Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I noticed you didn't answer the one question that I said I would find most interesting: Would YOU rather know the truth, even if it was uncomfortable, rather than believe in a comfortable lie? Or if you prefer, if atheism were true, would you rather know it or retain your belief in a God and an infinite afterlife?
I also disagree with your demographics comments, but I don't want to derail this conversation so I won't contest it here.
This is not easy to give a simple answer to. A comfortable lie is not something I'd want, but a downright destructive "truth" is something I might indeed choose to ignore. Not reject, but "live as if it wasn't true."
If all I wanted was comfort, and didn't care about truth, I'd find some simple easy to obey religion that teaches Universal Salvation. That Catholicism is True, or claims to be True if you prefer, does matter to me. That it has lasted for centuries in diverse cultures does matter to me. However if the choices were two hypotheses on absolute Truth I guess it's likely I'd pick the more appealing one to the more solid one. I mean provided neither is really proven or disproven.
I just stopped for a moment and just read the almost 4 pages of thread titles. About 99 percent of the titles were negative or sarcasticc towards this "one" faith. I find that fascinating.
So.....little ol' me. I decide to make a "good" thread about Christianity. Hey....no group is perfect. Anybody that really reads the bible will see that. But there is definitely an almost irrational hatred for a faith that has quite frankly done a lot of good for a lot of people. Both believers and non-belivers.
Now I know this attempt will be derailed in less than 4 posts. then it'll be off to the races again. But I just want to a least give it a shot.
Would we really be better off if Beatle John Lennon’s imaginary world of no heaven or religion came true? Bruce Manners doesn’t think so.
Imagine. “Imagine there’s no heaven . . .” sang John Lennon. “. . . and no religion too.” The implication is that the world would be a better place without religion. Wrong. Christianity has changed the world in dramatic and positive ways.
Imagine . . . A World Without Christianity (http://www.signsofthetimes.org.au/archives/2006/may/article1.shtm - broken link)
Moderator cut:
Modified in order to adhere to copyright
Boy, citizenkane2, I give you credit for your intention of this thread, but at the same time, don't know why you bothered. City-Data forums seem pretty much patroned by religion-"haters", and I don't mean that facetiously.
Besides this isn't the atheist or ex-Christian forum. If we can have a thread like "why are you a Unitarian", with relatively little bashing, why is Christianity always just a source to push one's hostility here?
People are hostile (and militant) against Christianity because of it's wide spreading and dogmatic influence it has had over many people's lives (i.e. it poked the bear).
If Christianity weren't so dogmatic and in your face, you wouldn't have as much hostility toward it. Much of the "hate" Christianity has is self-inflicted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
The only thing I can think of is that people here are more likely to exposed to Christianity so more likely to have Christians hurt their feelings. (Yeah there's the litany you list, but that could apply to almost any ideology or religion if you look at it from a certain perspective) Or a rather obsessive need for things to be clear, simple, and logical. Or some other emotional problem.
I wouldn't call it hurt feelings, I'd rather extreme annoyance. Yea I was distraught and what not when I realized that Christianity could possibly not be true, but I'm not one to hold grudges (especially against a religion, seems kind of...stupid).
The thing that got me was the constant proselytizing, the trying to force their opinions and views into government, and the whole be with us or against us dogmatic nature of the religion.
I'm of a live/let live persuasion so this invasion of Christianity into everything really bothered (read: annoyed) me. I wouldn't be nearly as concerned with Christianity and it's influence if it wasn't so concerned with me and what I believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
I'm not speaking of all atheists in that post. I'm saying if atheism's only value is "it's true" than that's not as much as Boxcar may want it to be.
To me if atheism, or any "meme" or "trope" or whatever term you like, is going to be successful it has to offer more than just truth. To me if something is true it's going to be useful too, but some atheists seem to say "I really don't care if it's useful or not or helps anyone with anything" and I think that's idiotic.
It's not true that pi equals 3.1416, but it's a close enough approximation for most things. There are times an absolute truth is not going to be used very much because it's just not helpful. If "no God" is an unhelpful "truth" than something else might be better for the mass of men.
Granted atheism is not true and not useful, but just asserting that doesn't really get my point across.
*I'm open to many atheistic philosophies being quite noble, but in itself atheism is not much of anything.
