Ask an Atheist Anything

Sofronitsky wrote: It's been a while since I've read these so I'll have to read them again when I have a few more minutes and less distractions. Thanks for posting this.

Wrong thread? Lol

[

x

Sofronitsky wrote:

nanox wrote:

Sofronitsky wrote: It's been a while since I've read these so I'll have to read them again when I have a few more minutes and less distractions. Thanks for posting this.

Wrong thread? Lol

It's a response to Mickey's Einstein essay. Still trying to get used to the forum functions. I hit quick reply and didn't realize this function doesn't quote the comment to which I'm replying.

Also, because you read Spinoza, you'll have little problem with Hegel's and his translator's styles.

Oh yeah, I meant to click the Mikey link but got distracted talking about books I like. ADHD is fun.

And thanks, that's actually really helpful to know. It makes it less of a commitment to actually begin the reading. (I thought Ethics was beautifully written, personally)

Yeah , Kung fu doesn't save ppl's life. Kung fu Dr are bullshit

But the thing is, if you were training with Kung fu. You won't ended up sick like a monkey and pass that onto your future child

Sofronitsky wrote:

AshleyCK 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.

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

More the merrier. We'd all love to have you join us. And if you're into physics, Mario Livio is a source I found interesting in the past.

Yeah, I am into it but there are so many different focuses within the subject that I find it hard to choose one. I'm coming up on choosing a concentration within the field but the advancements in them all make it quite difficult to narrow it down aha. I'll be sure to look Mario up! Thank you.

I'm not a religious person, and I would not consider myself an Atheist, or an agnostic really. I can't really bring my self to definitely rule out the possibility of some sort of "God", or higher power, and the same goes for there being none. I will probably post more on that later, but I'd like to first start on how I generally view religions with anthropomorphic God(s).

Although I may have my own fundamental disagreements about personal Gods, I do not necessarily view the religions that do have a personal God (ones that people look up to as the ideal examples of moral fortitude) to inherently be a negative thing (as some(one) has suggested). I find that most religions try to aim for similar goals in striving for to better ourselves, and then, once that is achieve, an begin our journey to also serve mankind for some greater good (in many cases God, who embodies this ideal moral fortitude). Or to ultimately let go of our ego, our desires, our fears, our ignorance and to begin understanding that we may in fact be part of something larger than ourselves.

In this respect, religion seems to me that it can also be an inherently beneficial thing for someone, and even the people around them. Yes, these lines of moral fortitude can become muddy, and can also quickly become used in aggression, as means for personal gains, or what have you not. Even to a point where people begin to despise religion, due to many peoples nature to twist it into something it is not. But, to not have such happen would also be asking for a perfect world, which we are not.

This is honestly best summed up in a portion of the article by Albert Einstein that I posted earlier

"The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind.

There is no room in this for the divinization of a nation, of a class, let alone of an individual. Are we not all children of one father, as it is said in religious language? Indeed, even the divinization of humanity, as an abstract totality, would not be in the spirit of that ideal. It is only to the individual that a soul is given. And the high destiny of the individual is to serve rather than to rule, or to impose himself in any other way.

If one looks at the substance rather than at the form, then one can take these words as expressing also the fundamental democratic position. The true democrat can worship his nation as little as can the man who is religious, in our sense of the term."

Years of years age, even God needed to have sex. excuse me to bring it here.

Benny wrote: Years of years age, even God needed to have sex. excuse me to bring it here.

I suppose if you believe man was created in God's image, then you are not entirely wrong, benny boy

MikeyC wrote:

Benny wrote: Years of years age, even God needed to have sex. excuse me to bring it here.

I suppose if you believe man was created in God's image, than you are not entirely wrong, benny boy

And Japanese said,"customer is God" . We all knew this apply to every society even in heaven and hell

We need story to create future .