quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: Do you think we could agree that ad hominum attacks are something that should be avoided in favor of more respectful means of discussion?
Normally yes, but the whole debate was based on the ad hominim. In that situation, I think there is no avoiding it. Unless it went something like this: "Atheists are condescending, except the ones involved in this debate."
"I've often found atheists condescending," or "I've often been condescended to by atheists" are both easy ways to say that your experience with atheists has been that they condescend to you without implicating all atheists and preemptively cutting off the possibility of meaningful dialogue at the knees.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, saying that I have to be careful about what I say for fear of offending someone or creating a negative environment is called "political correctness..."
It's also called "courtesy."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I've often found atheists condescending," or "I've often been condescended to by atheists" are both easy ways to say that your experience with atheists has been that they condescend to you without implicating all atheists and preemptively cutting off the possibility of meaningful dialogue at the knees.
But that wouldn't be the same thing, would it? I didn't know my early posts were going to turn into this. If I had, I might have planned ahead.
And it's courtesy to the people who are not to be offended. It's opinion-stifling political correctness to the one unable to say what he thinks and how he feels. You're saying that if I feel that notions of superiority are inherent to atheism, which I do to a certain degree, I should water it down as a courtesy. I'm sorry, but that is political correctness 100%.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're saying that if I feel that notions of superiority are inherent to atheism, which I do to a certain degree, I should water it down as a courtesy.
No, that's not actually what I'm saying. What I'm saying, specifically, is that "(being) careful about what I say for fear of offending someone or creating a negative environment" is called "courtesy."
Moreover, if your initial complaint were that notions of superiority are inherent to an atheistic philosophy, that's a much better way to word it than "atheists are condescending," simply because it gets your point -- and the basis for your point -- across more clearly and less insultingly. (By comparison, imagine if I'd complained that all vegetarians were ugly, because in my experience they didn't get enough protein and consequently looked gangly.)
Now, I still reject the assertion that "notions of superiority" are inherent to atheism, especially when compared to theologies which include concepts like eternal life for a select few, chosen of God. But put the better way, it gives me an opportunity to correct your misunderstanding; put the original way, it leads me to believe that you're a troll.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that any time you have a discussion (debate) between people who think that their own POV is correct, you're bound to have some condescension--real or imagined, felt or not.
If you're going to enter into the arena of public discussion, you have to be able to handle a little condescension from your opponent.
It's like wanting to play basketball, but not wanting to get bumped. Tough luck; there's no way to do it. Don't play basketball.
Can we get over this whole sidebar, and get back to the original discussion, please?
What was the original discussion?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not concerned overly much with the condescension -- as you say, it's gonna happen. But the worldview it reveals tells me a lot about whether or not anything I say will be evaluated on its merits.
Don't think of it as courtesy. Think of it as accuracy. You do not know all atheists, you cannot make any assumption whatsoever about "all" atheists aside from their allegiance to the atheist viewpoint (and even that is open to argument over definitions). "I've often found atheists condescending," or "I've often been condescended to by atheists" are both defendable positions that get your point across. As you've stated it, if even one atheist is not condenscending, your absolute position is proven false.
Defending an ad hominem attack by complaining about political correctness just shows me you don't understand why such attacks are worse than useless in an argument and why they will work against you by weakening even your valid points by burying them in faulty reasoning.
So, how about agnostics? You OK with them?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe in God. But I know enough not to tell people that I believe in god because His existence is somehow provable.
I believe that God and the universe are reasonable, but I know that my personal belief in God stems not from abstract, but from subjective evidence. therefore I don't expect other people to believe in god based on my evidence.
I believe that any person can KNOW that God exists, but there is a prerequisite: they must first choose to believe, and this belief will be confirmed through their own subjective evidence.
IME, the problem with any conversation between theists and atheists comes down to the fact that theists act upon evidence that does not exist for atheists.
therefore, depending on your point of view, either theists are citing false evidence, or atheists "Just don't know enough" to recognize the truth. Both of these positions are condescending.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Boothby is the smartest person on the message boards.
