Philosophy

[Confed999]

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJohn

First topic is atheism, should it be considered a religion? This is from a philisophical standpoint

If they have "faith" there is no god(s), then yes... But that is from a defineable standpoint.

[dalem]

Originally Posted by Confed999

If they have "faith" there is no god(s), then yes... But that is from a defineable standpoint.

A deity is an unproveable concept - it exists outside of the realm of mathematics and reason. One does not need "faith" to not believe in something for which there exists no evidence. So atheism is not an active belief in no deity - athiesm is simply the absence of such a belief, much like cold is really just the absence of heat.

-dale

[Julie]

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJohn

Take this quiz, post your tension percentage, and let us begun a raging philisophical argument. First topic is atheism, should it be considered a religion? This is from a philisophical standpoint, not a moral or ethical one.

Regards, John Higgins

No it should not.

[Confed999]

Originally Posted by dalem

A deity is an unproveable concept - it exists outside of the realm of mathematics and reason. One does not need "faith" to not believe in something for which there exists no evidence. So atheism is not an active belief in no deity - athiesm is simply the absence of such a belief, much like cold is really just the absence of heat.

-dale

You went philosophical...
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

...and cold is really just less heat.

[Confed999]

Originally Posted by dalem

So atheism is not an active belief in no deity - athiesm is simply the absence of such a belief

If we go philosophical, I still say yes. They do not believe in a supreme being, their faith is in random chance.

[Avenger]

Originally Posted by dalem

The atheist does not believe in the possibility of a deity, the agnostic does.

-dale

Thanks, Dale. Then I am an atheist. But I nevertheless believe there is much to worship in our world and in the universe: love, beauty, the epic ongoing struggle between good and evil and the heroism it inspires; stuff like that. Life itself. But Jesus, Gawd, and Prophets (who too often prefer to get their converts into bed) I can do without.

[Anon]

I'm an agnostic that believes that there is definitely a diety(whom i call mother nature), but who claims to have NO idea of it's purpose or expectations of me.

I think organized religion is flat out stupid.

[dalem]

Originally Posted by Confed999

If we go philosophical, I still say yes. They do not believe in a supreme being, their faith is in random chance.

Fine, but you're still wrong.

-dale

[Confed999]

Originally Posted by dalem

Fine, but you're still wrong.

-dale

And looking at the exact same scientific evidence, I know you're wrong. Neat how that works.

[Blademaster]

Guys, you didn't get my trick question.

We all know how long guys can live without a woman. But I wonder how long can guys live with a woman?

[Julie]

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Guys, you didn't get my trick question.

We all know how long guys can live without a woman. But I wonder how long can guys live with a woman?

Compatibility is the key. Never do something in the relationship than can not be undone.

[Franco Lolan]

Doing work on Milton's Paradise Lost right now so I'll drop a line:

"false philosophy" (sophistry) fails to "Justify God's ways to men." For God is supreme and Absolute Truth cannot be analyzed rationally: Either believe or do not believe.

Being a Catholic and a student at St. Thomas Aquinas, however, I understand that as Aquinas writes in his Summa Theologica, some aspects of God can be explained rationally (Creation).

[Julie]

The field of ethics, also called moral philosophy, involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.

Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean.

Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions?

Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves. Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. Finally, applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear war. By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in applied ethics try to resolve these controversial issues.

The lines of distinction between metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry. For example, the issue of abortion is an applied ethical topic since it involves a specific type of controversial behavior. But it also depends on more general normative principles, such as the right of self-rule and the right to life, which are litmus tests for determining the morality of that procedure. The issue also rests on metaethical issues such as, "where do rights come from?" and "what kind of beings have rights?"

http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm

There is an excellent section there on female and male morality if anyone might be interested.

[Avenger]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

I'm an agnostic that believes that there is definitely a diety(whom i call mother nature), but who claims to have NO idea of it's purpose or expectations of me.

I think organized religion is flat out stupid.

Hey, a brother non-believer. I would extend Mother Nature to comprise life throughout the universe, somewhat akin to the Force of Star Wars fame. In this larger scheme of things, even the entire history of the human race is of but microbial significance. But we can love, and help, each other, and morally, that is what we all ought to do. That's why the misdeeds of miscreants such as Osama and Zarqawi may be construed, even by unbelievers like me, as offenses against God (as thus broadly conceived).

[Anon]

That's about how i see it.

Mother nature is both the rules, and the enforcer of said rules.
She is the system by which we all live. Everything that is belongs to Mother Nature...if that's not God, what is?