe in claims asserting Zeus exists (theism)


Only nothing has no reality. All nothing is the same. Zeus has a reality, even if it is mythological. Your claim to "lack of belief" is only propagating this mistake.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm




and what part of reality is being obfuscated, if you dont mind my asking?


The opposite of belief is doubt, not "lack of belief". Belief and doubt are active positions on any given argument, both involve a commitment to the evidence and logic, while lack of belief is, well, nothing. "Lack of belief" is an atheist-conjured word to distance himself from belief in general, which is an utter mistake, and also wrong. There is simply no such thing, action, position called "lack of belief". Belief does not turn to lack of belief. Belief does not end where lack of belief begins.


That's ridiculous.

I do not doubt. I lack belief.

I was once a believer. I know the difference between doubt, belief, and lack of belief.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join