An internet oasis of open discussion without personal attacks
Success wrote:I think this is a stupid question. Life is not absurd. If your life is absurd then you are not living a happy life. For people who say life = suffering, you are only suffering because you are not following your dreams.
Papus79 wrote:Supine - neat video!
His account of our needs is particularly interesting, and if anything I have to think it's our degree of self-conscious awareness and our sense of proximity to the character and nature of something, whether it's a unified field or whatever else.
I do think people can perhaps craft good internal lives as atheists but they need to do it very carefully to avoid the public pitfalls, as do we all. Our whole culture right now - from somewhat religious to spiritual but not religious, to agnostic and so on seems to easily be falling into this obsession of chasing stuff, or chasing likes on Facebook or followers on Youtube or Twitter. Really it seems like an addiction like any other and it's misplaced faith. It seems like, on the other hand, realizing that these are problems that arise from the fiber of your own being and turning inward to see your own inner space as that sort of 'battleground' where these things get resolved is probably our best chance at being happy. I think to this end that nihilism and depression are harder to overcome from, maybe not inherently an atheist perspective but, at least a physicalist perspective. The reason being - this world that we've created does look like a wilderness, still red in tooth and nail in its own ways, and it seems like there's next-to-nothing in the way of solutions to that. An atheist who perhaps believes in non-physical intelligences or energies flowing through themselves has at least some sense that they can built a sort of alchemical value into their overcoming of hardships - a true physicalist just has a lot of chagrin and eventual old age and dissolution to look forward to.
On the topic of pop culture atheism Karen Straughan said something in one of her podcasts that was pretty incisive in this regard. She suggested that in deciding to go political and be a 'big tent' community they brought in droves of people who by all intents and purposes weren't necessarily atheists, they just didn't like what God had to say. By her estimates this set back atheists as a group decades if not more. It seems like any place that gets hot or trendy will start drawing the dross and this seems to have happened with the atheist community for the last couple decades. What I mean by dross is that a lot of the churls who were once making Christianity awful are now off making other things awful.
Greta wrote:Dawkins and the so-called "new atheists" (a term they themselves disavow and despite) took a simplistic and sometimes childish approach because they were not trying to deflate the God of the philosophers, they are trying to deflate the simplistic and sometimes childish notions of an anthropomorphic God who mostly cares what people do in bed or teach in science class.
Also, Dawkins, Harris and co wanted to discredit the notion of a fiery pit of Hell that has traumatised many children (a la Angela's Ashes) and no doubt disturbed many sensitive adults. I support their efforts to reduce religious dominance over society while not agreeing with with all they say. By the same token, I supported what Germaine Greer tried to do in exposing unfair male dominance in the 70s while finding her extremely inconsistent - very much rocks and diamonds.
Some mystics would say that Richard's and Germaine's provocative advocacy work is a manifestation of "the lion phase" - where extreme action is initially needed to overcome inertia when attempting to effect change. So, later on, feminism became more subtle, compromising and sophisticated. One cannot maintain such intensity. Atheism will follow the same path, becoming more nuanced and sophisticated.
Slavery Is Still Legal in the United States
By Randal John Meyer On 8/25/15 at 6:33 AM
The 13th Amendment, as enacted, reads “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Supine wrote:The image of God argument comes from the notion that the universes is ordered, can be grasped intellectually, that humans have the intellect (image of God) to do this (carry out science, philosophy, etc.) and that there does exist a moral order. Of course, the religious view from Genesis is that the choices and actions of Adam and Eve caused the whole of nature on earth to fall into a certain disorder, where a greater harmony once existed.
(That is another Christian perspective, one I've never heard atheist address or attack assuming they even recognized it, that human choices and actions have consequences for all life on earth and even thew universe itself.)
Weight wrote:Is life absurd? Why or why not? Is there meaning to life? How can we create meaning if there is none to begin with? I am doing a study on Albert Camus and would like to hear your views on the subject and know if life is absurd or not. Thanks.
Users browsing this forum: Troglodyte and 3 guests