A Philosopher of Religion Calls it Quits

[cleanhippie]

Keith Parsons announces that the “case for theism” is a fraud, and sparks a firestorm.

When philosophy professor Keith Parsons posted an announcement on his blog, The Secular Outpost, explaining why he had decided to abandon philosophy of religion, he expected only his handful of regular readers to take notice. After a decade teaching philosophy of religion at the University of Houston, during which time he founded the philosophy of religion journal Philo and published over twenty books and articles in the field, Parsons hung up his hat on September 1:

I have to confess that I now regard “the case for theism” as a fraud and I can no longer take it seriously enough to present it to a class as a respectable philosophical position—no more than I could present intelligent design as a legitimate biological theory. BTW, in saying that I now consider the case for theism to be a fraud, I do not mean to charge that the people making that case are frauds who aim to fool us with claims they know to be empty. No, theistic philosophers and apologists are almost painfully earnest and honest... I just cannot take their arguments seriously any more, and if you cannot take something seriously, you should not try to devote serious academic attention to it.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:


To his surprise, the announcement went viral. Posted and reposted on blogs such as Leiter Reports, The Prosblogion, and Debunking Christianity, it generated hundreds of comments in the subsequent weeks about the status of the field and whether Parsons’ criticisms were warranted. “It’s not that often philosophers renounce fields!” says Brian Leiter, a philosopher at the University of Chicago, at Leiter Reports. Parsons’ incendiary choice of words likely also bore some responsibility for the reaction. “I’m afraid what precipitated the thing going viral is that I said it was a fraud, which I shouldn’t have said, because ‘fraud’ implies an intentional attempt to fool people,” Parsons says.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/3853/a_philosopher_of_religion_calls_it_quits/

[Uben]

1. "an intentional attempt to fool people"

Isn't that exactly what religion is? They offer a promise of something fictional for financial gain. Religion is a fraud....always has been. Why is the VAtican so rich? Why do we see these mega-churches? Why are there multi-millionaire televangelists? Money and ignorance. They sell hope for profit.





This is my opinion.

[cleanhippie]

4. Thats an opinion based on factual observation. +1

and some applause for you.

:applause:

[Owl]

2. K&R!!!!!

[valerief]

3. Religion is a tool of the elite to keep the masses enslaved. I knew that as a child.

What's so hard to understand about that?

[cleanhippie]

5. I often wonder the same thing.

[alterfurz]

11. organized religion = upper middle tier of the capitalist pyramid scheme

[RainDog]

6. great quote

“I think most philosophers basically agree with a book John Mackie wrote many years ago called The Miracle of Theism, the idea being that it was a miracle anybody could believe that,” Leiter says. To philosophers who feel like the case against God was settled hundreds of years ago, philosophy of religion often seems like apologetics, an effort to rationalize preexisting beliefs.

[cleanhippie]

7. I think that exactly it.

"an effort to rationalize preexisting beliefs."

Perfect.

[dmallind]

8. meh - happens, rarely, both ways; Flew and Parsons traded teams is all. nt

[rug]

9. Has he said anything else in the last seven months?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. If the American Christian churches would die and disappear, the GOP's propaganda would no longer

exist.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

18. GOD IS GOING TO GET YOU FOR THAT

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :boring: :boring: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

58. lol God is in shock up in heaven seeing how Christian churches view Jesus as a greedy, bloodthirsty

stockbroker.

[Kurmudgeon]

12. So he sold out, not exactly an unusual occurrence, never heard of him anyway.

[cleanhippie]

13. And now you have.

Welcome to the enlightenment.

[Jim Lane]

22. On what basis do you say he sold out?

And do you mean he sold out when he entered the field of religious philosophy, or when he left it?

Because "sold out" has a negative connotation, my guess is that you're applying it to whichever position you disagree with, but such a charge requires better evidence than that.

[Kurmudgeon]

59. You're probably right, he was a fraud all along.

[RainDog]

66. an example of cognitive dissonance in action

a person who has spent his life studying religions comes to the conclusion that, ethically, he can no longer continue to appear to support something he finds only supports pre-existing beliefs... Pre-existing because they are part of the culture in which we live - the analogy would be for someone in ancient Greece to say that Zeus is a story, not a reality...

and those who hold a belief in Zeus (still, or this culture's variation) hold out the hemlock cup rather than look at any evidence that might contradict a belief in a great and powerful Oz, I mean, Zeus.

personally, imo people are welcome to hold religious beliefs - we all engage in magical thinking from time to time.

