Ask an Atheist Anything

AshleyCK wrote:

nanox wrote:

AshleyCK wrote: Quoting would be too much at this point in the conversation.

Alright, let me arrange the answers that I received from you and get this straight.

1. We have a working definition of atheism and each atheist is essentially free to choose which one resonates most with them depending upon personal experience.
2. You meet to essentially speak of how religions are worth being mocked among other topics.
3. A number of atheists have written on or addressed in some way what atheism is or how absurd theism can be.

Here is the outline of what it takes to be considered a religion or an occult:

1, Define what your group is
2. Gain popularity
3. Have some set of rules or books of learning about your beliefs
4. You may or may not have a deity (Buddhism does not necessarily worship Buddha if you go back into the beginnings of this practice).

Granted, these are only a few points but I think that I get the idea across.Even though you do no consider yourself a religion, the differences are far from a few. If you'd like more similarities then fine.

Other than that, let's dive into the quote you posted for me. Although long-winded, it certainly did resonate with me. I detested religion growing up as I have mentioned to you but others may not be familiar. I did choose to learn about it but not for growth in faith or anything like that. I learned how to dismantle their arguments so that sensible people could be produced with or without a religion.

Your stance to openly protest religion is a personal vendetta and not required to spread knowledge in the slightest. Returning to the quote, yes, this does take a stick and poke at several (maybe even all religions) but it does the same to Capitalism, Communism, Democracy, or any other sort. Even without religion, there will always be a way to destroy the person's soul. It is up to them to differentiate what they ultimately believe or value.

Even though you do not intend to sound like you are preaching a sermon or attempting to "convert" people to Atheism just as the running gag with Veganism and their following may not intend to sound the same with the idea that meat is murder... you run along a very incredibly fine line.

To be frank, this reply was not for you since it may or may not get through. This post is for anyone who is curious. I have no personal animosity against Atheism or religions, as of today. My displeasure is against the spread of ignorance whether it is intended or not.

I wonder if anyone else could see where you were leading him?

Ashley, really, you have a beautiful mind.

Thank you. I have learned that the only way to truly point out an error is to get them say it for themselves.

A true mental gymnast will somersault right over that though. At least it's interesting to observe.

nanox wrote:

AshleyCK wrote:

nanox wrote:

AshleyCK wrote: Quoting would be too much at this point in the conversation.

Alright, let me arrange the answers that I received from you and get this straight.

1. We have a working definition of atheism and each atheist is essentially free to choose which one resonates most with them depending upon personal experience.
2. You meet to essentially speak of how religions are worth being mocked among other topics.
3. A number of atheists have written on or addressed in some way what atheism is or how absurd theism can be.

Here is the outline of what it takes to be considered a religion or an occult:

1, Define what your group is
2. Gain popularity
3. Have some set of rules or books of learning about your beliefs
4. You may or may not have a deity (Buddhism does not necessarily worship Buddha if you go back into the beginnings of this practice).

Granted, these are only a few points but I think that I get the idea across.Even though you do no consider yourself a religion, the differences are far from a few. If you'd like more similarities then fine.

Other than that, let's dive into the quote you posted for me. Although long-winded, it certainly did resonate with me. I detested religion growing up as I have mentioned to you but others may not be familiar. I did choose to learn about it but not for growth in faith or anything like that. I learned how to dismantle their arguments so that sensible people could be produced with or without a religion.

Your stance to openly protest religion is a personal vendetta and not required to spread knowledge in the slightest. Returning to the quote, yes, this does take a stick and poke at several (maybe even all religions) but it does the same to Capitalism, Communism, Democracy, or any other sort. Even without religion, there will always be a way to destroy the person's soul. It is up to them to differentiate what they ultimately believe or value.

Even though you do not intend to sound like you are preaching a sermon or attempting to "convert" people to Atheism just as the running gag with Veganism and their following may not intend to sound the same with the idea that meat is murder... you run along a very incredibly fine line.

To be frank, this reply was not for you since it may or may not get through. This post is for anyone who is curious. I have no personal animosity against Atheism or religions, as of today. My displeasure is against the spread of ignorance whether it is intended or not.

I wonder if anyone else could see where you were leading him?

Ashley, really, you have a beautiful mind.

Thank you. I have learned that the only way to truly point out an error is to get them say it for themselves.

A true mental gymnast will somersault right over that though. At least it interesting to observe.

Definitely, it was a simple set up and delivery. I wouldn't have been able to do that to one of my professors ahaha. They would've squashed it immediately.

x

Sofronitsky wrote:

nanox wrote:

Sofronitsky wrote: That first Dawkins bumper sticker is hilarious. This is what y'all are dazzled by? Read Hegel and Kierkegaard and listen to Bach. And that's just the beginning.

"Satisfied with not understanding the world" my a**.

