Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on August 30, 2015, 07:04:00 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a essay of today from BBC about atheism and religion.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34054057
***************************************************************************
We tend to understand atheism as a war between religion and science - but in earlier times atheism was both more complex and more rich, says philosopher John Gray.
In recent years we've come to think of atheism as an evangelical creed not unlike Christianity. An atheist, we tend to assume, is someone who thinks science should be the basis of our beliefs and tries to convert others to this view of things. In the type of atheism that's making the most noise today, religion is a primitive theory of how the world works - an intellectual error without human value, which we'd be better without.
But this isn't the only kind of atheism. History shows that atheism can have a complexity that reaches well beyond our currently dominant version. Though many today seem unaware of the fact, by no means all atheists have wanted to convert others to unbelief. Some have actually been friendly to religion. Nor have atheists in the past always turned to science for inspiration.
The predominant strand of contemporary unbelief, which aims to convert the world to a scientific view of things, is only one way of living without an idea of God. It's worth looking back to other kinds of atheism, far richer and subtler than the version we're familiar with, that aren't just evangelical religion turned upside down.
***************************************************************************
Cheers.
Sriram
-
In recent years we've come to think of atheism as an evangelical creed not unlike Christianity.
Who's this 'we'? It certainly refers to the tedious blowhard Gray.
-
Wot Shaker said,
We tend to understand atheism as a war between religion and science - but in earlier times atheism was both more complex and more rich, says philosopher John Gray.
What pretentious bollocks. It's reading tripe like this that encourages the less-than-clear-thinkers on this forum to think that atheism is a belief system.
There is no war between science and religion indulged in by atheists. And how can something which is conditional upon a single fact - that gods do not exist - be complex and rich. Gray should use his anus for its designed purpose.
-
Gray should use his anus for its designed purpose.
Aw, don't be mean! It can give a lot more pleasure than just defecating! ;)
Designed? :o
-
Remember that Gray is best known for having almost as big a break-time crush on Dawkins as our own Vlad.
-
Who's this 'we'? It certainly refers to the tedious blowhard Gray.
Clearly the sentence makes far more sense as,
In recent years I've come to think of atheism as an evangelical creed not unlike Christianity.
Or as we say it's an argument ad inventius populum.
-
Gray should use his anus for its designed purpose.
Designed? :o
OK - Evolved purpose. No intelligence implied.
-
Actually, as is frquently the case, Sriram's quote is only a small part of the whole.
The whole is in the old "Letter From America" slot on BBC Radio 4 and can be found on iPlayer.
-
What is more, the 'atheist' label was attached to Christianity in its early days by the Romans. Oddly enough, I'm not aware that they regarded Judaism, a monotheistic faith like Christianity, as an atheistic faith.
-
I heard squeals and whines from this thread and I came as quickly as I could ...............only to find it's just antitheists bleating because somebody has had the temerity to criticise them!
-
I heard squeals and whines from this thread and I came as quickly as I could ..............
No you didn't. You linked to the self-same article on another sub-forum and had to be told about it.
-
As regards the opening post, it certainly doesn't describe my attitude towards atheism. I'm simply an atheist because I see no reason or evidence to believe in god(s) for a variety of reasons which are pertinent to me. It's quite simple really. I happily accept that some people may see their own idea of a god behind or within the naturalistic world. That's entirely up to them, and as long as they cause no significant harm to others, I can respect their position. I have no wish to convert anyone to my way of thinking.
My own feeling is that the opening post is extremely limited and inadequate in trying to pigeonhole all atheists into a predetermined box of the author's own making.
-
As regards the opening post, it certainly doesn't describe my attitude towards atheism. I'm simply an atheist because I see no reason or evidence to believe in god(s) for a variety of reasons which are pertinent to me. It's quite simple really. I happily accept that some people may see their own idea of a god behind or within the naturalistic world. That's entirely up to them, and as long as they cause no significant harm to others, I can respect their position. I have no wish to convert anyone to my way of thinking.
My own feeling is that the opening post is extremely limited and inadequate in trying to pigeonhole all atheists into a predetermined box of the author's own making.
I am in complete agreement with that post.
-
My own feeling is that the opening post is extremely limited and inadequate in trying to pigeonhole all atheists into a predetermined box of the author's own making.
The post's author or the linked article's author, enki? ;)
-
My own feeling is that the opening post is extremely limited and inadequate in trying to pigeonhole all atheists into a predetermined box of the author's own making.
The post's author or the linked article's author, enki? ;)
I mean the article's author, John Gray, through the selective quote by Sriram..
I tend to support the responses of Liz (UK), Brian (Ashbourne) and, to some extent, Peter (Ireland) at the end of the article.
-
Gray should use his anus for its designed purpose.
Aha! So you admit anuses are designed....
-
What is more, the 'atheist' label was attached to Christianity in its early days by the Romans. please.
Was it? Can you provide some citations please.