Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314
Results 131 to 136 of 136

Thread: Brisbane: Appetite for wondering... what just happened?!

  1. #131
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    19,161

    Default Re: Brisbane: Appetite for wondering... what just happened?!

    Quote timewave said View Post
    While I can see the concern that feminism could take over atheism.
    I wonder how many atheists use the :-

    Religion is anti gay?
    Religion is anti woman?
    Religion is only pro hetro whiteman?

    As has been said time and time again in this forum, Usually as arguments against theists.

    Atheism is simply the non belief in gods and other supernatural causes.
    There is nothing in that to be anti religion about.
    Nothing to claim that we have to be secularist or humanist or feminists or not pro the catholic church cause it give substance and meaning and charity even if the catholic god is a fallacy.

    Atheism definition is Not Pro-Evolution, Pro-Science.

    AFA is finding being pro feminism very fitting and appropriate because it fits with the belief in equality and justice for all idea.

    I have to go, if I haven't expressed myself well I am sure everyone will tell me about it and I will try to address the questions when I get back.
    I guess it is an is-ought fallacy.

    I think all adults should have to take responsibility for their own ethics and behaviour. A lot of theists to this by cherry-picking the better bits from their holy books, and disowning some of the bad bits. Kudos to them. Some do not, and we call them literalness or radicals. So moderate theists are acting like moral agents in actually rejecting some of the bat-shit crazy present in the Bible, or Koran, or whatever.

    OK. An atheist is indeed only someone who lacks a belief in god or gods. That is a necessary, but is it a sufficient condition. An atheist is still a human being, and as such, is a moral agent.

    The next question, on becoming an atheist is to say, "OK, what's next?". Clearly, since the atheist lacks a belief in god [assuming a theistic religion of course], then they can no longer use their former holy books or priests or whatever for their "moral compass". Indeed this is precisely the concern of many theists. it is a fallacy of course. But that doesn't mean it releases the atheist from the moral obligation of trying to work out a non god or non-religious ethical system of their own.

    Some of this is pretty easy, like murder is wrong, stealing is wrong. So there is already some convergence between a rational and humanist atheist's position on these matters with those of a moderate theist, and indeed, the general community.

    Some theistic moralities can be automatically rejected by the atheist, such as blasphemy and apostasy. And then we have many morals in the middle which have to be worked out relativistically and in context.

    So IMHO, an atheist, by the very act of declaring that non-belief, has an obligation to build an moral system almost from scratch. To formulate a system of ethics, and to think ethically. Of course, the atheist is not alone, and dialogue with others [atheists and theists] can surely work out a better system of ethics for all than has been the case of most of history.

    ETA: Good ethics, although is can't come from science, can still be informed by it. It is not uncommon for religio-cultural values to be homophobic for example, but science informs us that sexuality and gender are more rainbow-like than digital [male or female].
    Last edited by Darwinsbulldog; 8th January 2018 at 11:00 AM.
    Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.

  2. #132

    Default Re: Brisbane: Appetite for wondering... what just happened?!

    Quote David Nicholls said View Post
    TokenSkeptic, that seems to be the highlights and doesn't appear to cover the contentious stuff from this thread.

    Is there a disc that covers the whole talk in Brisbane? It is very difficult to examine in detail what went on without it as has been stated in this thread.

    David
    No, that's it. Guess the discussion by people who attended it three years ago in person will have to suffice.

  3. #133

    Default Re: Brisbane: Appetite for wondering... what just happened?!

    Quote TokenSkeptic said View Post
    Quote David Nicholls said View Post
    TokenSkeptic, that seems to be the highlights and doesn't appear to cover the contentious stuff from this thread.

    Is there a disc that covers the whole talk in Brisbane? It is very difficult to examine in detail what went on without it as has been stated in this thread.

    David
    No, that's it. Guess the discussion by people who attended it three years ago in person will have to suffice.
    I would have thought that because as it obviously garnered some interest (about 13 pages worth) that it would be available somewhere so those who did not attend could get a better idea of what went on.

    Why wasn't included in the existing video?

    David

  4. #134

    Default Re: Brisbane: Appetite for wondering... what just happened?!

    13 pages that have been bumped from 2014. The video is about the same length as the others in the series seems to be a reason? so I guess that and the comments here will have to do.

  5. #135

    Default Re: Brisbane: Appetite for wondering... what just happened?!

    Quote TokenSkeptic said View Post
    13 pages that have been bumped from 2014. The video is about the same length as the others in the series seems to be a reason? so I guess that and the comments here will have to do.
    Mmmmm? Sydney was 40.03 minutes, Melbourne was 1.04:25 minutes and Brisbane was 26.05 minutes. In the Richard Dawkins & Leslie Cannold series Brisbane was way less in time.

    I think the full discussion should have been made available as I have said.

    I guess the reason it was not will have to remain unknown. Not good.

    David

  6. #136
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I live in hope.
    Posts
    5,935

    Default Re: Brisbane: Appetite for wondering... what just happened?!

    Development in moral thinking has been a long process in the West. We have a legacy to derive and build our ethics upon.

    The Christian too quite unappreciatively enjoys the peace, security and liberties that have been secured through struggle and intellectual application to the question of how a social species with evolved consciousness, intentionality and moral sensibility can have these affordances, culminating in Universal Human Rights.

    The Christian takes our moral progress for granted, arrogantly will not allow humanism to be the sole motivation and source of morality and ethics.

    The Bible and God is of earlier but human invention. Much therein is barbaric.
    Wars begin in the minds of men.
    The UNESCO motto, in Enlightenment Now, the Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress, Steven Pinker, 2018.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •