Atheism And The Meaning Of Life [Response To TogetherForPeace]
Written by admin on April 16, 2009 – 12:56 pm -Tags: american, atheism, atheist, atheists, Austin, belief, Bible, catholic, christ, christianity, christians, creation, creationism, Creationists, Darwin, Dawkins, delusion, design, Dillahunty, Earth, evolution, Experience, faith, freethinker, Fully, God, Harris, Hitchens, Humanism, Humanists, ID, intelligent, jack, jesus, Life, Lives, Magazine, Matt, meaning, more, of, reason, religion, religious, response, Richard, Sam, science, Secular, the, to, togetherforpeace, Young
Posted in Atheist Definition | 25 Comments »
By jeffbme on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
I’m Mormon. I was …
I’m Mormon. I was wondering if everyone’s reincarnated to recover from sins or go to hell, then the way I see it is this. The only things in heaven must be abortions. Laugh or don’t, I’m so lost.
By waltsimons on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
“throw it into your …
“throw it into your face”*
By waltsimons on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
I would also point …
I would also point out that the vast majority of the time the word atheism is used it’s really referring to explicit atheism making Dillahunty’s characterization accurate most of the time.
Your comment is technically correct and a fair enough criticism though. I didn’t mean to “throw it into my face”. Just a friendly semantics debate.
By metalorg on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
You certainly could …
You certainly could make the dichotomy of implicit and explicit atheism where one is the response to theism. You can even call the difference important.
But the comment in the video implied that if there were no theism then there is no atheism of any sort, explicit nor implicit.
This is where my little semantic complaint came from. Who knew so many people would throw it into my face. I agree with Matt Dillahunty in most ways, just not on the wording of this one sentence.
By waltsimons on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
If there were no …
If there were no theism then atheism as a concept would still exist. However the EXPRESSION of atheism would not. It’s the difference between explicit and implicit atheism. Implicit atheism is atheism through ignorance of theism. And in the context of atheism as a response to theism the distinction is important.
By waltsimons on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
Sorry to be a buzz …
Sorry to be a buzz kill but I’d suggest you contemplate non existence again. Existence is preferable to non-existence is pretty much an axiom when considered in a rational state of mind. There shouldn’t be anything comforting about death.
In fact this kind of complacency about death is one of the major factors holding back things like life extension research.
By waltsimons on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
This is a classic …
This is a classic example of smart stupidness. Regardless of philosophical naturalism an opinion is an opinion and has value to the individual. Nothing about it implies transcendence. It’s a complete non-sequitur that should have been obvious to you.
By JonO387 on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
it’s just his …
it’s just his opinion.
By Insomnium2188 on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
WRONG they have …
WRONG they have value to him
By R3APER24 on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
100% agree there.
100% agree there.
By teajay74 on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
The individual on …
The individual on the left talks about how he finds our biological development “remarkable” and “amazing” but these emotional and intellectual responses are nothing but neuro-chemical reactions, no more meaningful than any other chemical process.
Using labels like “amazing” and “remarkable” implies a kind of transcendence that science sure doesn’t provide.
By Courne82 on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
u are wrong, sorry
u are wrong, sorry
By Kojitsu on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
I am an atheist, …
I am an atheist, anything with evidence to support it is more likely to be true than something with no evidence. However, if you proved the existence of god with evidence to back it up, I’m all for the truth. But if you can’t, I don’t see a reason to believe in him any more than a child’s imaginary friend who takes the blame for stealing from the cookie jar.
By oltraver on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
Again, if proof …
Again, if proof were possible to come up with, are you telling me that Theists would change their beliefs more readily than atheist?. I tend to think not. Reversing that ‘faith’ threatens their belief structures. My belief structure as a scientific atheist allows me to have a flexible ‘faith’ (to use the term I am accused of having), based on evidence and probability. It’s COMPLETELY flexible with evidence to support it.
By oltraver on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
I would say it’s …
I would say it’s exactly the opposite. If I was shown proof of the existence of God in a scientific frame of reference (If such a thing were possible) I would believe in a second. That’s the way science works. It changes with evidence. Personal belief or faith has nothing to do with it.
By KARIN094 on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
alohawg:
You are …
alohawg:
You are looking at it all wrong. Religion is faith based. The reason it is called *faith based* is due to the *fact* that there is *no evidence*. So one is left with *only faith*.
For me, I require proof before I believe. Especially when it has to do with my life, as a whole.
I have spent years researching and looking for *any evidence*. Therefore, I am an atheist. As there is no evidence for a religious character sets, such as a *God*.
By alohawg on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
I am becoming …
I am becoming convinced that it’s not really about evidence with the atheist, it’s about a variety of issues but not about evidence, not at all. I submit that even if you did prove God’s existence to the average atheist ,he would still be unchanged in his principle character and actually it would likely make him worse because he has been proven a wrong after all. Am I wrong and if so why?
By ChairmanKiel on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
Just the assumption …
Just the assumption that you made about how non intelligence doesn’t have the potential to give rise to intelligence. I understand the logic of the argument, but it isn’t supported by any evidence what so ever. I was just showing that the whole idea was circular.
By addmoreice on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
“Again we know or …
“Again we know or should know non-intelligence cannot give rise to intelligence. ”
neural net circuitry can be evolved. i’ve evolved computer programs, control circuitry for mission critical life and death systems are evolved. tell me again how intellect is needed to design for intellect?
“…someone and nothing comes from nothing,”
cassimir effect, hawking radiation, quantum fluctuations. something from nothing. look into it.
By triniboy1991 on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
i am a catholic, …
i am a catholic, but I agree with certain parts of it
I am just a present day christian, I adapt the religion to more modern traditions
By valken666 on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
Yes, sorry I didn’t …
Yes, sorry I didn’t used the right words. Lets us be irrational is what I intended to say.
Defining what is natural and what is not was not my intent. Rationalism is objectivism, we work to complete objectives, this is contradictory to what irrational animals do. To deny development in order to favor evolution is nonsense, we can see individual development works much better trough our works. To be only half rational almost certainly leads to dangerous/useless behaviors.
By alohawg on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
What are referring …
What are referring to specifically ChairmanKiel?
By SeveredFootLoki on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
,,,,We are animals. …
,,,,We are animals…. and we do die from diseases. The difference is we are capable of complex thought. And it is our nature to do the things we do. Having a god to believe does not change human nature….. So I don’t understand your argument.
By ChairmanKiel on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
Thats called …
Thats called circular thinking, and it is a logical fallacy. It would be like me saying that a donut is round, thus, all round things are donuts.
By alohawg on Apr 16, 2009 | Reply
II Timothy
3:1 …
II Timothy
3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;