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.
Sorry, but I tend to consider atheists to be more enlightened than the average member of society. At least, that used to be the rule in the old days.
God is dead! I am not sure God ever existed, but earthlings somehow pretended God existed. Now they pretend something else because after all they are simple humans (you are a great example).
I'm not sure the use of the word "enlightened" was wise here.
1. Depends on how you're using the word "enlightened".
2. If the word "atheist" means one who does not believe in god, then my grandfather was an atheist. He was a good man, but in no way could I consider him to be enlightened, in any sense of the word.
Sorry, but I tend to consider atheists to be more enlightened than the average member of society. At least, that used to be the rule in the old days.
God is dead! I am not sure God ever existed, but earthlings somehow pretended God existed. Now they pretend something else because after all they are simple humans (you are a great example).
Look Julian mate, Atheism is Not a curricular subject and we cannot be expected to read up on all the subjects. What we can do and all that we can be expected to do is to be familiar with the usual apologetics which tend to be quotemined from anything from Darwin to Einstein. We only have to know the apologetic; we cannot be expected to have read everything or we'd be bogged down in reading irrelevant claptrap by early church fathers.
Now, if you take that point on board, i will totally withdraw my swipe about a cheap shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
1. Depends on how you're using the word "enlightened".
2. If the word "atheist" means one who does not believe in god, then my grandfather was an atheist. He was a good man, but in no way could I consider him to be enlightened, in any sense of the word.
Good point. Atheism can be just a non belief in any god -claim for whatever reason. being two weeks old, for example. It's why i talk of 'thinking atheists' which sounds elitist but just means those who are familiar with the arguments. Those who are not tend to be fair game for evangelism.
Look Julian mate, Atheism is Not a curricular subject and we cannot be expected to read up on all the subjects. What we can do and all that we can be expected to do is to be familiar with the usual apologetics which tend to be quotemined from anything from Darwin to Einstein. We only have to know the apologetic; we cannot be expected to have read everything or we'd be bogged down in reading irrelevant claptrap by early church fathers.
Now, if you take that point on board, i will totally withdraw my swipe about a cheap shot.
Good point. Atheism can be just a non belief in any god -claim for whatever reason. being two weeks old, for example. It's why i talk of 'thinking atheists' which sounds elitist but just means those who are familiar with the arguments. Those who are not tend to be fair game for evangelism.
there you go again. using "apologetic" like its evidence in evaluating a claim. and yes, you would be fair game for evangelism. there emotional based justification fit your style of emotional based justification.
I like how you point out "deny god for any reason." without actually saying that we need to evaluate how and why they are denying it.
A well informed Atheists should be familiar with Aquinas. Sadly most are not!
I did read the following posts but am going back to this one which will include all the others (Sartre, Hobbes or Leibnitz, Anselm, Nietzsche or Aristotle?) suggested.
I have a mind of my own, as I'm sure so many others do also. Why do you think it's necessary to read what
others have written or proposed that might be considered 'confirmation bias" and/or arguments against some things I figured out on my own?
Is whatever "they" had published somehow more valid or important than lowly, little ole' me figured out by myself?
Look Julian mate, Atheism is Not a curricular subject and we cannot be expected to read up on all the subjects. What we can do and all that we can be expected to do is to be familiar with the usual apologetics which tend to be quotemined from anything from Darwin to Einstein. We only have to know the apologetic; we cannot be expected to have read everything or we'd be bogged down in reading irrelevant claptrap by early church fathers.
Now, if you take that point on board, i will totally withdraw my swipe about a cheap shot.
Fair point. But defending your atheism on the apologetics of a modern day evangelical who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old would not help you if you were debating someone that uses the point of view of Saint Thomas Aquinas. If you are not familiar with Aquinas then that believer would mop the floor with you and also eat your lunch.
Quote:
Good point. Atheism can be just a non belief in any god -claim for whatever reason. being two weeks old, for example. It's why i talk of 'thinking atheists' which sounds elitist but just means those who are familiar with the arguments. Those who are not tend to be fair game for evangelism.
Another good point. There is a brand of atheist that has a severe thirst for a belief system. These tend to be the ones that have tried every religion known to mankind before converting to atheism (there are a few on this forum). Some end up going back if they meet the right evangelical preacher. The important thing for a solid atheist is not to allow emotions get in the way.
I did read the following posts but am going back to this one which will include all the others (Sartre, Hobbes or Leibnitz, Anselm, Nietzsche or Aristotle?) suggested.
I have a mind of my own, as I'm sure so many others do also. Why do you think it's necessary to read what
others have written or proposed that might be considered 'confirmation bias" and/or arguments against some things I figured out on my own?
Is whatever "they" had published somehow more valid or important than lowly, little ole' me figured out by myself?
I agree with you!
However, it is gratifying to find an old ancient author whom you never read before that reached the same conclusions you discovered on your own. It may help you explain to others your thought process.
I did read the following posts but am going back to this one which will include all the others (Sartre, Hobbes or Leibnitz, Anselm, Nietzsche or Aristotle?) suggested.
I have a mind of my own, as I'm sure so many others do also. Why do you think it's necessary to read what
others have written or proposed that might be considered 'confirmation bias" and/or arguments against some things I figured out on my own? Is whatever "they" had published somehow more valid or important than lowly, little ole' me figured out by myself?
If you're a stuffed shirt, of course it is.
Also, if you think that ideas first published hundreds years ago have somehow never percolated into the public arena.
If you've done any reading at all on the subject of theism vs atheism vs agnosticism, I assure you that you are at least glancingly familiar with these ideas, whether you know or not that they are attributed to Aristotle or Nietzsche.
Of course, it's always good, if you have the curiosity and/or time, to read the original source. But I knew quite a lot about natural selection and evolution before I ever read Charles Darwin, and I enjoyed him immensely, even though I knew vastly more about genetics than he ever did, so much that puzzled him was clear to me.
Watching his mind work was a real treat.
Last edited by jacqueg; 10-19-2019 at 12:46 PM..
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.
