Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John 3 · 10-23-2002, 09:28 PM

Is that the common belief among atheists today?

It seems that way. Does anybody care anymore?

10-24-2002, 05:44 AM

John 3,

The common opinion amongst atheists is that if our conjectures about man's origin and destiny are not informed by the natural sciences, they are as certain to be wrong as if we make an effort to be wrong! (eg. pink unicorns.)

Bill Snedden · 10-24-2002, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sammi:
Nice little exposition provided in the last post Bill. What I wanted to know was do you think there is enough information in our Universe OR there may be information enough to answer your question?

You seem to hold the position that there has to be enough information seeing there can be no without, no outside source of information.

The OP seemed to me to assume an atheistic perspective, therefore my response made the same assumption. In an atheistic universe, there is no outside source of information; if there is an answer it MUST be determined using only information from this universe.

My personal opinion is that whether or not there MUST be an answer within the universe, there certainly is one. I don't think that the existence of god(s) bears any necessary relationship on the question or human ethics, meaning, or purpose. Value presupposes a valuer; we create meaning & purpose in our lives regardless of whether or not there is some "higher" intelligence that might or might not have its own agenda.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sammi:
Can I agree? My reply is to wait and see, OR to assume the position of preparing to answer the questions.

IMHO, where questions or ethics or purpose are involved, "wait and see" is a dangerous approach. Answers to these questions are vitally important in determining how one should live and to what end. How does one delay making such a determination and what are the consequences?

It is certainly prudent to acknowledge that one might be wrong and that one's decisions are therefore open to re-evaluation, but one cannot delay indefinitely making such choices.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sammi:
My next response seems to be leading me to believe you wish to lead the search for HUMANITY.

Is this correct?

I'm not a demagogue nor do I harbor any delusions about leading humanity, if that's what you meant. I do believe that humans must make these choices for themselves. I also believe that rational deliberation and scientific inquiry can form the foundation of an ethical system and that meaning and purpose are possible in a naturalistic universe.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]

Seeker196 · 10-26-2002, 09:37 PM

Correct, my original post assumed not only atheism, but 'amysticism' as well.

If this is all, then what? in essence

John Page · 10-27-2002, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell:
Where did this idea (that if one can imagine something, it must be true, or it must exist, somewhere)?

Try Alexius Meinong.<a href="http://www.xrefer.com/entry/552771" target="_blank">Link to xrefer</a> The issue you refer to is dicussed toward the end of the entry from the para starting "Like many recent philosophers, Meinong distinguished ..."

Cheers, John

John Page · 10-27-2002, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seeker196:
From an atheist perspective, what are the remaining 'great questions'?

The remaining great question is "From an atheist perspective, what are the remaining 'great questions'?"

Good job Seeker196!

balisongsong · 11-09-2002, 08:20 PM

The really great questions have never left us.
1.WHAT CAN WE KNOW?-why is there anything at all?where do we come from and where are we going?
2.WHAT MAY WE HOPE?What is the meaning of the whole?What is left for us?
3.WHAT OUGHT WE DO?Why and whom are we ultimately responsible?
These are both ultimate and yet immediate,for which the atheist,alas,;has no answers.
God Bless.

Seeker196 · 11-10-2002, 04:37 AM

Those are pretty trivial questions for an atheist, actually.

'to whom'? Why should you suppose there is a 'whom'? It seems to square with what we see that there is a 'what' rather than a 'whom'.

ieyeasu · 11-21-2002, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seeker196:
[QB]

"I cannot. I contain multitudes."

QB]

Walt Whitman, or as my AmerLit teacher calls him, "Uncle Walt".

Keith Russell · 11-21-2002, 06:43 PM

Greetings:

I'm not sure they're great questions, but they are what I am currently thinking about.

Can an 'is' lead to an 'ought'?

Can subjectivism and objectivism be reconciled, and if so, how?

Why do people accept outrageous claims--or any claim, for that matter--'on faith'?

Keith.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-23-2002, 09:28 PM	#21
John 3 Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: West Va. Posts: 17	Is that the common belief among atheists today? It seems that way. Does anybody care anymore?

10-24-2002, 05:44 AM	#22
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	John 3, The common opinion amongst atheists is that if our conjectures about man's origin and destiny are not informed by the natural sciences, they are as certain to be wrong as if we make an effort to be wrong! (eg. pink unicorns.)

10-26-2002, 09:37 PM	#24
Seeker196 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 278	Correct, my original post assumed not only atheism, but 'amysticism' as well. If this is all, then what? in essence

11-09-2002, 08:20 PM	#27
balisongsong Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: phillipines Posts: 21	The really great questions have never left us. 1.WHAT CAN WE KNOW?-why is there anything at all?where do we come from and where are we going? 2.WHAT MAY WE HOPE?What is the meaning of the whole?What is left for us? 3.WHAT OUGHT WE DO?Why and whom are we ultimately responsible? These are both ultimate and yet immediate,for which the atheist,alas,;has no answers. God Bless.

11-10-2002, 04:37 AM	#28
Seeker196 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 278	Those are pretty trivial questions for an atheist, actually. 'to whom'? Why should you suppose there is a 'whom'? It seems to square with what we see that there is a 'what' rather than a 'whom'.

11-21-2002, 06:43 PM	#30
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: I'm not sure they're great questions, but they are what I am currently thinking about. Can an 'is' lead to an 'ought'? Can subjectivism and objectivism be reconciled, and if so, how? Why do people accept outrageous claims--or any claim, for that matter--'on faith'? Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.