I quite enjoy Kierkegaard and you are the second person to suggest Hegel in this forum. I honestly have no good excuse for not having read him.

And be mindful that dear Aaron has only made it up to Rand so far. He has a long way to go.

Second person to mention Hegel, eh? You mean you've all allowed another moron onto the forum?!

Kierkegaard played a large role in teaching me to reject temporal, manipulated "truths" as they affect public policy especially. He's also far more approachable as a writer. Hegel, unlike Kierkegaard or Nietzsche struggled with for the first week. I literally spent a week reading two pages of the Phenomenology. It took a bit to get used to the rhythm, language and the writing style. It's not easy reading at first. Aside from dialectics and negation and such, we would not have the term "Zeitgeist" without Hegel. But that's hardly his lasting contribution. As Derrida said as only he could say it, there's neither a beginning nor an ending to our reading of the Phenomenology[i/].

Wow, what pretentious BS. But don't tell anyone and I trust you'll keep this between the two of us.

Rand? Ayn? If so, then I can't say we ever read Rand in philosophy. Actually, I really don't recall Rant being a part of any philosophy course offered at my college at the time. Back then, the people who talked glowing about Rand were political partisans and theorists and not people interested in philosophy.

Nonetheless, funny you mentioned Rand. The atheist with the capital A versus small a struck me as the same big L or small L screed of the libertarians. I really didn't take this conversation seriously because of that. Said this, I have no problems with atheists or agnostics. Many are my friends, and the last atheist I had over my house was a few weeks ago. He's a retired prof. of French lit from Palo Alto. His arguments, approach and critiques by no means resemble anything that was written here. I can assure you that he would never call any of you "stupid" or engage in a name-calling crusade.

He sounds like the type of man that I would love to engage in a conversation with. By the way, if you guys have any books to share, I'm going to make a thread for that. I'm coming to a close on "A Demon-Haunted World: Science as the candle in the dark" and am going to need another book soon. I figured that I should venture outside of the Physics genre to stay well-rounded ahaha

These articles have nothing to do with Atheism, but it is a collection of articles on Science, religion, and Philosophy that Albert Einstein wrote
Would like to know what you all think

www.sacred-texts.com...tein/einsci.htm

Sofronitsky wrote:

nanox wrote:

Sofronitsky wrote: That first Dawkins bumper sticker is hilarious. This is what y'all are dazzled by? Read Hegel and Kierkegaard and listen to Bach. And that's just the beginning.

"Satisfied with not understanding the world" my a**.

I quite enjoy Kierkegaard and you are the second person to suggest Hegel in this forum. I honestly have no good excuse for not having read him.

And be mindful that dear Aaron has only made it up to Rand so far. He has a long way to go.

Second person to mention Hegel, eh? You mean you've all allowed another moron onto the forum?!

Kierkegaard played a large role in teaching me to reject temporal, manipulated "truths" as they affect public policy especially. He's also far more approachable as a writer. Hegel, unlike Kierkegaard or Nietzsche struggled with for the first week. I literally spent a week reading two pages of the Phenomenology. It took a bit to get used to the rhythm, language and the writing style. It's not easy reading at first. Aside from dialectics and negation and such, we would not have the term "Zeitgeist" without Hegel. But that's hardly his lasting contribution. As Derrida said as only he could say it, there's neither a beginning nor an ending to our reading of the Phenomenology[i/].

Wow, what pretentious BS. But don't tell anyone and I trust you'll keep this between the two of us.

Rand? Ayn? If so, then I can't say we ever read Rand in philosophy. Actually, I really don't recall Rant being a part of any philosophy course offered at my college at the time. Back then, the people who talked glowing about Rand were political partisans and theorists and not people interested in philosophy.

Nonetheless, funny you mentioned Rand. The atheist with the capital A versus small a struck me as the same big L or small L screed of the libertarians. I really didn't take this conversation seriously because of that. Said this, I have no problems with atheists or agnostics. Many are my friends, and the last atheist I had over my house was a few weeks ago. He's a retired prof. of French lit from Palo Alto. His arguments, approach and critiques by no means resemble anything that was written here. I can assure you that he would never call any of you "stupid" or engage in a name-calling crusade.

I'm sure Hegel would prove a challenging read for me as well and I really have no excuse for having not. Other than the fact that there is no shortage of interesting reads and I am easily distracted by other books in different areas. I'm currently cycling through my neuroscience related reading phase and should swing back to philosophy again soon. Hopefully you will be around to either get yelled at for the recommendation or praised. It's a toss up.

I didn't read Rand in any college level study of philosophy either. In fact, the only time she was ever mentioned was followed by eye rolls. I read her in high school because there was a scholarship contest for writing essays in response to her work. It wasn't even assigned as high school level philosophy. Lol! Her followers quote her like scripture though. I read Nietzsche shortly after and it was very clear where Rand got most of her ideas.

Being a student of human behavior I have noticed similarities among the psyches of Rand followers, which is consistent with what we witnessed in this thread. When she was quoted a lot of things started to make sense. Acting superior and dismissing anyone who doesn't serve your needs is the company tag line. I think you are absolutely correct that the people who preach her have little interest in actual philosophy, but don't tell them that because they seem to fancy themselves to be Philosophers with a capital P.

I have a lot of atheist and agnostic friends similar to yours. They may disagree and debate, but they don't invalidate others. Same goes for the most highly intelligent people I know or have met. They don't feel the need to tell other people how stupid they are, realizing that intelligence is relative and that even someone less intelligent than them has something to offer or teach.

Kierkegaard also taught me the subjectivity of truth and as a result developed a skepticism of those who claim to possess it - atheist and theist alike.

x

x

x

Sofronitsky wrote:

nanox wrote:

Sofronitsky wrote:

nanox wrote:

Sofronitsky wrote: That first Dawkins bumper sticker is hilarious. This is what y'all are dazzled by? Read Hegel and Kierkegaard and listen to Bach. And that's just the beginning.

"Satisfied with not understanding the world" my a**.

I quite enjoy Kierkegaard and you are the second person to suggest Hegel in this forum. I honestly have no good excuse for not having read him.

And be mindful that dear Aaron has only made it up to Rand so far. He has a long way to go.

Second person to mention Hegel, eh? You mean you've all allowed another moron onto the forum?!

Kierkegaard played a large role in teaching me to reject temporal, manipulated "truths" as they affect public policy especially. He's also far more approachable as a writer. Hegel, unlike Kierkegaard or Nietzsche struggled with for the first week. I literally spent a week reading two pages of the Phenomenology. It took a bit to get used to the rhythm, language and the writing style. It's not easy reading at first. Aside from dialectics and negation and such, we would not have the term "Zeitgeist" without Hegel. But that's hardly his lasting contribution. As Derrida said as only he could say it, there's neither a beginning nor an ending to our reading of the Phenomenology[i/].

Wow, what pretentious BS. But don't tell anyone and I trust you'll keep this between the two of us.

Rand? Ayn? If so, then I can't say we ever read Rand in philosophy. Actually, I really don't recall Rant being a part of any philosophy course offered at my college at the time. Back then, the people who talked glowing about Rand were political partisans and theorists and not people interested in philosophy.

Nonetheless, funny you mentioned Rand. The atheist with the capital A versus small a struck me as the same big L or small L screed of the libertarians. I really didn't take this conversation seriously because of that. Said this, I have no problems with atheists or agnostics. Many are my friends, and the last atheist I had over my house was a few weeks ago. He's a retired prof. of French lit from Palo Alto. His arguments, approach and critiques by no means resemble anything that was written here. I can assure you that he would never call any of you "stupid" or engage in a name-calling crusade.

I'm sure Hegel would prove a challenging read for me as well and I really have no excuse for having not. Other than the fact that there is no shortage of interesting reads and I am easily distracted by other books in different areas. I'm currently cycling through my neuroscience related reading phase and should swing back to philosophy again soon. Hopefully you will be around to either get yelled at for the recommendation or praised. It's a toss up.

I didn't read Rand in any college level study of philosophy either. In fact, the only time she was ever mentioned was followed by eye rolls. I read her in high school because there was a scholarship contest for writing essays in response to her work. It wasn't even assigned as high school level philosophy. Lol! Her followers quote her like scripture though. I read Nietzsche shortly after and it was very clear where Rand got most of her ideas.

Being a student of human behavior I have noticed similarities among the psyches of Rand followers, which is consistent with what we witnessed in this thread. When she was quoted a lot of things started to make sense. Acting superior and dismissing anyone who doesn't serve your needs is the company tag line. I think you are absolutely correct that the people who preach her have little interest in actual philosophy, but don't tell them that because they seem to fancy themselves to be Philosophers with a capital P.

I have a lot of atheist and agnostic friends similar to yours. They may disagree and debate, but they don't invalidate others. Same goes for the most highly intelligent people I know or have met. They don't feel the need to tell other people how stupid they are, realizing that intelligence is relative and that even someone less intelligent than them has something to offer or teach.

Kierkegaard also taught me the subjectivity of truth and as a result developed a skepticism of those who claim to possess it - atheist and theist alike.

I wrote something close per verbatim to the above but omitted it out of consideration for some semblance of brevity. But I agree. The crowd representing the ultimate untruth, we've seen time and time again. 65% who favored and advocated the US invasion of Iraq, the nearly 90% who favored a war in Afghanistan following 9/11 and on and on.

And seemingly immune to reason when you challenge their almighty Free Market.

I've noticed a tendency towards pseudoscience and conspiracy theory as well. Declaring absolute truth while splitting the world into Us vs Them.