Why are there so many atheism-related post?

[Eudaimonist]

Part of what appeals to me is that much of what we can see is obvious. Throwing acid in a little girl's face is bad. Anybody to which this has happened screams. We don't need brain scans to tell us this harmful, nor do we need philosophy for it.

Yes, this falls under "common sense", and you've chosen an extreme and very obvious example.

However, is starting a profitable business moral? Is that the vice of greed? Or is it justified self-interest? And under what circumstances?

So, it's not really as simple as all that.

OTOH, I don't think he suggests throwing philosophy out entirely, nor am I.

Okay, that's the point I wish to get across.

But for me, a lot of the "philosophical" discussion is reasoning. "If X and Y must be selected between, and X hurts more than Y (and all else is equal) then choose Y."

Oh, but it's not nearly as easy as that. What if X hurts someone else more than Y, but X helps you more than Y? Which do you choose?

Other questions might be more philosophical such as "X causes physical harm and Y causes emotional harm, how do we choose?"

Sure.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Perhaps similar reasons for Atheists coming here, they want to spread their "religion" ?

Perhaps for some, but in my case, I came here to challenge stigmas that atheists have especially in American culture, and also to have intellectual discussion with others, often interesting non-Christians who happen to be posting here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TScott]

Do you find it curious that Christians are drawn to Atheist websites?

Not really. It is the nature of Christians to evangelize, is it not? I mean, many "preach to the choir" but Xians are encouraged by scripture go take the Word to the non-believers.

I have no problem with atheists here, I just find it curious is all.

 

[TScott]

I find it curious that as many times as "why atheists come to christian websites" has been addressed, you haven't seen any of the answers.

Really? Have I participated in any of those threads? I don't recall lurking on any of them.

 

[TScott]

Do you now? I've always found it curious that Christians are drawn to atheist websites. I've seen plenty over the years.

As I pointed out to Tinker Grey, that may be because Xians are evangelizers. I've gone to atheist websites myself because I find the discusssions on theology on those websites to be very stimulating. I think the best Scholars on Theology are non-believers.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes, this falls under "common sense", and you've chosen an extreme and very obvious example.

That, of course, was intentional.

However, is starting a profitable business moral? Is that the vice of greed? Or is it justified self-interest? And under what circumstances?

Is there such a thing as the vice of greed? At what point does greed become a problem?

(I don't really want to discuss "greed" here. It's just an example.)

So, it's not really as simple as all that.

I guess there is an optimism on Harris' part that I'm not sure I share. In any case, I think that optimism is that science has answered many questions previously thought unanswerable.

Is it possible that those questions we think are strictly philosophical or even mostly philosophical are scientifically tractable? I don't know if I'm as optimistic as all that, but perhaps we shouldn't rule it out.

One of the people Susan Blackmore interviewed for Conversations on Consciousness (might have been Dennett, but I don't recall) said something on the order of: We go to philosophy for the questions, but not the answers.

Again, I'm not prepared to jetison philosophy. I find it interesting. And even if Harris is right, it won't be in my lifetime that we would acquire the answers that science has to give.

Oh, but it's not nearly as easy as that. What if X hurts someone else more than Y, but X helps you more than Y? Which do you choose?

And that is one those questions. I have no idea if there is a general answer. It may be for any given specific circumstance one could estimate statistically the probable best choices. It may be then that given decades of experimentation and measurement that general principles could be generated such that we would have a practible best guess in most situations.

Going back to the first post of yours I was responding to, I would suspect that indeed it is unlikely that science could entirely replace philosophy.

However, inasmuch as neuroscience can tell what we experience and how experience it, and inasmuch as evolutionary psychology can tell us we are a social species, and inasmuch as sociology can tell us how we interact, science can tell us we ought not throw acid in a little girl's face.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Really? Have I participated in any of those threads? I don't recall lurking on any of them.

You've been here 10 years and you don't recall anyone asking this perrenial question?

I've seen you around so I would have guessed that you would have run across this before.

I'll take your word for it.

 

[Gracchus]

You've been here 10 years and you don't recall anyone asking this perrenial question?

Ten years? who but a moron would would hang around for ... Never mind ...

 

[TScott]

You've been here 10 years and you don't recall anyone asking this perrenial question?

I've seen you around so I would have guessed that you would have run across this before.

I'll take your word for it.

I don't really care if you do or not, to be honest. I've never paid much attention. It's never been and still isn't a burning question for me. If I've given the impression on this thread by my "curious" statement then I retract it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Ten years? who but a moron would would hang around for ... Never mind ...

Yeah. We're all 3 in the same boat on that one.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't really care if you do or not, to be honest. I've never paid much attention. It's never been and still isn't a burning question for me. If I've given the impression on this thread by my "curious" statement then I retract it.

No need to retract it. I'm just surprised is all.

 

[variant]

I came to the "philosophy" section of this forum cause I'm really into philosophy (I even minored in it after failing to major it ).

Instead of getting a wide-range of topics in the areas of; ethics, epistemology, logic, and metaphysics, aesthetics? (who does this anyway?), the section was bombarded with "atheism" topics.

As interesting as atheism and the philosophy of religion is, that's not what philosophy is exclusively about! Even if it's Christian philosophy!!!

The board shut down the general apologetics forum so you get the discussion of atheism here in a philosophical light.

 

[variant]

As I pointed out to Tinker Grey, that may be because Xians are evangelizers. I've gone to atheist websites myself because I find the discusssions on theology on those websites to be very stimulating. I think the best Scholars on Theology are non-believers.

That is because non-believers are free to question everything.

 

[illtone]

I do find it curious, though, that atheists are drawn to a Christian website.

In order to become more well rounded, open minded, and intellectually honest you must constantly challenge your own beliefs with the perspectives of other contrary beliefs.

In fact, you should visit more atheist sites to challenge yourself. That's what I did when I was a christian, open to exploring contrary beliefs, and look at me now, an atheist!

 

[TScott]

In order to become more well rounded, open minded, and intellectually honest you must constantly challenge your own beliefs with the perspectives of other contrary beliefs.

And what beliefs do you have as an atheist that can be challenged by Xians?

 

[illtone]

And what beliefs do you have as an atheist that can be challenged by Xians?

I believe I don't have any good reason to believe in god.

 

[TScott]

I believe I don't have any good reason to believe in god.

And this belief can be challenged simply by the beliefs of others?

Cool.

 

[Eudaimonist]

And this belief can be challenged simply by the beliefs of others?

No, by the arguments and evidence of others, of course.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[illtone]

And this belief can be challenged simply by the beliefs of others?

Cool.

It can be challenged by arguments that contradict it, i.e. arguments that suppose there are good reasons to believe in god.

 

[TScott]

No, by the arguments and evidence of others, of course.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Of course you realize that physical evidence is not a component of faith based belief in a personal God.