Theists in severe decline.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Sep 4, 2018.

  1. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    You haven't plucked up the courage to point at anything outside of a religious basis, so take your pick.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    935
    Put it this way, as an atheist I know what motivates me to act in a socially responsible manner, assuming you are a religious adherent, what motivates you?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    935
    I am a product of a secular society, I am an atheist, and for the most part I am socially responsible. How can this be?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    Societies, especially ones with predominant welfare institutions, function within a broad perimeter. Its not so much a question of why it can house someone like yourself, or even a subculture of persons like yourself (although apparently that's a no-no, since atheism magically evaporates from the social fabric the moment you talk about it in terms of more than one person).
    Rather, it is a question of how society came to this position (and furthermore, on what grounds it is progressive or even sustainable).

    Now of course, at this point you will no doubt hastily talk about times of antiquity, and the times are a changin, yada yada, and we have the sufficient political and technological know how to go where no man has gone before, yada yada. However, what you are neglecting in these discourses is a philosophical element that tethers politics to a "right" course (or maybe we should just keep it simple and say "a course", for the time being). And of course its politics, in turn that determines the utility of technology.

    In short, it is a sort of naivety, maybe not intrinsic to atheism, but certainly popular within it, that technological development will provide political solutions which in turn will provide philosophical solutions (or alternatively, bypass the politics, and just blast philosophy straight from the technological platform). I call it naivety because it is precisely this sort of "headless" dislocation of philosophy from politics (steaming along with the latest and the greatest on the technoligical front) that has given us the most catastrophic developments in our history.

    So, if your response to questions of cultural ascendency or philosophy is a sort of sneering indifference, I think the best place for you is on the sidelines, where you are not a danger to your self or others.
     
  8. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    935
    While the majority of the citizens in my society identify as religious, they are socially regulated in a secular framework. So it’s not a question of being tolerated by a philosophical majority.
    Sounds like you favor theocracy.
    There is now, and always has been practical reasons for social regulation and conditioning of citizens that has little to do with religious philosophy. You could argue that religion occupies a group identity focus that acts as a motivator, but we see the same behavior in other group identity such as nationalism or crowd behavior at a sporting event, so manufacturing a more suitable identity cult might have some advantages.
    Talk about naivety, you talk as if philosophy is inherently religious, it’s not. Technology and philosophy were with us at the dawn of our species, and will be with us when we retire.

    Religion is just philosophy created to deal with limitations in reason, as the limitation fades, so goes the philosophy.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2018
  9. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    The point was not to isolate philosophy as something intrinsically religious. Rather it was to indicate the absence of philosophy as inherently dangerous (for societies, at least, especially technologically advanced ones). So while you may think there is a certain suavenes, on an individual front, in shirking philosophy as an atheist, collectively it is quite foolish.

    On the plus side there is a natural (but not infallible) defense to such antics, since it never musters much in cultural ascendency (IOW it has no scope for independent existence outside of being reactionary to religion).
     
  10. pluto2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    853
    This world is just too evil and messed-up for there to be a loving God.

    Too many young people die by suicide these days which says that something is seriously wrong with our society.

    Lee Thompson Young committed died by suicide when he only was 29 years old. And I can name many other just like him who committed suicide when they were very young. Ellie Soutter comes to my mind.

    If so many people are forced into depression and are forced to commit suicide because of it this means that something is fundamentally wrong with our society.
     
  11. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    935
    Why would you assume that atheists don’t engage in philosophical endeavors? Like I said before, if humans are present so is philosophy, like technology, it’s part of everyone’s native skill set, atheist or not.
     
  12. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    Ask an atheist about atheistic philosophy and watch them dance.
     
  13. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    Another way to look at it is that we are too messed up to engage with a loving God. So we get the booby prize : some designated backwater where we can duke out our asymmetrical relationship demands with other similiarly asymmetrical personalities.
     
  14. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,215
    What's atheistic philosophy?
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2018
  15. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,148
    It's a two-step.
    1. There is probably no god.
    2. See 1.
     
  16. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    Actually it's a three step, with the middle one being "there is no phlosophy to define such probability", so it takes the form of 1 bold step foreard, followed by two instantaneous steps back.
     
  17. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    As far as this topic is concerned, the poorly formed aspect of atheism that relegates it to a position outside of cultural ascendency.
     
  18. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,215
    That looks like a lame attempt to avoid the question. Let's try again: What's atheistic philosophy?
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,143
    In his world, any philosophy that is bad.
     
  20. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,148
    You just admitted that you have no way to know either.
     
  21. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,894
    What then dance? Knock mud off the wheel? Etc?

    Please avoid such as resort to such avoids specifics.

    I do find it odd that you think atheists hold no views on life simply because the do not agree with yours.

    I like to be kind, I like to be honest and I like to be rational, there is more but those will do to present my point.
    Are these not a philosophy and virtuous to boot?
    And there is my belief the universe is eternal and that there is no creator...is that not a philosophy...and a very good one?

    I dont think you are being fair to atheists at all...
    They are driven by a desire to deal in truth and reject the superstition that still haunts us from the bronze age.
    Why do you find a problem with folk who want to deal in truth.

    And they seek to address unknowns truthfully by confessing that they dont know the answers to questions that no human can ever know.

    They reject fiction presented as fact and reject the horrible morality in the good book when believers simply make useless appologies.

    Atheists reject slavery for example yet believers dont do that.

    You talk about the athiest dance and I can see what you mean when I think about the performance a theists puts on when you point out that slavery is condoned in the bible or how they perform when you point out that JC did not return in the life time of those gathered to hear the promise that he would.

    An atheist is direct and answers questions put to him or her and in contrast theists are evasive.

    Really who do you think persues a moral philosophy.

    Alex
     
  22. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    935
    Apparently some think it’s any philosophy held by an atheist. Because we all know that atheism the guiding principle in every aspect of an atheist’s life.
     
  23. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    It is clear and apparent that there is a particular philosophical outlook (ie, a way to determine what is real, what is knowledge, etc) unique or at least necessary to (most forms of) atheism ... the problem is that it is not (apparently) apparent to atheists. Hence the dance. It becomes something like "Let's challenge philosophy but fall short of putting forth one ourselves".

    It is not to say they have no avenue to philosophy or values in general. It is also not to say that they have no ownership of philosophy or values unique or necessary to atheism. It is, however, their reluctance to accept ownership of them that grants them spectacle status on the dance floor, and relegates them to diminished returns on the cultural ascendency charts.

    In recent times, the only atheist group to break out into the cultural ascendency scene were communists, who tended to make a mess of things. This isn't to say all atheist endeavours lead to communism, any more than to say all theist endeavours lead to ISIS. It does however set a certain precedence for a lack of confidence (or a hyper vigilance to restrain the expression of anything open to criticism) that you see prevalent in many expressions of the contemporary atheist creed.

    It's kind of like someone who goes to the racetrack full of opinions on who will win and ambitions of profit, but is too miserly to lay down money on anything.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2018

Share This Page