Where do atheists get their values?

  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #2
From the article:

John Gray is a self-described atheist who thinks that prominent advocates of atheism have made non-belief seem intolerant, uninspiring and dull. At the end of the first chapter of his new book, Seven Types of Atheism, he concludes that “the organised atheism of the present century is mostly a media phenomenon and best appreciated as a type of entertainment”.

He laughs when I remind him of this sick burn. “I wrote the book partly as a riposte to that kind of atheism,” he says. “There’s not much new in [new atheism] and what is in it is a tired recycled version of forms of atheism that were presented more interestingly in the 19th century. In the so-called new atheism people are [presented with] a binary option between atheism, as if there was only one kind, and religion, as if there was only one kind of religion. [It’s] historically illiterate.

“They don’t even know when they’re repeating ideas from the 19th or early 20th century . . .They don’t know anything of the history of atheism or religion. They’re also very parochial about religion. They take religion to be, not even monotheism or Christianity [but] contemporary American Protestant fundamentalism . . . It’s a parochial, dull debate. I thought of having a subtitle called Why the God Debate is Dead.”
 
Self described Atheist is a misnomer. It implies that they can be wrong about what their (own) beliefs ARE (not about the beliefs themselves*), and that someone external to them knows better.
 
Atheism itself is not a set of values.

Its a term which describes one of two beliefs in regard to a theistic God:

The positive belief that one does not exist. This version comes with the burden of proof. These atheists have not met this burden.

The second...


The lack of belief, based on not being convinced. This is fundamentally sound, and could only be rendered an incoherent view if someone proved the existence of a theistic god.

Neither is a set of values, but simply refer to beliefs regarding theism.
 
Bunches get their advice from Wiccan and call it "nature" ...HOWEVER

darker the skin........
maxresdefault.jpg
 
We get our values from Superman Comic Books

Truth,Justice and the American way

Superman comic books have better values than the Bible
 
As a non-Christian, I find it amusing how many of those of religious persuasion are stumped by the fact that non-Christians can be and are good and decent people. I can only conclude that these confused people are so lost that they would have no moral backbone if it weren’t provided to them from an ancient book. Because there are people as morally challenged as this, I am happy they found a god.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: GT
:: Gray’s own preferred branches of atheism are covered in the last two chapters of his book and they are philosophies not conducive to grand narratives. He calls them “atheism without progress” and “the atheism of silence”. The former is a sort of stoical acceptance of an agencyless universe, found in the thinking of Joseph Conrad and George Santayana, and the latter is a mystical form of atheism exemplified by Baruch Spinoza.::

How many branches are there?

:dunno:
 
We get our values from Superman Comic Books

Truth,Justice and the American way

Superman comic books have better values than the Bible


Heretic!

Spiderman rules. Well either that or Sgt. Rock! I'm still debating......
 
As a non-Christian, I find it amusing how many of those of religious persuasion are stumped by the fact that non-Christians can be and are good and decent people. I can only conclude that these confused people are so lost that they would have no moral backbone if it weren’t provided to them from an ancient book. Because there are people as morally challenged as this, I am happy they found a god.
Even having to ask the question implies a gross treason of thought from one human to another.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top