Atheist versus former atheist debate

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Debate between Richard Dawkins, high priest of the New Atheism, versus an erstwhile New Atheist colleague Ayann Hirsi Ali who converted to Christianity


Summary:

"Richard Dawkins claim is that we have rational humanism to offer as an antidote to not just Islam but all forms of religious delusion. Dawkins asks is faith merely a comforting fantasy for those not brave enough to face the 'blind, pitiless indifference' that lies, in Dawkins’ view, at the foundations of reality? Dawkins, it seems, believes that this is the choice on offer: truth or comfort. And he has chosen truth."

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: "I would not be truthful if I attributed my embrace of Christianity solely to the realization that atheism is too weak and divisive a doctrine to fortify us against our menacing foes (radical Islamisism, etc.). I have also turned to Christianity because I ultimately found life without any spiritual solace unendurable — indeed very nearly self-destructive. Atheism failed to answer a simple question: What is the meaning and purpose of life? Of course, I still have a great deal to learn about Christianity. But I have recognized, in my own long journey through a wilderness of fear and self-doubt, that there is a better way to manage the challenges of existence than either Islam or unbelief had to offer.”



https://www.premierunbelievable.com...irsi-ali-the-clash-of-our-times/17772.article
 
To the secular person like myself,
a creator god makes no sense whatsoever.

If a god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all-loving,
It MAKES NO LOGICAL SENSE WHATEVER
for such a deity to create an imperfect universe in which any serious suffering at all exists.

At the very least. such a deity would obviously not be either just or all-loving
and certainly not worthy of being worshipped.

Beyond that, however,
why would humanity even imagine such a deity?
What even suggests it?
 
NiftyNiblick said:
To the secular person like myself,
a creator god makes no sense whatsoever.

If a god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all-loving,
It MAKES NO LOGICAL SENSE WHATEVER
for such a deity to create an imperfect universe in which any serious suffering at all exists.

At the very least. such a deity would obviously not be either just or all-loving
and certainly not worthy of being worshipped.

Beyond that, however,
why would humanity even imagine such a deity?
What even suggests it?
Click to expand...
One of the questions discussed is whether we need Christianity, whether or not there is an afterlife.

Richard Dawkins himself although atheist, claims to be a cultural Christian because his ethos, his values, his cultural milieu originates from the immersion of western civilization into Christianity for 2000 years, and that the west itself would be unrecognizable without the Christian tradition.
 
anonymoose said:
It helps some people. Others don’t need it.
When you say “we”, who specifically are you referring to?



Nobody knows. My guess is probably not.
I’m not sure what there is to debate.
Click to expand...

Western civilization's science, art, ethos, its capitalism, democracy, and cultural scaffolding came in some very real sense out of the West's immersion into the Christian tradition, either directly or indirectly.

The question is, whether or not there is an afterlife, was/or is there value in having Christianity regardless of whether or not you will ever meet Saint Peter at the Pearly gates.
 
Cypress said:
The question is, whether or not there is an afterlife, was/or is there value in having Christianity regardless of whether or not you will ever meet Saint Peter at the Pearly gates.
Click to expand...
There is.
Religion is natural to humans.
I think Buddhism is probably better though.
 
Cypress said:
Debate
Click to expand...

anonymoose said:
OK.
And?
Click to expand...

NiftyNiblick said:
To the secular person like myself,
Click to expand...


As I have suggested on several occasions, atheism, like theism, is a belief system. There are atheists who say they are atheists only because they lack a belief in any deity, but that always rings hollow to me. If that were actually the case, why not use the term "agnostic" instead of atheist. As nearly as I can determine, anyone who actually uses atheist as a descriptor (or as part of a descriptor) does so because of a "belief" that there are no gods...or a "belief" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

OR they are allowing a dictionary (some dictionary) to dictate what descriptor they must use.
 
Ross Dolan said:
As I have suggested on several occasions, atheism, like theism, is a belief system. There are atheists who say they are atheists only because they lack a belief in any deity, but that always rings hollow to me. If that were actually the case, why not use the term "agnostic" instead of atheist. As nearly as I can determine, anyone who actually uses atheist as a descriptor (or as part of a descriptor) does so because of a "belief" that there are no gods...or a "belief" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

OR they are allowing a dictionary (some dictionary) to dictate what descriptor they must use.
Click to expand...
Atheist, agnostic- whatever.
If asked I just say I’m an I Don’t Knower. Because I don’t.
If one truly believes he ‘knows’ , good for him. I’ve no argument against that.

I don’t see anything to debate regarding theism vs atheism.
 
Ross Dolan said:
As I have suggested on several occasions, atheism, like theism, is a belief system. There are atheists who say they are atheists only because they lack a belief in any deity, but that always rings hollow to me. If that were actually the case, why not use the term "agnostic" instead of atheist. As nearly as I can determine, anyone who actually uses atheist as a descriptor (or as part of a descriptor) does so because of a "belief" that there are no gods...or a "belief" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

OR they are allowing a dictionary (some dictionary) to dictate what descriptor they must use.
Click to expand...
The way American and British atheists talk, it's not even really about whether nor not a deity exists, strictly speaking.

They just oppose all aspects of religion. There should be a word for someone "who just doesn't like Christianity", rather than the more limiting term 'atheist".

If you listen to Richard Dawkins, most of the time he is just complaining about some story or parable from the Old Testament or New Testament, and how it doesn't comport with the scientific method.
 
anonymoose said:
There is.
Religion is natural to humans.
I think Buddhism is probably better though.
Click to expand...
Science*, capitalism, individualism, and democracy didn't develop in the Buddhist civilizations of southeast and east Asia. I don't think it is completely by accident that those events and practices developed almost uniquely during the history of western civilization.


* China had technology, but not the empirical scientific method of the West
 
Ross Dolan said:
As I have suggested on several occasions, atheism, like theism, is a belief system. There are atheists who say they are atheists only because they lack a belief in any deity, but that always rings hollow to me. If that were actually the case, why not use the term "agnostic" instead of atheist. As nearly as I can determine, anyone who actually uses atheist as a descriptor (or as part of a descriptor) does so because of a "belief" that there are no gods...or a "belief" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

OR they are allowing a dictionary (some dictionary) to dictate what descriptor they must use.
Click to expand...
I think I use the term "atheist" instead of "agnostic"
because belief that our universe as it exists
is the creation of a benign deity
seems literally insane to me.
And I'm using "literally" literally.

It would have to be a "benign deity" that seriously sucks!
 
Cypress said:
Science*, capitalism, individualism, and democracy didn't develop in the Buddhist civilizations of southeast and east Asia. I don't think it is completely by accident that those events and practices developed almost uniquely during the history of western civilization.


* China had technology, but not the empirical scientific method of the West
Click to expand...
I don’t see a connection or correlation of Christianity and the four things you mentioned. Western civilization governments were mostly monarchical.
 
Cypress said:
One of the questions discussed is whether we need Christianity, whether or not there is an afterlife.

Richard Dawkins himself although atheist, claims to be a cultural Christian because his ethos, his values, his cultural milieu originates from the immersion of western civilization into Christianity for 2000 years, and that the west itself would be unrecognizable without the Christian tradition.
Click to expand...
Interesting perspective.

I've always suggested that New Testament teachings didn't need the existence of a god to be a defensible philosophy.

As for an afterlife,
I don't understand how the perfect peace
that can come only with the cessation of existence
isn't thought of as more comforting
than an eternal consciousness that could only lead to eternal madness from the staggering boredom.
 
Cypress said:
Debate between Richard Dawkins, high priest of the New Atheism, versus an erstwhile New Atheist colleague Ayann Hirsi Ali who converted to Christianity


Summary:

"Richard Dawkins claim is that we have rational humanism to offer as an antidote to not just Islam but all forms of religious delusion. Dawkins asks is faith merely a comforting fantasy for those not brave enough to face the 'blind, pitiless indifference' that lies, in Dawkins’ view, at the foundations of reality? Dawkins, it seems, believes that this is the choice on offer: truth or comfort. And he has chosen truth."

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: "I would not be truthful if I attributed my embrace of Christianity solely to the realization that atheism is too weak and divisive a doctrine to fortify us against our menacing foes (radical Islamisism, etc.). I have also turned to Christianity because I ultimately found life without any spiritual solace unendurable — indeed very nearly self-destructive. Atheism failed to answer a simple question: What is the meaning and purpose of life? Of course, I still have a great deal to learn about Christianity. But I have recognized, in my own long journey through a wilderness of fear and self-doubt, that there is a better way to manage the challenges of existence than either Islam or unbelief had to offer.”



https://www.premierunbelievable.com...irsi-ali-the-clash-of-our-times/17772.article
Click to expand...
What is missing in the debate that both sides won't acknowledge about natural time evolving daily as personally alive in one's own skin since day conceived?

this staged show of intellectual minds only works to support those governing by reasonable doubt life is self evidently eternally separated as genetically displaced this rotation of the planet everyone's body is never same details again in compounding additions of everything experienced since individually conceived living in series parallel proportion as occupying space spontaneously unique simultaneously adapting exactly as adapting forward now.
 
anonymoose said:
I don’t see a connection or correlation of Christianity and the four things you mentioned. Western civilization governments were mostly monarchical.
Click to expand...
The Protestant reformation and Protestant doctrine unleashed the forces of capitalism, individualism, democracy, even if only indirectly or even unintentionally.
The Catholic Church established the first universities, and established the seven liberal arts as a course of education.
For centuries, Monasteries were the only places of literacy and learning in western Europe.
The Church emphasized the study of mathematics and astronomy, and was the only institution in western Europe to do so for centuries..
For centuries, the Church was the only patron of art, science, and learning.
The Church in western Europe resurrected and recovered the "lost" logic, math, and science of the ancient Greeks.
 
Last edited:
NiftyNiblick said:
Interesting perspective.

I've always suggested that New Testament teachings didn't need the existence of a god to be a defensible philosophy.
Click to expand...

I think the idea with these people was that a moral law had to come from a law-giver.

Otherwise, there is no objective moral truth, and morality just becomes a matter of human opinion or popular consensus.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
You don't think that's what it [morality] is?
What other credible source could it possibly have?
Click to expand...
No, I don't think we leave morality up to the popular vote or to opinion. That leads to moral relativity.

Hitler's opinion was that oppressing the Jews was in the best interests of Germany, and millions of Germans agreed with him.

Slavery was considered perfectly acceptable for centuries by millions of white people. Putting slavery to a vote in the antebellum south would have won a large white majority vote.

We don't have to know what all the answers are or how it works, but we can surmise that are certain kind of objective moral truths that are either etched onto the human consciousness or which can make appeals to the human consciousness - even though they cannot be easily explained by either Darwinian evolution or the popular vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top