Questions for theists.

[Furrowed Brow]

Questions for consideration:

• 1/ What is the best of atheism/non-theism?
  
  2/ What is wrong with the best of atheism/non-theism?
  
  3/ Explain what you see as the appeal of atheism/non-theism.

Before you answer these questions please do argue against straw men. The question is not what is wrong with atheism? I’m not asking for a critique of our worst arguments and worst behaviour. There are several atheists/ non-theists on this forum that I think argue cogently, and that display self discipline, and who not advocate hedonism, and give a good account of themselves. I’ll name a few of them: Bernees51, QED, McCulloch, Cmass, Zzzyx - and there are more. If you can think of your own example great. What’s wrong with their world view. Why do their arguments not touch you? Or what is right about their approach to matters of ethics, evolution and the big questions. Okay I'm not asking you to lay in to any one individual here - just characterise the kinds of arguments put forward by the most able non-theists, and crticise these - unless of course they have passed you by because you weren't paying attention .

[Nick_A]

Questions for consideration:

• 1/ What is the best of atheism/non-theism?
  
  2/ What is wrong with the best of atheism/non-theism?
  
  3/ Explain what you see as the appeal of atheism/non-theism.

Before you answer these questions please do argue against straw men. The question is not what is wrong with atheism? I’m not asking for a critique of our worst arguments and worst behaviour. There are several atheists/ non-theists on this forum that I think argue cogently, and that display self discipline, and who not advocate hedonism, and give a good account of themselves. I’ll name a few of them: Bernees51, QED, McCulloch, Cmass, Zzzyx - and there are more. If you can think of your own example great. What’s wrong with their world view. Why do their arguments not touch you? Or what is right about their approach to matters of ethics, evolution and the big questions. Okay I'm not asking you to lay in to any one individual here - just characterise the kinds of arguments put forward by the most able non-theists, and crticise these - unless of course they have passed you by because you weren't paying attention .

I view the atheist in the same way as Simone Weil who was an atheist at one time. Her transition from atheist to Christian allows me to see the value of atheism and the worth of its arguments together with their limitations. she wrote:

"Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong."
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

The value of the atheism is that it exposes the imagination natural for secular religious expression. Their arguments are both sound and necessary. However, not having awakened to the spiritual direction they try and impose logic in the psychological domian that can only be understood with the whole of oneself. Their insistance on denial of anything but logic just traps them in illusion and denial. What's worse is that it begins to corrupt public education and harming kids that are harmed enough already.

However, the arguments of a real human being or one that is both logical and has had their supernatural part awakened is always a pleasure since it places logic into the perspective of relative "being" that the awakened person has become aware of but the atheist has yet to value.

[alexiarose]

Hi Mr Furrowed Brow

I don't think I have butted heads with you have I? You are on the avoid list though so maybe I should. I have read your books though and just wait until summer break because I am going to have to flood you with questions on the truth table.

Questions for consideration:

• 1/ What is the best of atheism/non-theism?

It stays in real world application. It gives more acknowledgment to the self rather than the group. It gives us the motivation to find real world answers rather than applying the old stale "Goddidit" thingy.

2/ What is wrong with the best of atheism/non-theism?

It offers no real purpose to life. It lacks any emotional view. And by stressing more importance on each individual you run the risk of the whole group suffering as a result. It also makes our time on this earth really pointless doesn't it. You are born, you grow old, you die. Some procreate, though some shouldn't. But it would seem that with the atheistic view, that is the best accomplishment we can do.

3/ Explain what you see as the appeal of atheism/non-theism.[/list]

Sorry, this one goes over my head.

Before you answer these questions please do argue against straw men. The question is not what is wrong with atheism? I’m not asking for a critique of our worst arguments and worst behaviour. There are several atheists/ non-theists on this forum that I think argue cogently, and that display self discipline, and who not advocate hedonism, and give a good account of themselves. I’ll name a few of them: Bernees51, QED, McCulloch, Cmass, Zzzyx - and there are more. If you can think of your own example great. What’s wrong with their world view. Why do their arguments not touch you? Or what is right about their approach to matters of ethics, evolution and the big questions. Okay I'm not asking you to lay in to any one individual here - just characterise the kinds of arguments put forward by the most able non-theists, and crticise these - unless of course they have passed you by because you weren't paying attention .

There are also several theists on this forum who argue cogently and display self discipline etc.. To name a few: Micatala, Achilles, Jose-and there are more.

There is nothing wrong with either sides world view. They are just different. Who says their arguments don't touch me. McCulloch has thrown me into a tailspin many many times. So has Zzyzx. So much so that my own faith is highly in question right now. But if your aim is to categorize us as all of the same caliber then I guess nothing I say will change your mind now will it?

Overall, hearing moms view recently has really put my mind into chaos. But it is the stereotyping that I so often see here that really gets my goat. Its like you first must prove you aren't some nutjob extremist and you are literally attacked by 3-4 atheists or non-theists at once all trying to pull you apart in different directions so often I have no chance to get my point out there because I am defending myself against all those names you have mentioned above. And theists are so divided that you seldom see them jumping in to try to give you a breather. Perhaps my faith is weak, perhaps it might fall. But if it does, it will be from my own inquiry that may be initiated by arguments presented here, but wont be the defining reason for it.

[beankitty]

1/ What is the best of atheism/non-theism?

Rational thought, perhaps? The ability to favour reason over faith.


2/ What is wrong with the best of atheism/non-theism?

It is too limiting (as are the majority of religions) when it comes to "creative" [for lack of a better word] thought. It doesn't allow magic to be found within our Universe.


3/ Explain what you see as the appeal of atheism/non-theism.

The ability to bring humankind to a whole new level, to allow us to progress, to allow us to look inside ourselves instead of up to the sky, and the power to help the world with actions rather than relying on something/someone that could very well be a figment of our imaginations...

[JoeyKnothead]

What is the best of my atheism?

Not being so tied to a point of view as to be blinded by facts or dogma. The ability to shape my views with the eyes of a realist.

What's wrong with the above?
(staying in within religion topics)
George Carlin said it best when he said a cynic is just a disappointed optimist. I had all this great hope for humanity as a youngster, and now I can only see the bad things religion does in some or anothers' God's name.

The appeal of atheism?
Its not so much as an appeal as it is the acceptance of reality. If my atheism were to be 'unappealing' I would still remain an atheist, owing to my acceptance of the evidence or lack thereof.