Why modern atheism is so shallow

[ajblaise]

So what I think we all can agree on and conclude with is that:

There are plenty of deep theists, but the average atheist will obviously be deeper than the average theist.

 

[SillySapienne]

So what I think we all can agree and conclude with is that:

There are plenty of deep theists, but the average atheist will obviously be deeper than the average theist.

Absolutely!!!

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Listen, I NEVER said that theists were shallow.

I do not think that theists are necessarily shallow.

I do, however, think that humanist atheists happen to also be incredibly deep.

I cannot provide evidence for this opinion, who can?!?!?!

How can one prove depth or shallowness?!?!?

If there's never proof, then there isn't much to argue about.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

So what I think we all can agree on and conclude with is that:

There are plenty of deep theists, but the average atheist will obviously be deeper than the average theist.

Can we? Even if so, we don't know whether or not that is the over-lap of averages or an actual causal relationship.

 

[Didums]

So what I think we all can agree on and conclude with is that:

There are plenty of deep theists, but the average atheist will obviously be deeper than the average theist.

Lol I think this is what Peguy is arguing against right? So yea, he wouldn't agree with us there.

 

[ajblaise]

On causation: Could the fact that someone is a believer cause, hinder, or turn them away from looking to deep issues (existentialism, popular philosophy in general, biology, sociology...) for answers on the workings of the universe?

I think a casual relationship could very well exist there to a degree.

 

[Bella]

So what I think we all can agree on and conclude with is that:

There are plenty of deep theists, but the average atheist will obviously be deeper than the average theist.

Why is that so 'obvious'?

 

[SillySapienne]

If there's never proof, then there isn't much to argue about.

Can we? Even if so, we don't know whether or not that is the over-lap of averages or an actual causal relationship.

To quote William Blake, "when I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

You can use your "N" to read between the lines of what this means, k?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

On causation: Could the fact that someone is a believer cause, hinder, or turn them away from looking to deep issues (existentialism, popular philosophy in general, biology, sociology...) for answers on the workings of the universe?

I think a casual relationship could very well exist there to a degree.

It can, but does not necessarilly, or even probably, as of yet. Maybe the fact that someone is a believer could turn them away, but I would argue that a need to find answers about religious beliefs, even if they had the self-serving goal of seeking validation, would require one to look at a lot of those existential issues.

Now, a religious person may just not be that much of a critical thinker, but the same is possible of an atheist.

 

[Didums]

On causation: Could the fact that someone is a believer cause, hinder, or turn them away from looking to deep issues (existentialism, popular philosophy in general, biology, sociology...) for answers on the workings of the universe?

I think a casual relationship could very well exist there to a degree.

I think that an average theist and average atheist may go to the same extent of research into their belief or why they lack said belief. Non-intellectual theists can be (well, are) willingly ignorant of deep issues, and non-intellectual atheists are as well. Ignorance takes multiple forms, we're all guilty of it to some degree. I don't think an atheist can call him or herself an atheist unless they know the arguments and the issues, otherwise they are just as bad as the ignorant theists in my eyes. Knowledge or educated opinion in either opinion is superior to lack of knowledge.

 

[ajblaise]

Why is that so 'obvious'?

I think a lot of the people who would even consider things like atheism and agnosticism tend to be at least some what intellectually deep people. It's a deep concept.

I would say however that with spiritual deepness and maybe even emotional deepness, people of faith probably have those things in great quantity than the average atheist.

I was equating "deepness" with intellectualism, I could have been more specific.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

To quote William Blake, "when I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

Sounds unprogressive to me. I like struggling to spread knowledge, even if it can be painful.

You can use your "N" to read between the lines of what this means, k?

Your condescension is an insult to all good taste. It's somewhat self-sabotaging as well.

 

[ajblaise]

I think that an average theist and average atheist may go to the same extent of research into their belief or why they lack said belief. Non-intellectual theists can be (well, are) willingly ignorant of deep issues, and non-intellectual atheists are as well. Ignorance takes multiple forms, we're all guilty of it to some degree. I don't think an atheist can call him or herself an atheist unless they know the arguments and the issues, otherwise they are just as bad as the ignorant theists in my eyes. Knowledge or educated opinion in either opinion is superior to lack of knowledge.

Being a theist is kind of a default position for many people, who are brought up into it. Most people aren't brought up to consider themselves atheists, so it implies some degree of personal intellectual and introspective thought when someone decides to be an agnostic/atheist.

 

[SillySapienne]

Sounds unprogressive to me. I like struggling to spread knowledge, even if it can be painful.



Your condescension is an insult to all good taste. It's somewhat self-sabotaging as well.

Darling, I can find and procure at least 10 or 15 posts of yours where you, yes, DIRECTLY ATTACK ME. (The above, ironically, not being one of them).

It has taken everything within me, (primarily pity), not to strike back at you.

You have mastered the talent of being insulting under the moderator's radar, whereas I have not.

Because I care more about this forum than I do not caring about you, you shall officially join the lone Wolf on my ignore list.

Peace out MP.

:hi:

 

[SillySapienne]

Being a theist is kind of a default position for many people, who are brought up into it. Most people aren't brought up to consider themselves atheists, so it implies some degree of personal intellectual and introspective thought when someone decides to be an agnostic/atheist.

 

[Bella]

I think a lot of the people who would even consider things like atheism and agnosticism tend to be at least some what intellectually deep people. It's a deep concept.

I would say however that with spiritual deepness and maybe even emotional deepness, people of faith probably have those things in great quantity than the average atheist.

I was equating "deepness" with intellectualism, I could have been more specific.

So you're sort of putting intellectualism and agnosticism together and emotional/spiritual depth and theism together.
That's interesting, that's exactly what God talks about, the one versus the other and which one He values above the other.
Just sayin'

 

[ajblaise]

So you're sort of putting intellectualism and agnosticism together and emotional/spiritual depth and theism together.
That's interesting, that's exactly what God talks about, the one versus the other and which one He values above the other.
Just sayin'

Well there ya' go.

 

[Bella]

Actually, sorry I got that a bit wrong, I just meant intellectualism vs faith.

 

[Bella]

...which is a whole different thread.

....a game of word association, anyone?

 

[Bella]

Well there ya' go.

yeah, I forget about your divinity...