Atheism | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Atheism

evo said:
I think you have misintepretted him.

Or you are setting up more strawmen.Hard to tell with you sometimes.
Click to expand...

I am really getting tired of that allegation Evo. Every time you have made the claim, I have substantiated and explained my position, yet you keep trotting it out. Fair enough you can disagree with me 100%, but I don't appreciate your ongoing implication that I am deliberately posting against my own opinions, views or beliefs. There is no benefit for me to do that, so why would I bother.

To explain my perspective on this one, in the quotes you posted he says shun this, and don't do this, giving an advice on how one should address their life (from his perspective anyway). And in this advice, I got the impression he is essentially saying you must remain detached from the world, because it will always try to suck you in and control you. I got the impression he aspires to pure freedom during his short time on this earth, but I wonder at what price. Complete freedom means having no ties, no attachments, and no links to anyone, and for me that is a sad existance.

As you said though, I may be completely misinterpreting that paragraph, but that was my read on it.
 
Tiger74 said:
I am really getting tired of that allegation Evo. Every time you have made the claim, I have substantiated and explained my position, yet you keep trotting it out. Fair enough you can disagree with me 100%, but I don't appreciate your ongoing implication that I am deliberately posting against my own opinions, views or beliefs. There is no benefit for me to do that, so why would I bother.
Click to expand...
Sorry man.I just call it as i see it.

I wasn't necessarily suggesting you post against your own opinion but rather shift what other people are posting then reply to that.You did it to me,then antman,and now Hitch.

If you say you didn't mean to,I accept that and we can move on.

To explain my perspective on this one, in the quotes you posted he says shun this, and don't do this, giving an advice on how one should address their life (from his perspective anyway). And in this advice, I got the impression he is essentially saying you must remain detached from the world, because it will always try to suck you in and control you. I got the impression he aspires to pure freedom during his short time on this earth, but I wonder at what price. Complete freedom means having no ties, no attachments, and no links to anyone, and for me that is a sad existance.

As you said though, I may be completely misinterpreting that paragraph, but that was my read on it.
Click to expand...
Can I suggest to you to think of 'liberty'-- in the way Hitch is saying it-- like you may have read some Buddhist philosophers talk about it.They talk of 'non attachment' (to the ego) and not being herd-like etc. Thinking for onerself. This is liberation to them.

No where in those quotes does Hitch suggest you should eschew friends,loved ones have 'no links to anyone'
 
evo said:
Can I suggest to you to think of 'liberty'-- in the way Hitch is saying it-- like you may have read some Buddhist philosophers talk about it.They talk of 'non attachment' (to the ego) and not being herd-like etc. Thinking for onerself.

No where in those quotes does Hitch suggest you should eschew friends,loved ones have 'no links to anyone'
Click to expand...

He talks of not being subordinate. Taking no compassion. How can you have relationships with people if you always have to be in control, and you do not accept any compassion from them? As mentioned before, these are the aspects that cause me personally the most grief. Its impossible to have a good relationship without being subordinate at some times. Look at kids and their parents. The kid bows to their parents instructions, yet the parents lives are almost dictated by their duty to care for their children. Both have roles which at varying times mean they are subordinate to the needs of the other.

As for monks, that is probably a good example, because to some degree it is a selfish existance. While they give up most material wants, they also sacrifice more. I had a work colleague some years ago who's dad become a monk in Tokyo. It divided the family and he left their lives to a considerable extent. While it made his path to being a more perfect Buddhist more complete, the personal price paid was extremely high.

Thats the part I cannot accept (for my life). I understand the logic, but its a price I would be unwilling to pay, as I think the benefit (be it greater enlightenment, wisdom, liberty, whatever) is far less than the price paid.
 
Tiger74 said:
He talks of not being subordinate.
Click to expand...
Yes,be a free-thinker.He is inspired by guys like Oscar Wilde,Lord Byron, George Orwell,Aldous Huxley.

Thats good i reckon.

T
aking no compassion. How can you have relationships with people if you always have to be in control, and you do not accept any compassion from them?
Click to expand...
Control is your word.

As far as compassion goes,he saying better to give someone dignity,than pity."Teach a man to fish" and all that
Tell the truth,rather than condescend, "for their own good"

Further good advice IMO.

As mentioned before, these are the aspects that cause me personally the most grief. Its impossible to have a good relationship without being subordinate at some times. Look at kids and their parents. The kid bows to their parents instructions, yet the parents lives are almost dictated by their duty to care for their children. Both have roles which at varying times mean they are subordinate to the needs of the other.
Click to expand...
Seems to me you are going on a tangent.He's really just saying think for yourself.

Don't be a slave to 'God',or for that matter any 'ism'

Heres another quote from him to drive the point home.

If you want to stay in for the long haul, and lead a life that is free from illusions either propagated by you or embraced by you, then I suggest you learn to recognise and avoid the symptoms of the zealot and the person who knows that he is right. For the dissenter, the skeptical mentality is at least as important as any armor of principle.(p. 33)

As for monks, that is probably a good example, because to some degree it is a selfish existance. While they give up most material wants, they also sacrifice more. I had a work colleague some years ago who's dad become a monk in Tokyo. It divided the family and he left their lives to a considerable extent. While it made his path to being a more perfect Buddhist more complete, the personal price paid was extremely high.
Click to expand...

I think it's dangerous to live a life others want you to lead,Satre would call it an 'inauthentic' life..But you are perhaps talking about responsibility to family here.

The guy who became the monk probably thought it worth it.Must admit I find it slightly appealing myself.I think it's not necessarily essential though for the getting of wisdom

Thats the part I cannot accept (for my life). I understand the logic, but its a price I would be unwilling to pay, as I think the benefit (be it greater enlightenment, wisdom, liberty, whatever) is far less than the price paid.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.It's not for everyone.
 
evo said:
Yes,be a free-thinker.He is inspired by guys like Oscar Wilde,Lord Byron, George Orwell,Aldous Huxley.

Thats good i reckon.

T Control is your word.

As far as compassion goes,he saying better to give someone dignity,than pity."Teach a man to fish" and all that
Tell the truth,rather than condescend, "for their own good"

Further good advice IMO.

Seems to me you are going on a tangent.He's really just saying think for yourself.

Don't be a slave to 'God',or for that matter any 'ism'

Heres another quote from him to drive the point home.

If you want to stay in for the long haul, and lead a life that is free from illusions either propagated by you or embraced by you, then I suggest you learn to recognise and avoid the symptoms of the zealot and the person who knows that he is right. For the dissenter, the skeptical mentality is at least as important as any armor of principle.(p. 33)

I think it's dangerous to live a life others want you to lead,Satre would call it an 'inauthentic' life..But you are perhaps talking about responsibility to family here.

The guy who became the monk probably thought it worth it.Must admit I find it slightly appealing myself.I think it's not necessarily essential though for the getting of wisdom

Fair enough.It's not for everyone.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with most of what you say here.

Agree control is my word, but if you strive to not be subordinate in life, doesn't this automatically dictate you need to have control? That being said, if its purely subordination of thought he is discussing, then I have no issue with that part.
 
linac2thumb.jpg


http://void.printf.net/~conor/sa/LHCb/linac2.jpg

Check the t-shirt.
 
If there is a just personal God only Atheists go to Heaven. And I believe in that God.


Hey, Flannery O'Connor wrote a genius book called Wise Blood way back. I just wish I'd read it. But I did see the film. John Huston directed. Total genius. If theism interests you it's a must.


Hmmm, biblical scholars. I used to know a few. Quite a few. Not one was an Ameddican businessman - they're nice to share a chicken with provided you have another in your pocket. But not a lot of fun if theology is the topic.

Anyways, I'm working on a new religion. Or not. I call it Death of the Universe Mysticism. I'm still trying to figure out how to make a dollar out of it. TBH I'd settle for stealing someone else's chicken with it. Anybody got a chicken? Maybe we can talk.

I'm sorry to reveal that I've only read 100 odd pages of the thread and may have missed something, but did we cover Descartes' proofs of the existence of God? I've got some more if you'd like.

I've cooking a beauty.

Maybe it applies to Wise Blood. (Hey, I had to pick up one loose end. ;D)

BTW on Wise Blood, and I don't summarise this sort of thing well, it's about a bloke who develops such an obsession with atheism that he becomes a preacher on the topic. You become what you hate. But there are many more interesting points made.
 
I must admit that I am not really aware of Catherine Deveny outside of the little I have read of her in The Age.

She does cite her biggest influences as Bill Hicks, Richard Dawkins, Billy Bragg and Alice Miller. Quite an eclectic mix there.
 
I have to read a lot of Peter Singer for my ethics subjects. Some of his stuff is pretty interesting, he'd be worth the price of admission. He is a pretty persuasive arguer and can get you believing some mighty strange positions at times.
 
The SMH published an opinion piece this morning on the so-called 'new atheists'.

What a smorgasbord of tired, flawed arguments it is. The comments are almost universal in their scorn.

Russell Blackford appears in the comments and sums it up well:

The article by Dr Abramovich reads like a series of random comments, dashed off in unreflective anger. It is so permeated by distortions and misrepresentations that there is no hope of exposing them all in a 300-word comment.

First, Dr Abramovich appeals to the authority of Einstein and Hawking as if the writings of those physicists support theistic beliefs. Both made points by using the word "God" metaphorically, but Hawking is not a theist and Einstein was at pains to explain that he did not believe in a personal deity.

Second, Dr Abramovich displays a total insensitivity to literary tone when he reads the books of Dawkins and others. E.g., he fails to notice that The God Delusion is written thoughtfully, with a light touch, and is frequently humorous. Readers should judge for themselves whether the books that Dr Abramovich condemns match his simplistic and tendentious description.

Third, I am tired of the specious argument that various supposedly "secular" political idealogies also did enormous harm. Yes, Hitler and Nazism were responsible for terrible atrocities. Likewise Stalin and Pol Pot. However, Hitler was no atheist - and in any event, contemporary so-called "New Atheists" are political liberals and pluralists. They oppose all structures of comprehensive, authoritarian, apocalyptic dogma, including Nazism, Stalinism, and Pol Pot's agrarian communism. Such structures of thought do tend to perpretrate horrors, precisely because they so closely imitate the monotheistic religions.

The article is riddled with error in every paragraph, and its author seems to be totally unaware of the current state of the debate that he is naively attempting to enter. Dr Abramovich is the one who is out of his depth and clearly floundering.

Russell Blackford
Co-editor, 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Should this get you kick out of the footy? | Gina V Clive >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom