Atheist/Anti-theist/Agnostic Troper Group

Absolutely.

I've read a bit of the agnosticism -book by Robin Le Poidevin. Not far, so many interruptions. -_-

Never stopped me before, though. Won't stop me now, either, and sorry if I reminded anyone of the certain song by Queen.

I'm gonna comment on agnosticism once I've read the book and the one about humanism by Stephen Law.

(Must.... resist... recommending.... Eagleton's... take... on.... the meaning... of... life...)

edited 22nd Sep '17 8:15:44 AM by MerryMikael

Okay. now I'm curious. What is his take on the meaning of life? I have his book Materialism, which is... so-so.

edited 22nd Sep '17 1:45:38 PM by Fireblood

My introduction to the community:

I do not believe in any specific religion. I doubt the existence of any higher power. I believe the burden of proof should not be to demonstrate no gods exist (or that existence is possible without some higher power), but rather for demonstration that a higher power exists or must exist. If there are gods, I believe that no religion speaks for them.

As children, I believe we were all born into that nothingness that is an absence of understanding and absence of belief.

In the time before civilization, humans developed the ability to think and eventually to reason. They attempted to explain the world around them, but so much was beyond understanding. I believe that the idea of gods were used by humanity as placeholders to explain the unexplainable. This explains why the ancient religions had many gods, each performing a different function or explaining a different natural phenomenon. How did the Sun move across the sky? Where did the Sun go at night?

Eventually, the existence of gods were not enough, because humanity could explain the natural phenomenons, but humanity could not explain the gods. Religion was humanity's answer, and it was the role of religion to explain the gods. Religion's role went further and become the governor of societal expectations, morality, and entrenched itself as an inviolable part of civilization.

Eventually, humanity began to develop to the point where the unknown and unknowable became known or knowable. Humanity no longer needed gods to explain lighting, rain, or why the Sun moved across the sky. There were explanations that made the necessity of gods obsolete. However, religion was so entrenched that, even after the necessity of explaining the gods (whose existence was no longer necessary) became unnecessary, religions continued to persist in establishing in humanity their necessity.

I believe that the fundamental struggle between believers and non-believers comes down to this.

Many of the biggest religions today are described as monotheistic, but are based on the Jewish/Abrahamic history. However, most religious scholars can point to the Abrahamic God being only one of many gods.

"The God that Abraham worshipped went under various names—El Elion (“God Most High”); El Olam (“God Eternal”); El Shaddai (“God the Mountain”); El Ro’i (“God All-Seeing”)—and appears to have been a version of the indigenous god El whom the Canaanites worshiped before and after Abraham’s arrival. El was the Canaanite high god, but under him served other gods such as the fertility god Baal and the water god Yam. Perhaps Abraham and his kin adopted El as their own, accepting him as the same god who had urged Abraham to leave Ur and seek out the land of milk and honey in the first place.

Only some seven centuries later, it’s thought, did this God reveal to Moses that his real name was Yahweh, and that he wished to be known and worshiped under that name henceforth. Worshiped, still, it seems, as one among many: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” says the First Commandment, implying that other gods were indeed a possibility, if an odious one. ... Centuries would pass before the Jews assimilated Greek thought, and scholars suspect that it was Hellenized Jewish philosophers such as Philo of Alexandria who imported the Greek idea of a single unitary God into the Jewish tradition. ... Scholars believe that not until the eighth century BC was the first biblical account of creation composed (starting at Genesis 2:4), and that only a couple of centuries later did an anonymous priestly author write down the full-blown version we get starting at Genesis 1."

It all leads me back to (my own) conclusion that gods, God, and religion are all man-made to explain the unexplainable. Morality, social contracts, codes of conduct, and faith are tied to religion. However, if man created those rules for themselves, it doesn't mean that the existence of some higher power is necessary for those rules to be important or enforceable. However, it does give mankind the ability to change the rules as societal norms require, without incurring divine wrath.

It doesn't mean that people shouldn't have a right to their religion or to their faith, but it helps to explain how I came to the conclusion that there simply isn't enough evidence to support faith in any religion or higher power.

And that's my view on such things, by way of introduction.

Fireblood, Eagleton approaches the meaning of life by taking a closer look at questions themselves, philosophical or otherwise, then taking a closer look at the very meaning of meaning itself from several different angles. He's first critical of the meaning of life and covers the pessimistic and nihilistic viewpoints, too. Arthur Schopenhauer's given as an example. Included is the possibility that the supposed objective greater meaning may not be something in our best interests or even something we'd really wish to know. How Lovecraftian/Ligottian/Poe-sque.

Since there are sociological patterns that are beyond any single individual's willing or control, there might well be some larger mega-pattern to life, too, that's simply beyond our understanding, says Eagleton. He does also take apart these grim and bleak worldviews, without forgetting deconstructionism. There appears to be a few passing sentences referring favorably to Marxism. Without having read other works by Eagleton myself, it doesn't seem to me that he heavily endorses Marxism or anything. Religion's criticized too(How'd you know? ) - albeit not singled out, which I also like.

