Opskrifter:
Forumtråde:
Profiler:

Hvad er der galt med ateisme?

 

Filosofi, Etik & Religion

Sider: << < 12 13 14 15 16 > >>
Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 22/1 2013 23:47

Oh, Jeff..

I can´t be bothered talking to you. You twist everything I say these days.

I didn´t say you mentioned or implied moral relativism. That is my response to what you said about "what kinds of claims Christianity wants to make about anything nowadays as it vacates all its more traditional provinces". It´s what I see amongst a lot of Christians these days.

Good night!
Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 23/1 2013 07:37 | Indlæg redigeret den: 23/1 2013 07:41

I still don't get the point about moral relativism - it seems out of the blue to me. My assertion about Christianity concerned the metaphysical claims of the religion altogether, not the specific case of relativism. Maybe you misunderstood that, since I only used one sentence to state it without further qualification.

I great you that the Categorical Imperative is about reasoning - however, I do not believe that any mainstream christian doctrine embraces Kantian ethics, at least not without adding some special sauce which basically dissolves the foundation of Kant's thinking again.

For instance, the notion of "grace" as conceived in Christianity is largely antithetical to Kantian ethics or at least not paramount as it is in Christianity and most likely a distraction from the Kantian perspective.
Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 23/1 2013 17:23 | Indlæg redigeret den: 25/1 2013 11:40

Maybe that was a misunderstanding with regard to the moral relavitivism, although I think it is an inherent danger when people reason their own way to their own ethics...

I don´t understand you either when you say, "So, I am not sure how you can agree with the rest, since what humans reason is right or wrong is not what is at stake in christian morality"

I think that claim is rubbish. I´m not going to argue about Kant given that I don´t know too much about him. I was under the impression that he was popular amongst (some) Lutherans. I was also under the impression that a large bulk of protestants practise "situational ethics". Other groups build on Natural Law Theory, which as you know can be argued with or without faith in God. I don´t think you can dismiss the moral arguments of great minds like Thomas Acquinas, John Henry Newman, Edith Stein and others as being deficient in reasoning. Anyway, I don´t want to get into an argument about it, as in all probability, we´re not going to agree ;)

My point of agreement with you is in your claim that John´s point relies upon the existence of objective moral "truth" and that his claim always lacks some move to establish that.

I have a basis for establishing my basis for "objective truth". You disagree.

And of course with regard to your previous remark, I could say much more about a being that is personally interested in human lives but I see no point. You are not interested.

My other point of agreement with you is when you say that there are certain red threads running through moral systems that should capture moral intuitions, it is also part of the work of moral systems to cultivate these and emphasize them. I see these red threads at work in Natural Law Theory with its view that that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

I also see these red threads at work in the Declaration towards a Global Ethic.
http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/_includes/FCKcontent/File/TowardsAGlobalEthic.pdf

Amongst other things, it speaks of "irrevocable directives" which are common to most religions and ethical codes as a means of establishing common ethical ground.
- Have respect for life (You shall not kill)
- Deal honestly and fairly (You shall not steal)
- Speak and act truthfully! (You shall not lie)
- Respect and love one another! (You shall not commit sexual immorality)

Obviously such a declaration is dependent on goodwill, co-operation and dialogue and it won´t resolve all differences, but it certainly goes a long way to establishing and offering a path for both believer and non-believer to live side-by-side, and develop and cultivate a common vision - unless one has another agenda and is not genuinely interested in working for the common good. And of course, it doesn´t need to address the issue of metaphysical claims or "grace" as these "directives" can be argued from many angles (philosophy, human rights, justice, faith, science, etc.). Here we can take account of what neuroscience may have to teach us.

It´s a pity if you can´t seem to see this common ground between us.

Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 8/2 2013 23:31 | Indlæg redigeret den: 8/2 2013 23:32

Couldn´t pass this one up!

A gravestone (received from an atheist) ;) :D



http://i.imgur.com/o0MmUUk.jpg
Serenity
Forum-indlæg: 1672
Område: Nordjylland
Dato: 8/2 2013 23:42

Earthling
Bullshit! Kroppen er død, hjernen er død, og alle ideer inklusiv ateisme er forsvundet. der ligger ikke en død ateist.
Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 8/2 2013 23:46

Come on, Serenity, where´s your sense of humour???!!!

