How can people find atheism intellectually satisfying? [Spirituality & Religion]
Its a shallow 16 year old philosophy.
I´m not an atheist. My believe is based in faith and only.
To try to find intelectual reasons for it is, rather, a poor conception of the intellectual, a poor conception of God, and probably both.
Not a point of view satisfying or even interesting for a three years kid.
The pretension of a "scientific" and / or "logic" basis for faith is not even shallow, it´s empty.
BTW, if you call "Logic" to else than Math symbolic logic, you are missing the very concept of it.
To try to find intelectual reasons for it is, rather, a poor conception of the intellectual, a poor conception of God, and probably both.
Not a point of view satisfying or even interesting for a three years kid.
The pretension of a "scientific" and / or "logic" basis for faith is not even shallow, it´s empty.
BTW, if you call "Logic" to else than Math symbolic logic, you are missing the very concept of it.
View 5 more replies »
Gouzi · 26-30, M
@SW-User Think before you comment. That i think atheism is intellectually unsatisfying doesn't mean I think the kind of theism you are describing is intellectually satisfying.
SW-User
@Gouzi yes, I'm sure your intellect is far superior to mine.
Gouzi · 26-30, M
@SW-User Honesty is the right way forward. :D No, but your thinking is illogical.
Gouzi · 26-30, M
@SW-User That may be sociologically true. Yet, that doesn't make it morally true.
Also, i do not think what we consider right and wrong is necessarily what is best for "technological" advancement, or what "furthers evolution. If this were sociologically true, then every belief would have to further those causes throughout history.They obviously don't.
If you're saying waht is morally right is what furthers evolution and tecehnological advancement, then this is just an assertion and not an argument for why this is the basis of what is right and wrong. Its not self-evident.
Also, i do not think what we consider right and wrong is necessarily what is best for "technological" advancement, or what "furthers evolution. If this were sociologically true, then every belief would have to further those causes throughout history.They obviously don't.
If you're saying waht is morally right is what furthers evolution and tecehnological advancement, then this is just an assertion and not an argument for why this is the basis of what is right and wrong. Its not self-evident.
SW-User
@Gouzi It is self-evident. If I told you that you were in denial you'd spout off about a river in Africa.
Gouzi · 26-30, M
@SW-User Well, at least we discover everyones dogmaticism eventually.
AngelofFail · 26-30, F
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
16 year old?
It's just a consequence of the enlightenment movement that believed in ratio, the scientific method, anti-dogmatic ideas and the search for objective truths. It's been around a bit longer then 16 years 😅
And you probably found people that question the idea of a God before the 17th century too. 😅 Science and the religious claims on God never really went well together.
It's just a consequence of the enlightenment movement that believed in ratio, the scientific method, anti-dogmatic ideas and the search for objective truths. It's been around a bit longer then 16 years 😅
And you probably found people that question the idea of a God before the 17th century too. 😅 Science and the religious claims on God never really went well together.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Pikachu I do not think it is at all the case of the one who asked the original question.
But, for some people, "intellectually satisfying" should be traduced for "what, with little effort, confirms my common sense a priori believes.
The ones for whom is said:
"For each complex problem, there always is a cheap, easy to understand, simple wrong answer"
But, for some people, "intellectually satisfying" should be traduced for "what, with little effort, confirms my common sense a priori believes.
The ones for whom is said:
"For each complex problem, there always is a cheap, easy to understand, simple wrong answer"
GwydionFrost · 56-60, M
When you realize that atheism isn't a philosophy, but an indicator of a philosophy-- skepticism --you gain intellectual satisfaction.
Starvation is the lack of eating.
Atheism is the lack of deity.
Just as there are many different ways and reasons why one might be starving, the same is true for atheism.
Starvation is the lack of eating.
Atheism is the lack of deity.
Just as there are many different ways and reasons why one might be starving, the same is true for atheism.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
DDonde · 31-35, M
It's not intellectually satisfying. That's not the point.
The point is that I cannot justify any of the religions to myself on an intellectual level.
It's not replacing one explanation with another one, it's removing the explanation altogether. Just because someone comes up with an explanation for the question of "why we are here", doesn't mean that I am obliged to follow it or recognize it as legitimate.
Leave atheists alone.
I also encourage other people who identify as atheists to leave religious people alone as well.
The point is that I cannot justify any of the religions to myself on an intellectual level.
It's not replacing one explanation with another one, it's removing the explanation altogether. Just because someone comes up with an explanation for the question of "why we are here", doesn't mean that I am obliged to follow it or recognize it as legitimate.
Leave atheists alone.
I also encourage other people who identify as atheists to leave religious people alone as well.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
Thank you for the BA!
Gouzi · 26-30, M
You all reminded me why ivory towers are necessary.
GodSpeed63 · 70-79, M
Your guess is as good as mine. Atheism belongs in the ground with the dead, not above ground with the living.
SapphicHeart · F
daisymay · 51-55, T
Is the point of being an atheist to find intellectual stimulation? I don't think so.
redredred · M
Because the god myth is basically a Just So story with a simple, silly answer no matter what religion you pick.