However, those beliefs have no business being part of our national conversation about governance...and anyone who wants to evangelize about those beliefs may expect to hear things they do not want to hear.

[Kurmudgeon]

77. Still never heard of him, or you. So neither of you have that much influence or importance.

[cleanhippie]

78. Yet more christian values on display. You never heard or knew of him, yet you call him a FRAUD and

a SELL OUT?!?!?!?!

Isn't there something in your scripture about bearing false witness? Something about not judging?


I guess this is just another example of christian values, huh?



Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[Kurmudgeon]

80. Yet more prejudice on display too.

Knock yourself out white knighting for this person who most never heard of.
It suits your purpose, apparently.

[cleanhippie]

81. Since when did pointing out YOUR hypocrisy become prejudice?

Hey, brother, you feel free to rationalize your actions all you want. Just remember, your words are on display for EVERYONE, including your god, to see.

[RainDog]

87. why bother with such obvious idiocy?

why waste your time responding, again and again, to idiots?

the sad thing, tho, is that these are people who vote. most of them are on the republican side of the aisle, but plenty of them are on the democratic side, too.

and this is why we have such shitty govt. in comparison to every other western democracy - because we have people who refuse to consider that their precious beliefs might be based upon nothing more than myth - not just talking about an anthropomorphic god, either - but also things like neo-liberal economic policy, rights for gblt americans, an end to the war on drugs...

I don't have much hope for this nation.

[Jim Lane]

73. OK, so all I get from you is that anyone who disagrees with you is ipso facto a fraud and a sellout.

No one could possibly disagree with you in good faith.

That is, of course, the attitude that has made it easier, down through the centuries, for religious zealots to burn people at the stake.

Given that you have to operate in a modern industrialized democracy, with great (though not complete) religious freedom, I think it's unlikely that you literally favor torture and execution for nonreligious types like me. All I'm saying is that you share the theocrats' intolerant mindset -- and when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

[Kurmudgeon]

76. Ok, list the times I've used those terms.

[cleanhippie]

79. You did it RIGHT HERE with someone you said you had NEVER HEARD OF!!!

Wow. Just wow.

[humblebum]

14. There have been many who have went in the other direction, also, after

realizing just how narrow, precarious, and really inadequate the atheistic philosophy was for them.

[cleanhippie]

15. Just what IS the "atheistic philosophy" ?

Or is this just more of your usual schtick?

[humblebum]

16. An atheist asking "Just what IS the 'atheistic philosophy' " - UM?

Are you telling me that you don't understand your own reasoning, and why you feel the way you do? do I have to teach an atheist, how to be an atheist?

[cleanhippie]

17. Maybe thats just where you have yourself confused.

Allow me to be clear, ok?

I do not have a philosophy whatsoever based on my LACK OF BELIEF.

Do you understand? Do you get it?




So, now that you understand, why don't YOU tell us just what this "atheistic philosophy" is that you are referring to. As you seem to know just what it is, it should be an easy task for you to elaborate on just what it is.

[humblebum]

20. So, in effect what you are telling me is that you do not use reason

to formulate your opinions. Interesting. I would check to see if I have a pulse if I were you.

There are quite a number of atheist philosophers, you know. Now, I know it might be a stretch, but is it too difficult to understand that atheist philosophers might avail themselves to an "atheistic philosophy?"

[cleanhippie]

21. I see its just more of the same from you.

[humblebum]

24. Yes. It's called reasoning. nt

[cleanhippie]

27. No, what you are doing has another name.

[skepticscott]

33. There are quite a number of

bald philosophers too. Does that make baldness a philosophy?

[humblebum]

37. I'm sure there are some bald atheistic philosophers. nt

[stopbush]

19. Atheists have a philosophy about god the way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

BTW - what is your philosophy on stamp collecting?

[humblebum]

23. That's a tired old atheist retort. nt

[cleanhippie]

25. And your schtick is just as tired and old.

[humblebum]

30. You use your "schtick" much more than I do mine. One only needs to

look at the forum threads to see whose handle appears most often.

[cleanhippie]

31. Yep. More of the same from you.

[humblebum]

38. Sometimes the obvious truth hurts. nt

[cleanhippie]

42. You tell me how much it hurts. You are the one that keeps pulling it over and over.

[skepticscott]

28. Fine, then answer it

if it is so deeply flawed. And with something other than YOUR tired old response that you've already done it.

[cleanhippie]

32. We both know he will never answer it. It what he does.

And its pathetic, no?

[skepticscott]

34. Of course he won't

And I don't care a tittle for his ignorance, only that rational people see his intellectual dishonesty for what it is.

[humblebum]

39. I also realize that personal attacks and ad hominems comprise the

bulk of your responses and comments, NOT reason.

[cleanhippie]

45. .

[skepticscott]

51. Says the mouther of the reason-free phrase

"tired old atheist retort", and the one who runs away without answering it, hoping the whole room won't notice that he CAN'T.

[humblebum]

70. Actually there is a reason for calling it a "tired old atheist retort."

That's because it very often is a "tired old atheist retort." If it has anything to do with mustaches, or being bald, etc. it probably comes right out of the atheist playbook.

[skepticscott]

84. Call it whatever you like, you still can't answer it

Never have, and never will. Duck and dodge all you want, but the fact remains.

[skepticscott]

137. And STILL can't answer it..

[humblebum]

36. It's flaw is that it is a vacuous argument designed to look like an intelligent

valid argument, but actually has little bearing on the subject at hand. Most stamp collectors I know do have personal philosophies about their chosen hobby. They believe that certain stamps have some intrinsic values, and historical values, as well as monetary value. They believe that their stamps should be cared for in a certain manner, and displayed in a certain way.

[skepticscott]

52. Your title describes

your post perfectly.

Fail.

[skepticscott]

26. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods

Period. It is not a philosophy, an overarching worldview or a guide to any particular kind of attitudes or behaviors. I know you and many other thought-free people have tried desperately to paint it as a philosophy or a religion (presumably to make it easier for you to slam), but it's an intellectually bankrupt argument.

[cleanhippie]

29. Wait for it....wait for it..... and cue the militant atheists and radical athesists in 3...2..1...

Its just more of the same from him.

[skepticscott]

35. I'm waiting for

"atheist dictators" blahblahblahblah...."130 million" blahblahblahblah....

[humblebum]

41. That might be comical to you but not to those who experienced

such predictaments. That's kinda like Neo-nazis laughing off the idea that nazis did what they did years ago. Those things should never be forgotten.

[cleanhippie]

43. Bwahahahaha!

[skepticscott]

50. Where did I ever say or even imply

that they should be forgotten? Nowhere. Just more of your intellectually dishonest bullshit. The only thing comical here (not to mention pathetic) is your attempt to use those tragedies to make religion look good by comparison.

[humblebum]

53. Uh Huh. nt

[skepticscott]

55. Another dodging non-answer

as transparent as all the rest of your bs on this thread.

But keep trying...we can all use the laughs.

[humblebum]

57. Yeh, uh huh.

"As part of his intellectual legacy, Freud strongly advocated an atheistic philosophy of life."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/why/index.html

[humblebum]

40. A piece on "atheistic philosophy" fron an atheist website:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/gora21.htm

[cleanhippie]

44. And that has just fuck-all to do with MY lack of belief in your god.

Still waiting for you to tell us just WHAT part of my LACK OF BELIEF constitutes a philosphy. But keep trying....

[humblebum]

47. I believe your original question to me was: "Just what IS the 'atheistic philosophy'?"

So I have answered your question and provided a source. You are attempting to change the subject.

The piece entitled "Atheistic Philosophy" was not a religious article. It comes from an atheist website and defines atheistic philosophy.

"The principle of atheistic philosophy is: what is capable of verification and necessary for the individual should be tested and known; what is incapable of verification or unnecessary for the present need, should be respected as an opinion. To respect an opinion is not to accept it as a truth; it is a social norm to enable the growth of knowledge. Unless the free flow of opinions is permitted, while recognising them only as opinions, we lose the benefit of imagination. The danger is not in respecting an opinion but it is in mistaking it for a truth. Atheism, therefore, adopts the scientific method for acquiring knowledge. It promotes understanding through verification wherever possible and through respect for opinion wherever necessary."

Whether you accept that or not is your business. I answered your question directly!

[cleanhippie]

48. So why did it take you 15 posts to answer directly?

And are you continuing to assert that MY lack of belief automatically makes THIS persons philosophy mine too?

[humblebum]

49. I couldn't care less whether you agree with it or not. I gave a definition.

My job is done.