Like I said, an atheist posted it elsewhere. He thought it was funny... The tombstone is real too, so the guy who owns the bones buried beneath it also had a good sense of humour. Lighten up ;)
Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 11/3 2013 21:42

Came on the article yesterday, and the video a few weeks ago. Food for thought...
If atheism is true, it is far from being good news. Learning that we're alone in the universe, that no one hears or answers our prayers, that humanity is entirely the product of random events, that we have no more intrinsic dignity than non-human and even non-animate clumps of matter, that we face certain annihilation in death, that our sufferings are ultimately pointless, that our lives and loves do not at all matter in a larger sense, that those who commit horrific evils and elude human punishment get away with their crimes scot free — all of this (and much more) is utterly tragic

Where are the honest atheists - The Week
http://theweek.com/article/index/241108/where-are-the-honest-atheists

Why Study Atheism with Conor Cunningham (15.mins)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=E8xewsqa5YU
Serenity
Forum-indlæg: 1672
Område: Nordjylland
Dato: 11/3 2013 22:14 | Indlæg redigeret den: 11/3 2013 22:16

Earthling
Hvorfor ville det være tragisk?
Ulrik Smed
Forum-indlæg: 1539
Område: Århus
Dato: 11/3 2013 22:45

Og hvorfor skulle det betyde at vi er alene i universet?
Serenity
Forum-indlæg: 1672
Område: Nordjylland
Dato: 12/3 2013 09:03 | Indlæg redigeret den: 13/3 2013 07:41

Godt spørgsmål Ulrik. Med alle de stjerner og planeter, der er i det observerbare univers, kan vi ikke udelukke, at der eksisterer liv på andre planeter, og at noget af det måske er lige så intelligent eller mere intelligent end os. Og det er bare det observerbare univers. Her er ikke taget hensyn til, at der måske kan have været mange andre big bangs andre steder i universet.

Selv hvis der kun eksisterer liv på jorden så burde over 7 milliarder mennesker og mange billiarder andre dyr da også være selskab nok :D

Det observerbare univers har ifølge info fra nettet og mine egne beregninger en diameter på over 432 kvadrillioner kilometer og ifølge en artikel i the daily mail er det blevet estimeret at der eksisterer ca. 3 trilliarder stjerner i universet. Mon ikke at der er andre end os et sted derude :)
Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 12/3 2013 12:18

It sounds like you guys haven´t actually read the article or watched the link. Nietzsche grasped the problem as both article and video point out. It might be beyond you ;)
Easy/IAS
Forum-indlæg: 436
Område: KBH
Dato: 12/3 2013 15:19 | Indlæg redigeret den: 12/3 2013 15:20

og mine egne beregninger en radius på over 432 kvadrillioner kilometer



>>>>>>>>>>> LOOOOOOL <<<<<<<<<<<< :D :D
Lilith
Forum-indlæg: 61
Område: KBH
Dato: 12/3 2013 16:37

Alt er i vejen med ateisme................LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.
Easy/IAS
Forum-indlæg: 436
Område: KBH
Dato: 12/3 2013 16:56 | Indlæg redigeret den: 14/3 2013 17:21

VenusBjerget:

Min indicie er ..............

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL <<<<<<<<<<<<<< :D :D :D

-------------------------------



Hovsa VenusBjerget er blevet til Lilith --- >> LOL << :D
Serenity
Forum-indlæg: 1672
Område: Nordjylland
Dato: 13/3 2013 07:51

Earthling
Eller måske er det ikke værd at bruge tid på :D
Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 13/3 2013 11:04

I read the article and found it genuinely false. The author simply concocted a version of "atheism" (whatever that is) that is completely external and unrelated to the writings and lives of the authors he mentions. He tries to hijack the writing of Larkin, long quoted by atheists before his trivial comments in this post, and it is as if he has missed important chapters and even whole books by exactly these authors that examine these questions in great depth.

If anything, I think that this blatant kind of omission is more dishonest than the things he claims are.

Similarly, the video makes many generalizations and simplifications that are also simply false or just unsophisticated.
Robert Sodergren
Forum-indlæg: 812
Område: KBH
Dato: 13/3 2013 11:26

De indledende beskrivelse til tråden er jo mest at betegne som selvstændige fortolkninger ud fra en pt. opnået bevidsthed, dette er jo ikke stationært, på samme måde som vi jo heller ikke brænder Hekse af mere eller ter os som vikingerne, dette fordi vores bevidsthed forandre sig og alt er under konstant og evig udvikling, det som vi før så og forstod med hovedet alene og hvis det er en del af sandheden og alt der ligger bag som i dag er usynligt for mange, ser og oplever vi i en klar sanseoplevelse foran os.