He doesn't go all "Let's all make our meanings". I'm going to read it many more times. I can't remember exactly whether he still endorses making our own meanings to an extent, but at the same time he notes the seeming necessity and helpfulness of measuring made-up meanings with other commonly accepted ones and is against twisting the meaning-making ability to a glib rationale for acting like a scumbag(asphyxiating dormice and terrorizing old ladies are given as examples). I hope this is reassuring.

Eagletons states in the end that life may well be its own purpose that needn't any justification outside itself while still noting that questions like these are unlikely to be wrapped up neatly and that the discussion about the meaning of life is both alarming and enlivening.

I'm not doing justice to Eagleton's book by describing all this, but that's the most succinct I got. I enjoy his approach all the way throughout, its way of progressing so logically and surprisingly. I really recommend this book.

From what I have gleaned of Eagleton's leanings, he's a Catholic Marxist, which is very strange.

Probably not very strange in Spanish-speaking countries (especially Cuba), though. Marx might have been an atheist, and he even spoke against organised religion, but that doesn't mean religious people who mostly agree with him wouldn't adopt his ideas, anyway - just with some amendments, as we all do with any philosopher whose ideas we take in.

edited 24th Sep '17 3:59:02 PM by BestOf

Everyone's pretty much molding everyone else's ideas all the time IMO.

I'm vaguely aware of "liberation theology", yeah. Eagleton may also be a follower. Marxism appears to have taken some very strange turns since his time. From what I recall, even in his own lifetime Marx encountered some "Marxists" with very different perspectives, which prompted him to say "If this is Marxism, I am not a Marxist". Ideologies exceed their creators often times.

edited 25th Sep '17 11:13:27 AM by Fireblood

It's kind of remarkable how little control some Socialist thinkers have ended up having over ideas and policies that are carried out in their name. I'm no fan of Lenin, for instance, but I do have sympathy for his position regarding his own legacy. He wanted no cult of personality built around him, and demanded that there must never be a statue of him anywhere in the USSR. It would be a bit of an understatement to suggest that his wishes regarding this were not carried out. For reference. (I'm sure he would also have been shocked if he had known what St Petersburg was about to be named - and he didn't want Stalin to succeed him, either.)

edited 25th Sep '17 11:36:51 AM by BestOf

Well, that's true. Not only for them, but other thinkers. Once they've died (or even while alive, in some cases) things can go off in a tangent.

Evolution in the College Classroom: Facilitating Conversations about Science and Religion by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

(Also posted in the Christian -thread)

I think it's right to mostly keep religion out of any class that's about science. I do understand that for some students, the absence of their religion can be an obstacle, so as the article suggests, it might be a good idea to include, in the science curriculum, a brief reference to the fact that many mainstream religions do actually accept most scientific theories (including evolution).

I'm sure it would help if more leaders in the movements that conservative religious people tend to follow - including conservative politicians and conservative priests, etc - would be more open about their acceptance of evolution, if they do accept it. They want to play for the middle, though, or pander to the fringe, so they end up staying out of the discussion so as not to upset part of their fan base. If they were willing to speak openly about this every now and then, I think the good it would do for opening up the minds of people in these movements would be a long-term gain for everyone, even if the initial expense is that you lose a bunch of your most fringe conservative followers.

Pointless here. This is my first time on this thread. I consider myself Agnostic. I don't think that a god can be proven to exist. At the same time, I don't think a god can be disproven. I used to believe in Christianity until 5-6 years ago. I'm the only non-religious person in a family of Christians. I haven't told anyone in my family that I don't believe in god. I believe in evolution, separation of church and state, and that humanity has the power to change things.

edited 8th Nov '17 7:33:15 PM by pointless233

Welcome. I disagree, about some definitions of God at least, since they seem logically incoherent. That's just by the by though.

When searching "Why I am not a Christian" on Amazon, the two top results show one relatively old one by Bertrand Russell and another one by Richard Carrier. Any opinions, positive, negative, admiring, rejecting, critical, skeptical, neutral, mixed, undecided?

edited 17th Nov '17 7:31:51 AM by MerryMikael

Russell's was okay. It's been a while since I read it. However I'm not sure he actually understood the cosmological argument for God's existence. I don't know whether I've read Carrier's. Anyway both of them are available free online to read. Russell's: https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html Carrier's: https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html

edited 18th Nov '17 4:11:24 PM by Fireblood

Why thanks.

You're welcome.

No comments in a while. No one has anything to say anymore?

I'll bite. What do people think of objective morality? I think it is plausible on atheism and actually incompatible with theism (I'm happy to explain).

Morality isn't real. It's just a series of rules we follow to enable us to coexist with each other.

There are some tenets that are going to be pretty universal in accomplishing this, but that's about as objective as it gets.

Eh. I try not to intentionally hurt other people with my actions, mostly because I wouldn't want that to happen to me. Outside of that, I make my own morality. Laws and basic societal rules still apply, of course.

@ Elfive: By "isn't real" I presume that you mean we just invent these rules. Otherwise rules like this could be real too.

Yeah, pretty much. Can't be objective without an object.