What philosophy offends you most?

[WindowtotheWorld]

I do not see how disbelief in an ancient war deity fosters non-philosophical hedonism. There can, famously, be a great deal of hedonism going on in churches behind the scenes.

Lucky's post seemed on point to me.

Humans can likewise use the pretext of religion to their bad ends. Why don't we leave it at that: human weakness and abuse of thought?

The subject of the thread however was with regard to what philosophy irks you the most, and I dipped my hat in. That is all.

[GE Morton]

My gripe is not with atheism in and of itself, but atheism as it is wedded to human vice and weakness (which it very often is, though not completely).

In an ideal society perhaps Communism could work.

In an ideal society communism would not even be considered, much less practiced.

[WindowtotheWorld]

My gripe is not with atheism in and of itself, but atheism as it is wedded to human vice and weakness (which it very often is, though not completely).

In an ideal society perhaps Communism could work.

In an ideal society communism would not even be considered, much less practiced.

True, but I'm talking about the mere consent to go along with such a scheme. If everyone was righteous, such a project would go well.

Just so, if everyone who adopted atheism was upright, there would be no obnoxious clowns like TheAmazingAtheist on youtube.

[Sy Borg]

Just so, if everyone who adopted atheism was upright, there would be no obnoxious clowns like TheAmazingAtheist on youtube.

If everyone who adopted theism was upright, churches would not be facing class actions from people molested by their officials as children.

As you suggested but seemed to later reject, the issue is human weakness, not vehicles for its expression.

[LuckyR]

My gripe is not with atheism in and of itself, but atheism as it is wedded to human vice and weakness (which it very often is, though not completely).

In an ideal society perhaps Communism could work.

In an ideal society communism would not even be considered, much less practiced.

True, but I'm talking about the mere consent to go along with such a scheme. If everyone was righteous, such a project would go well.

Just so, if everyone who adopted atheism was upright, there would be no obnoxious clowns like TheAmazingAtheist on youtube.

Your red statement is an example of what I referred to as a poor attempt.

There is no data that demonstrates a substantive difference in any objective measure of morality, ethical practices or any surrogate for "goodness" and/or "righteousness" between the religious and atheists.

[Pattern-chaser]

I have a deep dislike for Atheism as a cultural edifice (as opposed to merely a bare-bones intellectual stance.) Rather, the whole culture that follows upon its heels, which essentially reduces to "eat, drink and be merry." In other words, all that matters in life is furthering the passions, and there is no other transcendent reference point for human existence. This is not to say that all atheists are wanton hedonists, and that they are all amoral. I understand that humans are always complex beings. But the ideology in general is a sort of bland humanism which I do not feel uplifts the human spirit, but degrades it due to its stultifying and deadening ethic. I feel that a life of idealism and transcendence can truly match the possibilities inherent in humankind.

Sounds to me that you actually have a deep dislike of hedonism and a poor understanding of atheism, as demonstrated by your poor attempt to try to equate the two.

Agreed. To say (my paraphrase) that "Atheism ... essentially reduces to eat, drink and be merry," seems quite wrong, and intentionally insulting, to me. And I am not an atheist!

[Pattern-chaser]

My gripe is not with atheism in and of itself, but atheism as it is wedded to human vice and weakness (which it very often is, though not completely).

This would appear to be another intentional insult. But let's say it isn't, and that you post your thoughts with a more positive intention. Can you offer any support — evidence, or whatever — for your position? Can you offer examples of how, in the real world, atheism is wedded to vice and weakness? You say that it "often is", but this is not clear or obvious to me. Perhaps a real-world example or two might clarify your position?

[Sy Borg]

Hmm, here is the choice, as presented:

1) be an atheist and eat, drink and be merry

2) be a theist and molest boys.

Given that stark contrast of caricatured extremes, all I can say is cheers and bon appetit!