[cleanhippie]

62. Yeah, you are done.

[skepticscott]

54. He completely confuses

atheism with humanism, secularism, anti-theism and materialism.

In other words, for all of his puffery, he's as clueless as you are about what atheism is.

Try again..that was an epic fail.

[humblebum]

56. Then you really should take it up with the atheist author whose

work appears on an atheist website.

[skepticscott]

64. Since you're the one

who had misunderstood and misrepresented what you linked to, I'll settle for pointing it out to you. I have neither the time nor the inclination to correct every flawed source that you use to support your failed arguments.

[humblebum]

65. Then my friend, you lose by default since I have shown that the concept

of an atheistic philosophy is often used and quite valid.

[skepticscott]

83. No, what you've shown is that people who

talk about a philosophy of atheism don't really have a clue what atheism is.

[humblebum]

85. So who is talking about the "philosophy of atheism"? the entire time

I have been discussing "atheistic philosophies" and a few have been mentioned.

[dmallind]

75. Fred Phelps' definition of Christianity is on a Christian website. You agree with it? nt

[humblebum]

86. Of course not. Fred Phelps is a one-man freak show and I

honestly don't know of any denomination has anything to do with the man or his organization, though there probably are some off-the-wall ones around. Even many of those churches that are considered RW consider Phelps as abominable and regularly condemn the man. He is a deranged, hateful freak.

[dmallind]

88. So why does this one man in India with a website speak for all atheists?

Having said that I essentially agree with him, but neither he nor I can speak for atheism any more than Phelps can speak for all Christians.

[humblebum]

89. I never said he did. I only said that "atheistic" philosophies exist.

There are many more examples of that. Phelps certainly has his "theistic" philosophy. That doesn't mean that anyone else abides by it, but it is nonetheless a philosophy. An "atheistic" philosophy is not the same as a "philosophy of atheism."

However, I do think that there is a philosophy of atheism, but that is a whole different conversation.

[dmallind]

90. I don't think anyone denies atheistic philosophIES exist, only that there is one shared philosophY

[humblebum]

91. totally agree.

[cleanhippie]

92. 100% false. Your original post stated THE atheistic philosophy.

Don't you ever get tired of moving those goalposts?

[humblebum]

94. I don't have to move them, you do it for me. nt

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skepticscott]

93. It's fine that you don't understand

the difference between atheism (which is not a philosophy) and humanism (which is), but you might at least recognize your ignorance (and that of your sources) before you clutter up the board with it.

[humblebum]

95. In other words, everyone else is wrong and you are right. Got it. nt

[cleanhippie]

99. No, In other words, you are full of shit. Your OWN posts PROVE you are full of shit.

Do you not realize that YOUR posts are there for ANYONE to read?


What. The. Fuck.

[humblebum]

101. It's getting more difficult to find anything intelligible in your posts. nt

[laconicsax]

102. Do you post in front of a mirror? n/t

[cleanhippie]

103. Wow, dude, you are a display of cognative dissonance in action.

[humblebum]

104. I rest my case. nt

[cleanhippie]

105. Your case was displaying cognitive dissonance?

Your should really just stop while you're behind. Seriously.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[humblebum]

106. then why do you keep hanging on? I've already proven that atheistic philosophies

exist, and atheism itself becomes a philosophy the moment you start trying to explain to others why it is not.
So now we have atheistic philosophies, atheistic philosophers, and yes, atheism as a philosophy. i guess if it's an 'ism' it's a philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ism

[laconicsax]

107. That has to be one of the sillier things you've said.

Atheism=a+theism: Literally, "not theism." It isn't a belief or philosophy in it's own right; its just a catch-all term for non-theist. Buddhism is atheistic, as are animism and ancestor worship. There is no singular philosophy that covers all forms of atheism. You asserted a singular philosophy of atheism. Aside from that being an extreme broad-brush comment, it's ridiculously false.

[humblebum]

108. Even when the evidence is staring you right in the face, you still deny it. Now

that is silly and not all buddhism is atheistic.

[laconicsax]

111. I don't know what's funnier...

That your reply completely misses the point, or that you obviously think that it demolishes my argument.

[humblebum]

113. You had an argument? nt

[laconicsax]

114. If you read my comment, #107 you might notice it.

Of course, that would require you to read and understand the English language, but I have hope.

[humblebum]

115. I saw it and it ran counter to the post that it responded to which

clearly broke atheism into subgroups but nonetheless recognized it as a philosophy.

