The Atheist Frontier

[maiforpeace]

http://www.rationalitynow.com/blog/2009 ... e-atheism/

Since the foundation of our community is built on real life relationships, do you realize we are on a virgin voyage?

[hadespussercats]

Virgin? Not likely!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Virgin? Not likely!

Part of me.

[Ian]

Virgin? No, I think a certain amount of perversion is required to be a member here.

[hadespussercats]

Virgin? Not likely!

Part of me.

But but but...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Virgin? Not likely!

Part of me.

But but but...

Yep yep yep

[Tero]

The difficult lesson for religious folks is that shit happens.

[Audley Strange]

"Freedom to act morally."

Yeah whatever gets you through the night...

[rasetsu]

1. Atheism opens one up to the search for knowledge, once "Goddidit!" answers have been abandoned.

Historically, theists and believers have been just as interested in knowledge, and indeed some of history's most famous scientists were believers.

2. Leaving religion behind allows me to live in a way that's truly moral.

Begging the question, and, ignoring that, if believers don't get their morals from a supernatural source, then they get them the same way that you do.

3. As an atheist, I fully acknowledge my responsibility and accountability in a way that theists don't.

I feel this is an atheist canard, pushing aside the fact that it seems religion specific, I reject the hypothesis that theists actually live this way. This is sort of the mirror image of the theist notion that atheists have no reason to be moral, it's a myth that theists actually view responsibility and redemption in this way.

4. Since I only have one life to live, I live it more fully than theists who believe there is more.

See #3. Again, this is self-serving atheist interpretation, solely to create a straw man to knock down.


It's peculiar that the author introduces the piece by suggesting we focus too much on theism and its negatives, and should take a moment to consider atheism's positive. It then, however, goes on to focus almost exclusively on theism, and using theism — a particular small set of theisms — as the measuring stick by which atheism should be measured. A more poignant example of double-speak would be hard to find.

It's also rather peculiar that for an article extolling atheists' openness to the search for knowledge and new answers, under the banner of rationality, the author has disabled commenting on the article. Apparently, open, but not too open.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

1. Atheism opens one up to the search for knowledge, once "Goddidit!" answers have been abandoned.

Historically, theists and believers have been just as interested in knowledge, and indeed some of history's most famous scientists were believers.[/color]

The fact that Newton was a believer was not important to his science. There's no middle ground of science and religion, they don't meet anywhere. So the fact that I'm Irish doesn't affect how much good science I can do. (Which would be damn little.)

[rasetsu]

1. Atheism opens one up to the search for knowledge, once "Goddidit!" answers have been abandoned.

Historically, theists and believers have been just as interested in knowledge, and indeed some of history's most famous scientists were believers.[/color]

The fact that Newton was a believer was not important to his science. There's no middle ground of science and religion, they don't meet anywhere. So the fact that I'm Irish doesn't affect how much good science I can do. (Which would be damn little.)

And your point is what?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

1. Atheism opens one up to the search for knowledge, once "Goddidit!" answers have been abandoned.

Historically, theists and believers have been just as interested in knowledge, and indeed some of history's most famous scientists were believers.[/color]

The fact that Newton was a believer was not important to his science. There's no middle ground of science and religion, they don't meet anywhere. So the fact that I'm Irish doesn't affect how much good science I can do. (Which would be damn little.)

And your point is what?

NNE

[pErvinalia]

1. Atheism opens one up to the search for knowledge, once "Goddidit!" answers have been abandoned.

Historically, theists and believers have been just as interested in knowledge, and indeed some of history's most famous scientists were believers.[/color]

The fact that Newton was a believer was not important to his science. There's no middle ground of science and religion, they don't meet anywhere. So the fact that I'm Irish doesn't affect how much good science I can do. (Which would be damn little.)

This is an argument that refutes what you say about religion and science, but unfortunately I can't remember the specifics of it. There are a number of books that have been written about it, and the ones I have perused have made a reasonable case in some respects. A philosopher mate of mine gave me the run down on one of these arguments once but it was something to do with the difference between polytheism and monotheism, and gave an explanation of why the Greeks were so inquisitive. Sorry, I know this is a pretty empty shit post, but perhaps someone who knows some of the details of these arguments can expand on what i've said.

[amused]

I don't object to religion in and of itself until it starts to make specific assertions about physical reality.

[rasetsu]

Well, I presumed he was mentioning Newton as a scientist who was also religious. However, Newton is probably not a good example to use because of certain specifics having to do with Newton himself.


"NNE means 'Mother' in Igbo Language. A language spoken in the Eastern part of Nigeria."


Are you going to clarify your point, Zilla, or not?