The asymmetry is conspicuous. On one hand, every theist is also an atheist with respect to deities s/he rejects whereas atheists consistently reject all deities (at least for the reason the theist inconsistently reject all but one / some). And on the other hand, in the modern era, atheism is a second-order belief that 'theism is not true' whereas theism is a first-order belief that 'g/G is real'. Practical & theoretical asymmetries, respectively.I sometimes reflect on the asymmetry between atheism and theism. — Wayfarer
I expect that anyone who believes in life everlasting would not be materialistic, for instance, yet Christians, at least in the US, seem quite ordinary in that regard. — praxis
Did you mean to write "and the theists do not try to proselytize"? Otherwise I can't make sense of your statement. — Janus
The debate over atheism thus seems to me to be one engaged in only by those whose view of God is narrow and personal. That's not to say that atheists should be silent when challenged or attacked, but only to comment on the limitations of the dispute. — Ciceronianus
Atheism is not a thought system. — god must be atheist
Atheists don't form clubs because there is not much to discuss about atheism. "Are you an atheist, too?" "Yes, I am." "Me too." And that's where the conversation ends. — god must be atheist
To answer the OP: atheism is significant to atheists as much as theism is significant to theists; and atheism is significant to theists as much as theism is significant to atheists. In my opinion, anyway. — god must be atheist
By “thought system” do you by chance mean science? Science is more of a method. — praxis
As @Tom Storm pointed out, that'll be because of conservative christian attacks that prevent policy improvement.They are often also political attacks on traditional culture and spiritual values masquerading as rational argument. — T Clark
They are not passive. They are self-righteous and bitter. Many clearly are reacting to bad experiences with religion in their youth. — T Clark
“When any human group decides that they can define God, the outcome is always predictable. The “true faith,” once defined, must then be defended against all critics, and it must also then be forced upon all people—“for their own good, lest their souls be in jeopardy.” - Bishop John Shelby Spong
Not necessarily. Spinoza categorizes logic (i.e. laws of nature / natura naturans) as "divine" and understanding logic this way (via scientia intuitiva) as "blessedness". As a naturalist freethinker, this interpretation of "the sacred" appeals to me.What about the category of ‘the sacred’? Is that also rejected? — Wayfarer
By “thought system” do you by chance mean science? Science is probably better described as a method. — praxis
Theism breeds all sorts of convictions, demands, wishes, conclusions, dreams, hopes, institutions, strictures and emotions (not to mention wars and other forms of violence). — Ciceronianus
Yes, that and the current state of a significant part of the religious world around the planet, from the Trump phenomena, to Modi's Hindu nationalism and all nasty shit done in the Middle East on behalf of Islam. — Tom Storm
So... It seems you are acknowledging that it's primarily a political conflict rather than an intellectual one. — T Clark
The discussion is to a large extent a proxy for ethical issues - the ubiquitous presumption of theists that it is they alone who engage with morals. Hence the need felt by Lewis and Chesterton and Newman. — Banno
Absolute evil is the reflection/mirror image of... — Agent Smith
Nowadays, it's mainly a revolt against the unprecedented range and speed of change in modern culture. — Wayfarer
according to some doctrines, there evil cannot be absolute, for it comprises the privation of the good — Wayfarer
Weinstein examines the philosophy of 9th century theologian Johannes Scotus Eriugena, who proposed that "God has created the world out of his own being", and identifies this as a form of pandeism, noting in particular that Eriugena's vision of God was one which does not know what it is, and learns this through the process of existing as its creation. In his great work, De divisione naturae (also called Periphyseon, probably completed around 867 AD), Eriugena proposed that the nature of the universe is divisible into four distinct classes:
1 – that which creates and is not created;
2 – that which is created and creates;
3 – that which is created and does not create;
4 – that which neither is created nor creates.
The first stage is God as the ground or origin of all things; the second is the world of Platonic ideals or forms; the third is the wholly physical manifestation of our Universe, which "does not create"; the last is God as the final end or goal of all things, that into which the world of created things ultimately returns to completeness with the additional knowledge of having experienced this world. A contemporary statement of this idea is that: "Since God is not a being, he is therefore not intelligible... This means not only that we cannot understand him, but also that he cannot understand himself. Creation is a kind of divine effort by God to understand himself, to see himself in a mirror." French journalist Jean-Jacques Gabut agreed, writing that "a certain pantheism, or rather pandeism, emerges from his work where Neo-Platonic inspiration perfectly complements the strict Christian orthodoxy." Eriugena himself denied that he was a pantheist.
see that as a pretext like the whole religious war thing. As if atheists aren't just as capable of genocide, massacre, and total war as religious believers. — T Clark
Well it's an optimistic attitude. Actually it was advocated by Augustine, although it's fallen into disfavour since. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.