Author Topic: Pope suggests it's better to be an atheist than a greedy Christian.  (Read 720 times)

Gloucester

  • Touched by His Noodly Appendage
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
  • Gender: Male
Re: Pope suggests it's better to be an atheist than a greedy Christian.
« Reply #30 on: March 28, 2017, 01:50:45 PM »
^ Good post, Books.

On your first point, that science is a tool: yes, it is a set of rules that govern our activity and understanding in the way the Universe works. To call it a "philosophy" would be similar to calling maths a "philosophy" when it is also, basically, a set of rules or tools that determine how numbers can be used.

Quote
Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. The term was probably coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – c. 495 BC).
according to Wikipedia.

So, not a lot about quantities and qualities in the material Universe from what I can see. But it does fit religious thought quite well. So, do fundie theists have to try to draw parallels between science (essentially "materialistic") and religion (essentially "spiritual") in order to attack science at the only level they can understand comfortably? And, because there are no parallels existing, fail miserably in the attempt.

We are on very different playing fields, playing with different shaped balls to different rules in different ways - but with fundamental similarities*. Bit like American football and soccer?

* All the players are human and, in some way or another, goal seekers. Oh, different shaped goals as well...

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Davin

  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6039
  • Gender: Male
  • (o°-°)=o o(o*-°)
    • DevPirates
Re: Pope suggests it's better to be an atheist than a greedy Christian.
« Reply #31 on: March 28, 2017, 01:57:18 PM »
While we're waiting, here are two arguments I routinely see from fundamentalists, and that are cropping up here, that I don't understand:

1.  treating science as a philosophy rather than a tool.  First of all, because when I look at what science is and how it works, it's very obviously a tool and if I can see that I'm not sure how anyone else could miss it. 

Second, because if you want to hold an atheist to account for philosophy gone wrong, there are several actual philosophies popular among many (tho not all) atheists to be used.  Materialism and humanism are both fairly common among atheists and both get a lot of criticism from conservative theists. 

Of course, the theist who wanted to take an atheist to task for such philosophies could run into trouble if the individual he's arguing with doesn't hold either of them, but it only takes a few moments to ask what his particular philosophy is and go from there.
I agree with you.

What I've heard people try to say, is that science came out of philosophy. And I can mostly agree with that, however I don't agree that it still is philosophy. Science is philosophy in the same way that cake is eggs, steel is coal, and beer is water.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Arturo

  • Do Something Crazy!
  • Not Defeated by the Dark Night of the Soul
  • ****
  • Posts: 1782
  • Gender: Male
  • Atheist, Humanist, and Champion
    • You two dig up, dig up dinosaurs?
Re: Pope suggests it's better to be an atheist than a greedy Christian.
« Reply #32 on: March 28, 2017, 01:59:42 PM »
While we're waiting, here are two arguments I routinely see from fundamentalists, and that are cropping up here, that I don't understand:

1.  treating science as a philosophy rather than a tool.  First of all, because when I look at what science is and how it works, it's very obviously a tool and if I can see that I'm not sure how anyone else could miss it. 

Second, because if you want to hold an atheist to account for philosophy gone wrong, there are several actual philosophies popular among many (tho not all) atheists to be used.  Materialism and humanism are both fairly common among atheists and both get a lot of criticism from conservative theists. 

Of course, the theist who wanted to take an atheist to task for such philosophies could run into trouble if the individual he's arguing with doesn't hold either of them, but it only takes a few moments to ask what his particular philosophy is and go from there.
I agree with you.

What I've heard people try to say, is that science came out of philosophy. And I can mostly agree with that, however I don't agree that it still is philosophy. Science is philosophy in the same way that cake is eggs, steel is coal, and beer is water.

Or in the way that gorillas are trees.
But, uh...well there it is.

"Nothing's a struggle, but everything is a challenge" - Anon


Gloucester

  • Touched by His Noodly Appendage
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
  • Gender: Male
Re: Pope suggests it's better to be an atheist than a greedy Christian.
« Reply #33 on: March 28, 2017, 02:16:41 PM »
While we're waiting, here are two arguments I routinely see from fundamentalists, and that are cropping up here, that I don't understand:

1.  treating science as a philosophy rather than a tool.  First of all, because when I look at what science is and how it works, it's very obviously a tool and if I can see that I'm not sure how anyone else could miss it. 

Second, because if you want to hold an atheist to account for philosophy gone wrong, there are several actual philosophies popular among many (tho not all) atheists to be used.  Materialism and humanism are both fairly common among atheists and both get a lot of criticism from conservative theists. 

Of course, the theist who wanted to take an atheist to task for such philosophies could run into trouble if the individual he's arguing with doesn't hold either of them, but it only takes a few moments to ask what his particular philosophy is and go from there.
I agree with you.

What I've heard people try to say, is that science came out of philosophy. And I can mostly agree with that, however I don't agree that it still is philosophy. Science is philosophy in the same way that cake is eggs, steel is coal, and beer is water.

But language moves on . . .

In Aristotle's days the style of thinking meant that "the love of wisdom" could include wisdom regarding the physical world as they perceived it- and which, as "Natural philosophy," lived on into the 19thC when "science" became dominant in the physical world and "philosophy" retreated (in use) into the conceptual world of meaning and understanding thought, life and, almost, everything. Except thst atoms, stars, galaxies, the rules of mechanics and optics, electricy and radiation etc have no intrinsic "meaning", they just "are", and are thus no part of philosophy today.

What we actually do with the fruits of science, however, can drag in philosophy in terms of the attempts to understand motives, morals, ethics and so forth.

Later: but I suppose it is expected that fundies use the meaning of "philosophy" that goes back to the 3rdC BCE. Goes in keeping with their understanding of the Universe.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 03:08:35 PM by Gloucester »
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

xSilverPhinx

  • Non Dvcor
  • Global Moderator
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Gender: Female
  • I Spy With My Googly Eyes...
Re: Pope suggests it's better to be an atheist than a greedy Christian.
« Reply #34 on: March 29, 2017, 04:37:34 PM »
It's great to see you back, Books! :grin:
I'm just a student of the game that they taught me.


BooksCatsEtc

  • Surprisingly OK
  • Global Moderator
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 8002
  • Gender: Female
Re: Pope suggests it's better to be an atheist than a greedy Christian.
« Reply #35 on: March 29, 2017, 06:05:15 PM »
It's great to see you back, Books! :grin:

Thank you!  My brain needed a break.
Sandy

  
"I think this is the prettiest world -- as long as you don't mind a little dying, how could there be a day in your whole life that doesn't have its splash of happiness?"  from The Kingfisher, by Mary Oliver

Gloucester

  • Touched by His Noodly Appendage
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
  • Gender: Male
Re: Pope suggests it's better to be an atheist than a greedy Christian.
« Reply #36 on: March 29, 2017, 11:54:14 PM »
It's great to see you back, Books! :grin:

Thank you!  My brain needed a break.

Not quite sure how to take that . . .


Spoiler: show
:grin:
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Magdalena

  • Butterfly of Doom.
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6217
  • Gender: Female
  • Angry hippies need to smoke cheap weed.


“I've had several "spiritual" or numinous experiences over the years, but never felt that they were the product of anything but the workings of my own mind in reaction to the universe.” ~Recusant

"Color me fascinated..." ~Asmodean, The Gray God.

Davin

  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6039
  • Gender: Male
  • (o°-°)=o o(o*-°)
    • DevPirates

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Magdalena

  • Butterfly of Doom.
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6217
  • Gender: Female
  • Angry hippies need to smoke cheap weed.
Re: Pope suggests it's better to be an atheist than a greedy Christian.
« Reply #39 on: March 31, 2017, 09:49:08 PM »
Dredge, dance with me while you think of an answer.


“I've had several "spiritual" or numinous experiences over the years, but never felt that they were the product of anything but the workings of my own mind in reaction to the universe.” ~Recusant

"Color me fascinated..." ~Asmodean, The Gray God.

Magdalena

  • Butterfly of Doom.
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6217
  • Gender: Female
  • Angry hippies need to smoke cheap weed.
Re: Pope suggests it's better to be an atheist than a greedy Christian.
« Reply #40 on: April 01, 2017, 06:06:38 PM »
OK. No more dancing.

I apologize for such outburst.  :shifty:

Let's remember what we're waiting for.
Well, Drudgery, you have followed the standard fundie pattern and made the same-old-same-old statements and asked the same-old-same-old questions over again. Stuck in your rut you are never going to want to understand.

Answering you, yet again, is a waste of time and energy. Though, it has been fun at times.

Live happily in your delusions, I'll stick with the real world, as shitty as it can be some times.
Your answers to some of my questions were somewhat shallow and childish, so in an attempt to get you thinking a bit deeper I resorted to repeated myself.  Alas, basic philosophical inquiry is obviously not something you are familiar with.  Instead, you seem content with delusions based on superficial emotions.

Dredge, this post has been reported to staff.

Now, some would rightly say that your presence at HAF has resulted in some lively discussion, but that cannot in itself excuse breaking the rules of the site. In your personal text you describe yourself as somebody who is "fascinated by atheism." That may be accurate enough as far as it goes, but over the time you've been here a somewhat more problematic agenda has presented itself. It appears that you joined this site in large part to attempt to antagonize its members by ridiculing science and engaging in personal jibes. The former tactic seems to stem from a belief on your part that science stands in place of a sort of holy scripture for atheists. That is not completely inaccurate--there are no doubt some atheists who are as uncritical of science as any Fundamentalist Christian is of the Bible.

Atheists who assume that all Christians hold the ridiculous beliefs of Fundamentalists are foolish and myopic. At the same time, Christians who believe that all atheists "worship" science are ignorant and prejudiced. People here have explained several times that they regard science as merely a tool to learn about our Universe, yet you still cling to your caricature of atheism, harping on the same vein of fallacious invective you began with.

The staff have made it clear that antagonizing the members of this site for your personal gratification is not an acceptable form of behavior, and you have been given time and opportunities to modify your approach to discussions here. At this point, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that you have no intention of trying to limit yourself to civil discussion. In light of this, a lengthy suspension or perhaps a permanent ban is the next step. Members of staff who have argued for a tolerant approach have been left with little in the way of support. Do you have anything to say in your own defense?


“I've had several "spiritual" or numinous experiences over the years, but never felt that they were the product of anything but the workings of my own mind in reaction to the universe.” ~Recusant

"Color me fascinated..." ~Asmodean, The Gray God.