[GE Morton]

Hmm, here is the choice, as presented:

1) be an atheist and eat, drink and be merry

2) be a theist and molest boys.

Given that stark contrast of caricatured extremes, all I can say is cheers and bon appetit!

This focus on hedonism and depraved priests ignores the thrust of WTTW's objection, i.e., "In other words, all that matters in life is furthering the passions, and there is no other transcendent reference point for human existence. This is not to say that all atheists are wanton hedonists, and that they are all amoral. I understand that humans are always complex beings. But the ideology in general is a sort of bland humanism which I do not feel uplifts the human spirit, but degrades it due to its stultifying and deadening ethic. I feel that a life of idealism and transcendence can truly match the possibilities inherent in humankind."

Does religion foster or elevate the "human spirit'? Just what is "human spirit," anyway? If religion inspires or encourages "idealism," what "ideal" does WTTW have in mind? And what does he hope to transcend? Is that the search for a "divine purpose" for existence? The hope for an eternal life?

All of those concepts need some elaboration before we could determine whether religion promotes any of them --- and whether they should be promoted.

[WindowtotheWorld]

Hmm, here is the choice, as presented:

1) be an atheist and eat, drink and be merry

2) be a theist and molest boys.

Given that stark contrast of caricatured extremes, all I can say is cheers and bon appetit!

This illustrates actually the difference between you and me. I would say that the religious project is worth doing even at the price of corruption and abuse. This is because theism and religion save from death. Atheism, in my view, cannot save from death.

Theism is worth it, in my view. Atheism is forgettable and leaves a vacuum, a void, which only earthly carnal things take its place. I have experienced this sense of Voidness myself from my own deep personal experience. I am my own example. I don't need any other.

[WindowtotheWorld]

Does religion foster or elevate the "human spirit'? Just what is "human spirit," anyway? If religion inspires or encourages "idealism," what "ideal" does WTTW have in mind? And what does he hope to transcend? Is that the search for a "divine purpose" for existence? The hope for an eternal life?

All of those concepts need some elaboration before we could determine whether religion promotes any of them --- and whether they should be promoted.

Human spirit is something real in my view. It isn't some vapid, empty spook. It is Deliverance from Death.

The ideal I have in mind is arranging one's life in accordance with spiritual principles, which leads one to higher experiences and, at the end, freedom and deliverance from Death.....

You can try and determine whether religion actually promotes this Deliverance. In my view true Religion does.

I think we have lost the subject of this thread, which is "what philosophy offends you most." I have already made clear my own thoughts, and that should suffice. I have been more than liberal in my maintaining that I do not hate atheism, only some cultural versions of it. I'll leave it at that. I don't see the point in continuing to go around in circles....

[Sy Borg]

Hmm, here is the choice, as presented:

1) be an atheist and eat, drink and be merry

2) be a theist and molest boys.

Given that stark contrast of caricatured extremes, all I can say is cheers and bon appetit!

This illustrates actually the difference between you and me. I would say that the religious project is worth doing even at the price of corruption and abuse. This is because theism and religion save from death. Atheism, in my view, cannot save from death.

Theism is worth it, in my view. Atheism is forgettable and leaves a vacuum, a void, which only earthly carnal things take its place. I have experienced this sense of Voidness myself from my own deep personal experience. I am my own example. I don't need any other.

You are going to die, even if you believe you won't. Good that you have such a strong survival instinct, but appreciate that yours is wishful thinking, never subjected to critical analysis.

Atheism has nothing to do with personal voids. It's just not subscribing to the superstitious beliefs of ancients. I lose nothing important by not believing in Zeus and I lose nothing important by not believing in Yahweh. Ancient gods are anthropomorphised representations of nature. One can have awe and respect for nature without pretending that it is ruled by a quasi-simian consciousness.

[WindowtotheWorld]

Hmm, here is the choice, as presented:

1) be an atheist and eat, drink and be merry

2) be a theist and molest boys.

Given that stark contrast of caricatured extremes, all I can say is cheers and bon appetit!

This illustrates actually the difference between you and me. I would say that the religious project is worth doing even at the price of corruption and abuse. This is because theism and religion save from death. Atheism, in my view, cannot save from death.

Theism is worth it, in my view. Atheism is forgettable and leaves a vacuum, a void, which only earthly carnal things take its place. I have experienced this sense of Voidness myself from my own deep personal experience. I am my own example. I don't need any other.

You are going to die, even if you believe you won't.

I am not a madman who thinks there is no such thing as death or that we are not subject to it. I am taking about being saved from death's sway and dominion. About being released, post mortem, from death's grip.

I believe in the Vital Soul. And this Vital Soul is capable of triumphing over the diseased body. This is what I believe. I have no illusions that I won't experience decay and death of my body. I have an Absolute Faith I am the Vital Soul, apart from the lifeless body.

That is what I believe. You may think it erroneous and that's fine, but I feel I've sufficiently shared my views at this point.

[Sy Borg]

Hmm, here is the choice, as presented:

1) be an atheist and eat, drink and be merry

2) be a theist and molest boys.

Given that stark contrast of caricatured extremes, all I can say is cheers and bon appetit!

This illustrates actually the difference between you and me. I would say that the religious project is worth doing even at the price of corruption and abuse. This is because theism and religion save from death. Atheism, in my view, cannot save from death.

Theism is worth it, in my view. Atheism is forgettable and leaves a vacuum, a void, which only earthly carnal things take its place. I have experienced this sense of Voidness myself from my own deep personal experience. I am my own example. I don't need any other.

You are going to die, even if you believe you won't.

I am not a madman who thinks there is no such thing as death or that we are not subject to it. I am taking about being saved from death's sway and dominion. About being released, post mortem, from death's grip.

I believe in the Vital Soul. And this Vital Soul is capable of triumphing over the diseased body. This is what I believe. I have no illusions that I won't experience decay and death of my body. I have an Absolute Faith I am the Vital Soul, apart from the lifeless body.

That is what I believe. You may think it erroneous and that's fine, but I feel I've sufficiently shared my views at this point.

Fair enough. Millions believe as you do.

I don't think there is an immortal soul so much as we misinterpret what we are. We are individuals, but we are also part of far greater entities, like humanity, the biosphere and the Earth, whose lifespans are rather more impressive than our three-score-and-ten. I don't see how our personality as it stands now could survive any more than our personality at age three did.

[Pattern-chaser]

Atheism has nothing to do with personal voids. It's just not subscribing to the superstitious beliefs of ancients. I lose nothing important by not believing in Zeus and I lose nothing important by not believing in Yahweh. Ancient gods are anthropomorphised representations of nature. One can have awe and respect for nature without pretending that it is ruled by a quasi-simian consciousness.

What you lose by not believing in Zeus, Yahweh or Mithras is ... God. You apparently don't see this as a problem. Fair enough.

"Ancient gods" illustrate aspects of God, as all the beings we call "God" do.

One can, of course, "have awe and respect for nature" without believing in God.

I am not a madman who thinks there is no such thing as death or that we are not subject to it. I am taking about being saved from death's sway and dominion. About being released, post mortem, from death's grip.

I believe in the Vital Soul. And this Vital Soul is capable of triumphing over the diseased body. This is what I believe. I have no illusions that I won't experience decay and death of my body. I have an Absolute Faith I am the Vital Soul, apart from the lifeless body.

I too believe in the possibility of some sort of continuation after death. But I hesitate to describe it too precisely, as I have no idea at all of how it might happen, or what it might involve.

And I don't find the expression of views different from my own — religious or otherwise — to be, in the words of the topic title, offensive. I'm surprised that you do. What is so bad about atheism, that you cannot ignore it, but feel inclined to attack it instead? It's just another view, as unjustifiable as yours, or mine, is.