Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Radium, Apr 18, 2009.
Please do poke away though. And I'll return the favor. "Judge, and be judged" is my motto.
respond to the points made in post 15 then. since you are a proud atheist you should happily see this as a way to thump your chest about atheism even more
If you are talking to someone specific, it is helpful to indicate whom you are addressing, otherwise how would the "you" you are addressing know s/he is the "you"? If you are asking a general question, if "you" is aimed at atheists in general, it would be helpful not to ask the question as if it were aimed at an (unnamed and thus indeterminate) individual.
In case it is a general "you" and you want responses from whomever, my answer is: no, not really. I have pretty high standards for what is pride-worthy, and I haven't accomplished anything out of the ordinary. I know a lot of people who are far more accomplished than I; in light of their accomplishments, I would feel kind of silly to be all proud of myself and my pedestrian accomplishments.
your verbosity betrays your stupidity
Atheism is intellectually honest. You can speculate all you want on whatever "immaterial" bs you want, but you aren't basing it on anything real, anything tangible. I'm personally willing to consider anything, but until you can demonstrate that there's anything, at all, "immaterial" then disbelief is the default position.
can we not look out into reality and make speculations on the unknown things we can't perceive immediately through our senses?
socrates looked out into the world and saw a vast ocean of invisible forms floating nakedly through the world
spinoza looked out into the world and saw a living organism; where everything was just another body part in the body of god
leibniz concluded that god has created reality in a perfect way and that everything that happens in reality is following perfectly through with god's desires
socrates, spinoza, leibniz ...
are their speculations to the natures of god or the immaterial also so-called "B-S" and therefore worthless in your view?
these are some of the greatest and most powerful minds to ever exist are you suggesting that their conclusions and thoughts are purely worthless and "B-S" and should have never even been attempted?
no, i don't think contemplating the immaterial in general is a waste of time. it depends on the individual and what their interests are. philosophy has just never really caught my interest. i see people make arguments that nothing really exists outside our minds and everything is relevant and i truly get nothing out of it.
it might limit me intellectually but the thing is that we're all limited intellectually, nobody can study/know about everything. so you might as well focus on the things that interest you the most because once you die all of your accumulated knowledge becomes food for the maggots.
so you concede that, through your atheist (materialist/empiricist) stance, you are limiting yourself intellectually?
well i concede that through not being at all well-versed in philosophy i'm limiting myself intellectually. i would consider it less intellectually limiting if say... i wasn't very well versed in astrology or ghost-hunting.
however, i don't concede that my lack of interest in philosophy is an inherent trait of atheism. there's nothing about the lack of belief in god that suggests that everything of value is material.
no not philosophy, generally
but specifically, metaphysics/rationalism
these two realms are blocked off to atheists who only believe in things that have immediate "physical evidence" ie empiricism
because there is no immediate physical evidence of god or soul or form atheists consider these things completely worthless to speculate on
which is what you are doing
as I am showing
what the rest of you proud atheists seem to also be doing in this thread
in that way you'd be correct, any literal reference to a soul or ghosts is meaningless to us. i can't say that in that way i feel like i'm missing out on much. it's fun to speculate on ghosts and souls but at the end of the day, i have no inclination to believe they are any more real than vampires or politicians that transform into 4th dimensional reptilians behind closed doors.
*Insert stupid drunken remark here* All posts modifed due to sobriety the following day
Then you are in the same breath arguing that metaphysical conclusions held by some of the greatest thinkers in human history are basically worthless too
you must feel you are smarter than they are I guess
you realize that works based on metaphysics dont only just come from organized religion right?
i never said that i was smarter... but just because great thinkers in the past have made references to the soul doesn't mean it actually exists. either it does or it doesn't, it's not a matter of who's smarter.
maybe you'd like to give me some examples of these great thoughts that i am supposedly labeling 'worthless'? just to put this whole thing into context.
Speculating on things like god and the soul are things that atheists will not even permit themselves to do. they just flatly put down such thoughts as dumb and by extension they put down the great thinkers who have speculated on such things through human history as also dumb
which is completely hubris...
you ever read the phaedo? thats a good place to start i think.
nope, i've never read any real philosophical literature.
and as for us not allowing ourselves to contemplate god, that's simply not true. i contemplate things that science can't explain all the time. me being atheist just means that i don't subscribe to a belief in god, it doesn't mean i refuse to contemplate the possibility.
Separate names with a comma.