Der er som sådan ikke noget galt med nogen af dem, dog fælles for dem alle bygger de på en tro og dermed ikke en viden som det vil komme til for os når vi har høstet den erfaring og viden der skal til, har sluppet hovedet og er kommet ned i krop, hvorfra vi for vores dybeste indre oplever livet fra.
Dermed bliver det en direkte sansning som vi ikke kan gå fejl af og der vil alle spørgsmål og undringer, forandre sig til øjebliklige svar, for der har vi direkte kontakt til livet og dens kæmpemæssig viden- og forståelsesbank, så vi med egen sansning og indsigt, forstår og oplever det vi ikke kan i dag.
I denne sammenhæng er det ikke nok med at kun have fokus i den fysiske verden og alt der kan måle og vejes eller beskrives med formler,for der mister vi essens af hvad vi er og hvordan vi er forbundet til helheden som ikke høre til den fysiske forgængelige og kun den åndelige evige verden.

Dette er grunden til at ateismen ikke er svaret for mig og fordi den kun er en forståelse, analyse, fortolkning som honorer alle de erfaringer vi har opsamlet på denne konto til nu og dermed ikke en direkte sansning, oplevelse og tale fra livet. <3
Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 14/3 2013 11:41

Thanks for doing me the courtesy of actually checking out the links, Jeff ;)

Obviously I disagree with your statement that the author simply concocted a version of "atheism", given that I know your definiton of atheism is very restricted when compared with standard definitions to be found in dictionaries, Wikipedia, atheist homepages, etc. I´m not going there again. We´ve already talked about it on this thread and you´re entitled to your concoctions! ;)

I´m not in a position to discuss Larkin, given that I know nothing about him. However, given that the author is writing for the H.P., it seems safe to assume he has some background and education and has actually looked into the backgrounds and philosophy of the people he mentions. And his whole point is that these authors have examined things in great depth... and looked honestly at atheism. I have heard several philosophers, theologians and others make similiar points.

Because you disagree with the author´s viewpoint doesn´t mean that he is wrong or dishonest, only that you disagree. I don´t know enough either way to make a fair and informed judgement. I do find the article interesting, and think it raises valid points, which of course require more in-depth discussion and study.

I find your claim that the author seems to have missed important chapters and even whole books, and your suggestion of blatant omission very interesting. I frequently find critics of "religion" concocting definitions to suit their agenda and who seem ignorant of important chapters, even whole books. Not least here on VK.

Obviously, the Conor Cunningham video is rather general and simplified. It is only 15 minutes long. The man is well versed in philosophy, theology and also well informed about science, so I have no doubt he can easily develop his arguments. I don´t agree with everything he says, but I think his point/objection is valid, especially the relevance of the two questions he poses at the end of the video, one to believers, one to non-believers. Btw, sophisticated doesn´t necessarily mean true. It might mean camouflage or distraction!

:)

Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 14/3 2013 12:11

W.r.t. Conor Cunningham, yes, I am aware that he is generally not stupid. However, sometimes oversimplifications are neither good nor fair.

W.r.t. atheists missing the point about religious inspiration - many of these authors have devoted considerable chapters, parts of talks and research efforts in wanting to understand this question. The blogger is either simply unaware of them, maybe he has not read these works (or any?), or blatantly omitting them from his discussion on purpose. Either way, I find the piece simply of no merit given the claims it makes. I feel compelled to mail him a reading list.
Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 14/3 2013 14:14

I agree that sometimes oversimplifications are neither good nor fair. That goes both ways ;)

W.r.t. atheists missing the point about religious inspiration - many of these authors have devoted considerable chapters, parts of talks and research efforts in wanting to understand this question. The blogger is either simply unaware of them, maybe he has not read these works (or any?), or blatantly omitting them from his discussion on purpose. Either way, I find the piece simply of no merit given the claims it makes. I feel compelled to mail him a reading list.

My comment wasn´t about these particulair atheists. I was thinking of the more "popularist" kind, as well as some of the stuff I see around here. The author actually considers these guys to be the honest atheists which says something.

Anyway, I´m perfectly happy to hear your reaction to the article. And by all means, follow your compulsion ;)
Sider: << < 12 13 14 15 16 > >>