I'm ok with agnostics. I'm ok with atheists. I'm ok with people being condescending. And I'm obviously ok with being consistently misinterpreted. I'm ok with these things because I do them all the time (well I don't agnostic or atheist all the time; apparantly I write poorly constructed paragraphs all the time too.)
Again, Tom, I must point out that I didn't know what I was getting into when I first started this thing. If I had, myabe I would have planned ahead. But even if I didn, I don't know that I would have said something like "notions of superiority are inherent to an atheistic philosophy," because I'm just...not...smart...enough to recognize how much better that sounds. It was only after, what, three pages now? that I realize that I could have laid a much better foundation. But that is one of the great things about these message boards. I am now better prepared to make my point, if ever I need to, in the future. Thanks for being my guinea pigs!
Here's how it helps. Chris says that if there exists one atheist who is not condescending, that disproves my assertion that ALL atheists are condescending. True enough. But with the much better assertion that "notions of superiority are inherent to an atheistic philosophy," I am in a much better postition. Now, lack of condescension in an atheist is simply an effort by the person to quell a distastful characteristic of his personal philosophy. Just like when a Christian refrains from telling everyone he's going to hell or a Muslim doesn't blow up a bunch of innocent people.
Why did it get so quiet?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're absolutely right, Hank. Except I don't really agree with your last statement. And now that I have said that, I can't think why not. Maybe I just don't want to agree with that. Hmmm.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Probably the reaction to the additional ad hominem generalizations of Christians as smug elitists and Muslims as suicide bombers. Good thing they're all able to repress their natural tendencies...
Do you think it's possible for someone to think another person wrong without being condescending to that person?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Chris says that if there exists one atheist who is not condescending, that disproves my assertion that ALL atheists are condescending. True enough. But with the much better assertion that "notions of superiority are inherent to an atheistic philosophy," I am in a much better postition. Now, lack of condescension in an atheist is simply an effort by the person to quell a distastful characteristic of his personal philosophy. Just like when a Christian refrains from telling everyone he's going to hell or a Muslim doesn't blow up a bunch of innocent people.
I'd say the assertion that "atheists are condescending" is misleading then. It would be more accurate to say that "people are condescending".
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Years ago, my family had a great little dog. It was a mutt--a combination of a German Shepherd and Lord knows what else. The end result was a 1/2 size German Shepherd. It was a great dog, very well tempered, and always friendly.
One Thanksgiving, we were at a friend's apartment in Brooklyn. The cousin of that friend was there, and she just hated dogs. Her characteristic statement was, "Oh, you brought your dog? You probably should just have it killed, instead." Throughout the night, she made a series of anti-dog remarks; they came from her as easily as someone else might discuss sports scores.
Well, our dog somehow knew. He walked over to her and sat down next to her, put on a typical panting dog smile, and slowly growled. To the rest of us, everything but the growl indicated a happy, friendly animal. But I knew that the growl was freaking this dog-hating woman totally out. I loved that dog!
I am a condescending atheist--but only (I realize) when I'[m sitting next to a condescending theist. One of my best friends IRL is devoutly Christian, and when we have our discussions, there's no condescension at all between us. Yet we both/each believe we're totally right.
However, sit me next to a condescending theist, and I start to smile and growl.
And Resh, I hope your kidding about "smartest," though you do have some of the smartest posters on this forum participating in this thread.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, no, because not all people are. I make the assertion, true or not, that condescension is a characteristic of many people, but is also a characteristic inherent to atheism. Therefore being an atheist places you in a default state of condescension, and it requires an effort to remove that characteristic. And honestly, I don't actually believe that, but it would explain a lot of things if it were true. In fact, it would be better for atheism if it were accepted as truth, becasue then all the atheist who act so much more enlightened than everyone else, and I DO believe that is the majority, could be excused by just saying, "well, he's an atheist, what do you expect?" And the ones who are not condescending would be rewarded with "Wow, how nice of you to not be condescending in spite of your atheism!" I don't know, seems like that would be better. As it is, the current state of things has most people thinking of atheists "jeez, what an a$$hole."
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boothby, one of my best friends, Stefan, is an atheist. And we have philosophical discussions all the time (usually when we're drunk). And I made mention of the fact earlier that people who know me but disagree with me are not condescending out of respect for me. It was at this point that one poster decided to take the cut-down route by saying he doubted I had anyones respect. I ignored him after that. But anyway, I think that, as well as what boothby had to say, might answer your question, Chris. By the way, I hope you realized I was being tongue-in-cheek. About the Christians. The Muslims really need to keep their impulses in check.
posted
I take that back, what I said about atheism being better off if the common conception is that condescension is a default state. I thought about it and realized how much is wrong with that. I won't go into details, but imagine applying the same attitude to a race. Yeah, thats a no-go.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
How is your assumption any different than the one saying that all Christians or all Jews (or all Muslims) are inherently condescending, and it's the rare person who finds a path without condescension?
And I'm ignoring the other denegrating and condescending remarks you're making about the other religions.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad you're ignoring them. They should be ignored.
I think they are different because I believe the argument can be reasonable made that atheism is inherently elitist whereas the most judeo-christian traditions in fact have a humbling effect on the practitioner. Love your enemy, worship God and recognize how inferior you are, all that.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To elaborate, as a christian, I know that there is nothing I can do that will ever bring me closer to God than anyone else. I'm a despicable sinner who has nothing withou Him. The superior attitude I adopt at times is out of pride and is not something pleasing to God. An atheist, however, need only look at his enlightened view of existence and realize that he is in fact superior than all those poor brainwashed saps who still believe in somthing as silly as God despite all the unassailable evidence to the contrary. This is where my superiority complex takes over when I start thinking, "how could someone let himself be convinced by a theory as ridiculous as macro-evolution? Open your eyes! The evidence is only there because it's what you want to believe!" And so we're pretty much two sides of the same coin, really.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
More on that coin: "I used to believe in evolution, until I found out otherwise. Now I know better."
This is how I actually feel. But change the word "evolution" to "God" and see how familiar that sounds.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: And so we're pretty much two sides of the same coin, really.
when just above that, you say:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I think they are different because I believe the argument can be reasonable made that atheism is inherently elitist whereas the most judeo-christian traditions in fact have a humbling effect on the practitioner.
posted
And what could be more elitist that claiming that only members of your faith can achieve salvation, while atheists will burn in hell? (unless your denomination doesn't believe in a hell)
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So a Christian claiming that his faith is superior to an atheists' faith in reason is on the other side of the coin to an atheist claiming that reason is superior to religious faith. Yet its atheism which is elitist, but not religion?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not much, Euripides. Fortunately, that's not what most thoughtful Christians believe. Like C.S. Lewis, one of the faith's best writers. He certainly didn't feel that way. It was more about your sincerity in your search for truth. The idea is that truth will always lead you ultimately to Christ, though if you don't make it that far, you still get rewarded for trying. It is for that reason that I thin kthat Socrates is certainly in Heaven, if everything that was written about him was true. In fact, if you consider the Allegory of the Cave, he probably made it to heaven while still living.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: So a Christian claiming that his faith is superior to an atheists' faith in reason is on the other side of the coin to an atheist claiming that reason is superior to religious faith. Yet its atheism which is elitist, but not religion?
Yes, in a sense. The coin idiom is about people in the two different camps, but the two different camps are not similar at all. If anything, atheism mimics true religion. I'll amend what you said by saying that a Christian believes his faith is superior to an atheist's because his faith is in something while an atheist's faith is in nothing. Because what is reason without a reason? Nothing.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see. But we're still a step behind you, then.
I salute Christians such as yourself [edit: (?)] who honestly and consciously search for truth. But likewise, I believe they've made an error somewhere. In my book they get credit for trying, too.
So in that respect, theists and atheists have a heads-and-tails relationship.
I don't think that this was what you were saying though, when you accused atheists of being elitist while claiming Judeo-Christians are mostly humble. I don't disagree that humility is a virtue among Christians. But it can also be for atheists. There are many kinds of atheists - the label refers to people who don't believe in a god or gods, and that's all we have in common. What matters is the system of morality we put in place of religion.
posted
That was a good post. As for a system of morality, there is none without religion. What you have is sophistry. And might-makes-right. I'm not smart enought to convincingly make this argument, but C.S. Lewis is. And Socrates. If you want to know how I feel about this particular issue, I suggest reading the Dialoges by Plato and Mere Christianity by Lewis. If you could care less what I think, I suggest you read them anyway.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, so you say that atheism sees religion as farcical and false. But religion sees atheism as wicked and sinful. Which is worse?
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: So a Christian claiming that his faith is superior to an atheists' faith in reason is on the other side of the coin to an atheist claiming that reason is superior to religious faith. Yet its atheism which is elitist, but not religion?
Yes, in a sense. The coin idiom is about people in the two different camps, but the two different camps are not similar at all. If anything, atheism mimics true religion. I'll amend what you said by saying that a Christian believes his faith is superior to an atheist's because his faith is in something while an atheist's faith is in nothing. Because what is reason without a reason? Nothing.
That's simply not the case. Atheists aren't people who believe in nothing - the word you're looking for is nihilists. Atheists are people who don't believe in religion. Most of us believe instead in a secular morality, in family, in beauty, in love.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Ok, so you say that atheism sees religion as farcical and false. But religion sees atheism as wicked and sinful. Which is worse?"
I didn't say that religion sees atheism that way, though it may. If you consider atheism idolatry, then it does. That's up for debate.
quote: That's simply not the case. Atheists aren't people who believe in nothing - the word you're looking for is nihilists. Atheists are people who don't believe in religion. Most of us believe instead in a secular morality, in family, in beauty, in love.
I know what a nihilist is. "We beleeves in nut-ting! Now geev us da mu-uhnee, Lebowski!"
Without reason, there is nothing. Not love, beauty, anything. And without purpose, there is no reason.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess this is where we disagree - I believe a system of morality can exist outside of religion; based on enlightened self-interest, on a system of values which promote honest and productive life rather than a 'might makes right' philosophy. I haven't read the Dialogues in their entirety, or Mere Christianity, and I might just follow your advice.
---
No, I don't consider atheism to be idolatry personally, but to be an atheist is to reject (not just to be ignorant of) the ways of God. Is that not a sin?
Certainly, there is nothing without reason and purpose. I just believe that those reasons and purposes can be found on earth.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Certainly, there is nothing without reason and purpose. I just believe that those reasons and purposes can be found on earth.
How can they exist in a universe that exists only by chance? Follow that down the rabbit-hole, you will see that they cannot. I'll start you off: If this is all a big roll of the dice, how can we have freewill?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody today can explain the creation of the universe, and I never said it was a matter of chance. 'Chance' or 'luck' is the label we give to reasons which are too tedious or complex to explain. Maybe the real story of the creation of the universe is less glamorous and profound than Genesis. Who knows.
And I believe that human beings are biochemical machines. So if in your definition that precludes any notion of free will, then I don't believe we have any. Though to me, the ability of our biochemical minds to rationally weight the consequences of our actions and form a decision based on criteria of our own choice, is free will. I'll give you an idea of what I believe - if there was a computer powerful enough to take into account every iota of matter and energy and all of their properties at a given point in time, I believe that that computer could calculate what the future will bring, exactly. [Edit: unless physics research into the critical state indicate otherwise]
To me that doesn't make life any less beautiful or meaningful.
And speaking of purposes, here is the purpose of my morality: life on earth.
quote: An atheist, however, need only look at his enlightened view of existence and realize that he is in fact superior than all those poor brainwashed saps who still believe in somthing as silly as God despite all the unassailable evidence to the contrary.
I don't think this describes most atheists. Believing that you are right about one issue does not mean that you believe you are a superior person. It also does not mean you see all theists as "poor brainwashed saps."
quote: How can they exist in a universe that exists only by chance? Follow that down the rabbit-hole, you will see that they cannot.
Sure, they can. They just can't be objective and universal. People can assign reason and purpose to their own lives. I find meaning in the activities that I engage in and the relationships that I form with other human beings. I see virtue in helping others not because of anything external, but because it means something to me. I don't need an objective morality to have reason and purpose.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread has deteriorated a couple of times, but keeps returning to something more civil. I've stated in the past that when this happens I will lock the thread, because the value in general isn't worth putting up with the bile. Perhaps this was long enough ago that some people involved in the thread weren't here or at least weren't active, so I'm going to give this a temporary pass and refrain from locking the thread for now. There won't be another warning.
Thank you for those who have endeavored to be courteous in the thread (and I believe Tom is indeed correct that courtesy is the accurate term at work here at Hatrack -- several politically incorrect attitudes have been expressed here, and in general that's fine as long as they're courteous, though there have been exceptions).
posted
I'm not sure what PJ was reading. Surely this thread hasn't been that bad? Maybe it was my remarks about the Muslims... but they were obviously jokes weren't they? Or were they...?
Euripides, I don't know what to say. I really don't think that your position of existence is unteneble, but that may be my own density. I'm gonna go with what the ancient philosophers went with when they asked the most fundamental questions about existence that have yet to be answered. The questions themselves pretty much place the universe outside the realm of chance.
And Amanecer, I wasn't necessarily describing atheists so much as atheism itself. And as for the meaning and virtue you describe, I think that the place you say you find them is the shallows of an ocean of meaning. This is not to say you are shallow. Just that if you look at why that meaning and virtue exists, you must go a bit deeper, which will raise new questions which take you ever deeper. The idea that at the deepest level there is nothing but random occurences.. it just doesn't make any sense once you get there.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for a system of morality, there is none without religion...
Like many of your assertions, this one is also unsupported by argument and is demonstrably false.
Tell you what: for ease of discussion, why not lay out your actual assumptions about what is "inherent" in atheism so we can address them? The idea that morality requires religion, for example, is one that's been rejected several times on this forum alone, and I believe you've voiced several other claims which have been roundly debated and ultimately discredited.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh, your analogy of "going deeper" only applies if you assume that ethics and morality must be universal (which, incidentally, Euripides already addressed). It is quite possible to establish for oneself a subjective morality without an appeal to a higher power- indeed, the moral system most folks get from enlightened self interest is identical in most points to the one favored by your average theist. Meaning and virtue need not "exist" as some objective truth in order to provide edification and guidance to a person.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My nonreligious ethical base, swiped from my landmark post of a few years ago:
"I call myself apatheist, but I'm closer to areligious. Religious belief simply has no relevance or impact on my life, except where my life is affected by people with religious beliefs. I'm not disdainful of religion, I recognize it's importance to society and our history, and I strongly believe that without religion it would have taken the human race much longer to achieve civilization, assuming it has. And I have absolutely no opinion regarding which religion, if any, may be true. I'll find out eventually, or not, and it helps me stay respectful when I talk to religionists about their beliefs. In the meantime I endeavor to be a good person anyway. There is satisfaction in making the world a better place, there is joy in making others happy, there is peace in making others comforted, there is strength in integrity, and there is confidence that comes from never doing anything you would be ashamed to admit to."
[...]
"Everyone in the world, everyone, knows at least one thing I don't, and likely a lot more. Something else to keep in mind when I get too self-centered."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for a system of morality, there is none without religion...
Like many of your assertions, this one is also unsupported by argument and is demonstrably false.
If so, then can you please demonstrate that it is false?
The idea that morality requires religion has been rejected by atheists on this forum, but I don't recall it having been demonstrated false. It is clear that atheists can (and usually do) act morally, but it is unclear that this morality would exist without the influence of some religion upon them.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
He can't. I'm sure he'll make a good go at it, and it will be convincing enough to him and others who want to believe in morality without religion. The only reason I'm so confident is because C.S Lewis was a whole hell of a lot smarter than anyone on this message board and probably smarter than nearly anyone who lived throughout the 20th century, and he used pretty much unassailable arguments showing morality can only exist as absolutes. This idea of "self-serving morality" is realy just moral relativism.
I'm rambling. I just woke up. I just mean to say that my arguments are, for the most part, not my own, because as I've said before, I'm just not that smart. But I've got confidence in my borrowed arguments because of the immence intellect of those who made them.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If so, then can you please demonstrate that it is false?
To you? No. Because I know you've done your own reading on this one, and are perfectly capable of doing more. I'd be happy to do so for Resh, though, if he's genuinely interested.
quote:The only reason I'm so confident is because C.S Lewis was a whole hell of a lot smarter than anyone on this message board and probably smarter than nearly anyone who lived throughout the 20th century, and he used pretty much unassailable arguments showing morality can only exist as absolutes.
You do Lewis far too much credit. His "Triune Paradox," for example, is laughable. May as well haul out St. Augustine while you're at it. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No offence, but what is laughable is you disdain for two of the greatest thinkers in history. I mean, if your disdain is appropriate, we must be engaging an intellectual giant!
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No offence, but what is laughable is you disdain for two of the greatest thinkers in history.
I don't grant the assertion that Lewis and Augustine are two of the greatest thinkers in history. Nor do I actively disdain them. I do disdain several of their arguments, however, many of which are horribly internally inconsistent.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is the question here "Can morality be learned without religion?" or "Is morality at all possible without religion?"
The first is yes. Teach children that they are part of a society, that their actions have consequences, and the golden rule (a concept more universal than just one faith).
The second is also yes. Humans live in groups, and certain actions result in stronger groups. To enjoy the benefits of living amongst honorable, honest, kind people you yourself need to be honorable, honest, and kind. Removing the possibilty of an afterlife involving rewards or punishment does not immediately encourage people to go wild since nothing matters, it makes their lives and the lives of those around them all the more important since that's all they'll have.
I have no doubt that without religion or other form of outwardly-applied restraint, many people would behave immorally (many do anyway). I also have no doubt that, even had they never found religion, many people would still be honorable, honest, and kind.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I've got confidence in my borrowed arguments because of the immence intellect of those who made them.
So you just grab the Time magazine with a 'top 10 smartest people of all time!' list and then parrot their arguments, content that they must be right because the people who came up with them were soooo smart? There's some intellectual rigor for you.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: He can't. I'm sure he'll make a good go at it, and it will be convincing enough to him and others who want to believe in morality without religion. The only reason I'm so confident is because C.S Lewis was a whole hell of a lot smarter than anyone on this message board and probably smarter than nearly anyone who lived throughout the 20th century, and he used pretty much unassailable arguments showing morality can only exist as absolutes.
Doesn't sound to me like an honest and conscientious search for truth.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
If you want. I'm very good at ripping St' Anselm's assumptions totally apart, too. Plus, there are some assertions by Stephen Hawking that I think are patently false, on their face. We should maybe have a party.
So, once I work my way to the "top 10 intellectuals" list, will I then be free to spout any sort of nonsense I want, and be believed? Cool!
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I think that we all know that religion--even devout religion--is no guarantee of living a moral life, either. Does give you a great shield to hide behind, though, when things start falling apart.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: And I think that we all know that religion--even devout religion--is no guarantee of living a moral life, either. Does give you a great shield to hide behind, though, when things start falling apart.
I forget where I heard this, but I once heard on the radio someone or other suggesting there be a study to determine what percentage of people behing bars for violent crimes are atheists and what percent are religious. It would certainly be interesting to find out.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