Atheism really isn't meant to be "useful." I guess what I'm getting at is atheism isn't meant to tell you how to live your life, what to do and what not to do, etc. It is literally what the word means.
But, it is a launching point for many other philosophies. When you say atheistic philosophies that's kind of a misnomer because Atheism isn't really a philosophy. In terms of semantics, it'd be more right to say something like secular philosophies or something of the sort.
When I say "atheistic philosophies" I mean philosophies that happen to accept atheism. I'm not saying atheism is a philosophy as should be clear by the way I separate "atheism" from "atheistic philosophies."
So anyway it's not a misnomer at all. Logical positivism is, generally, "an atheistic philosophy" but that doesn't mean I'm saying logical positivism is atheism or anything so foolish. The same with Objectivism, Metaphysical Naturalism, or whatever.
If it helps I think there's theism and "theistic philosophies." Generally "theistic philosophies" tend to be religions or within religions, but there are theistic philosophies that aren't religions. (I think Philip K. Dick formulated some personal theistic philosophy for himself that wasn't a religion as such, others likely have to) However just being "theist" can simply mean believing in a God who intervenes with his/her creation. It doesn't have to have a theology or philosophical formulation to it beyond that. So saying "theistic philosophies" doesn't mean I'm saying all theists subscribe to them.
When I say "atheistic philosophies" I mean philosophies that happen to accept atheism. I'm not saying atheism is a philosophy as should be clear by the way I separate "atheism" from "atheistic philosophies."
I didn't realize philosophies could "accept" beliefs (or lack thereof). Is there some philosophical council that decides which philosophies are open to atheists and what not?
You can be a Religious naturalist (or humanist, or {fill in the blank}) and also be an Atheist naturalist (or humanist, or {fill in the blank}).
Philosophies are basically how you see the world and how you want to live your life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
So anyway it's not a misnomer at all. Logical positivism is, generally, "an atheistic philosophy" but that doesn't mean I'm saying logical positivism is atheism or anything so foolish. The same with Objectivism, Metaphysical Naturalism, or whatever.
If it helps I think there's theism and "theistic philosophies." Generally "theistic philosophies" tend to be religions or within religions, but there are theistic philosophies that aren't religions. (I think Philip K. Dick formulated some personal theistic philosophy for himself that wasn't a religion as such, others likely have to) However just being "theist" can simply mean believing in a God who intervenes with his/her creation. It doesn't have to have a theology or philosophical formulation to it beyond that. So saying "theistic philosophies" doesn't mean I'm saying all theists subscribe to them.
I think I get what you are saying. Basically there are trends with some philosophies that the people who hold that view tend to be religious or not?
IMO, that's way more logical to say it because I really don't buy into the whole notion of theistic or atheistic philosophies. There are some philosophies that theists or atheists tend to have, but I wouldn't classify it as theist or atheistic.
Boy, citizenkane2, I give you credit for your intention of this thread, but at the same time, don't know why you bothered. City-Data forums seem pretty much patroned by religion-"haters", and I don't mean that facetiously.
IMO, that's way more logical to say it because I really don't buy into the whole notion of theistic or atheistic philosophies. There are some philosophies that theists or atheists tend to have, but I wouldn't classify it as theist or atheistic.
Look up Hegel, Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, Nietzsche, and Samkhya. "Atheistic philosophy" is not a term I invented, it's a real term for historical philosophies that are atheistic or place atheism as important in their overall outlook.
Then why do the fundies keep trying to "bring me into the fold" when they are told I am not interested? Another christian lie as to whose choice it is?
Look up Hegel, Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, Nietzsche, and Samkhya. "Atheistic philosophy" is not a term I invented, it's a real term for historical philosophies that are atheistic or place atheism as important in their overall outlook.
A serious question: who came up and applied the term "atheist philosophy"? I doubt that it was the atheist, which leave the theist (not exactly an unbiased group).
This is starting to just be prickliness for the sake of prickliness.
There's theistic philosophies, deistic philosophies, atheistic philosophies, etc. It's not any kind of insult, it's just descriptive. You could describe philosophies based on how they view economics or pleasure or whatever too.
I can get you philosophy encyclopedias that use the term "atheistic philosophy" "theistic philosophy" if that would make you feel better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But I just want to a least give it a shot.