[laconicsax]

116. Somehow, you missed the entirety of what I posted.

I'll break it down for you, sentence by sentence.

Atheism=a+theism: Literally, "not theism."

This part I assume you understand.

It isn't a belief or philosophy in it's own right; its just a catch-all term for non-theist.

See here I'm not recognizing atheism as a philosophy, but as "a catch-all term for non-theist." While that should have read "for everything non-theist," that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence or the fact that I'm clearly stating that atheism is neither a belief or a philosophy.

Buddhism is atheistic, as are animism and ancestor worship.

These are examples of different religions which are atheistic by virtue of having no gods. The point of these examples is to illustrate how three radically different things are all atheistic because they are not theistic. That some Buddhist traditions are theistic doesn't affect this because the other Buddhist traditions are still a valid example of a religion without a god.

There is no singular philosophy that covers all forms of atheism.

Here's a repetition of my earlier statement that atheism is not a philosophy.

You asserted a singular philosophy of atheism.

See your comment, #14 for this one.

Aside from that being an extreme broad-brush comment, it's ridiculously false.

This is the conclusion drawn from the facts I presented as applied to your assertion of a singular atheistic philosophy.

So yeah, it runs counter to your assertion that atheism is a philosophy--you might even call it an argument.

[humblebum]

117. All righty then. I can think of few schools of philosophic thought

or orientation that contain varients within them. The positivists comes immediately to mind. Here's another poor confused sap:

http://daphne.palomar.edu/mlane/SKEPTIC/atheist_philosophy.htm AND

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

[laconicsax]

118. Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?

'cause none of that affects the fact that atheism isn't a philosophy anymore than East is a temperature.

[humblebum]

120. Apparently more than you do. Inspite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary

you still maintain. It's almost comical. It's always comical when atheists expend so much effort trying to explain what they are NOT.

[laconicsax]

122. Overwhelming evidence?

All you've put forward is that some philosophers are atheists, which no more proves a singular philosophy of atheism than the fact that some philosophers are women proves the existence of a singular philosophy of women.

BTW: Atheists often have to spend time explaining what we're not because some people never quite understand and make asinine arguments based on their misconceptions.

[humblebum]

123. "All you've put forward is that some philosophers are atheists" - hardly

I suggest you look again.

And yet another:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewis00.htm

And what do ya know, another one:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/goldman.htm

[laconicsax]

124. Oh noes! More philosophers!

Tell me, a singular philosophy of atheism would encompass all atheists, no? How do either of those versions of "the philosophy of atheism" apply to animism, which is atheistic?

I think I'll start referring to "the philosophy of theism" and pretending that there is such a thing.

[humblebum]

125. Go right ahead. Theism is very much a philosophy in my book.

One thing is certain. I am by no means the only one who considers atheism to be a philosophy.

[laconicsax]

126. Maybe you can explain something then.

How can you adhere to a philosophy that both affirms and denies reincarnation?

[humblebum]

127. Just because it is a broad philosophy certainly does not mean all

adhere to the same identical interpretations. Such is not the way of most humans, unless of course they are under compulsion to conform to a set standard. But that does not mean that their personal, deeply held ideas and beliefs, kept in silence, are identical to those of their peers.

Philosophers themselves are a contentious bunch and even though they might espouse the same school of thought, doesn't mean they always agree. The Hegelian dialectic is a perfect example of that.

[laconicsax]

128. That sure is a lot of hand-waving.

Maybe you could explain why you adhere to a philosophy that posits only one god AND several gods.

[humblebum]

129. I think I've already answered your question. nt

[laconicsax]

130. You haven't, but that's ok. I know you don't have an answer. n/t

[humblebum]

131. As matter of fact I did in my prior response. When two parties adhering to

the same general philosophy, disagree on specific points, there is no guarantee that their thesis/ anti-thesis will result in a synthesis. Atheists disagree a lot on specific points, but they are still nonetheless atheists.

[laconicsax]

132. They're atheists the same way that both Al Franken and Michelle Bachmann are Minnesotans.

Atheist is a term that can be applied to someone who does not believe in at least one god. It's a granfalloon; a superficial label that says nothing about the beliefs, philosophies, etc. of those it's applied to. All it says is that there's a god that isn't believed in.

When it comes to Ahura Mazda, you are an atheist. By your own argument, "the atheist philosophy" applies to you. In fact, there's only one god you believe in (unless that's changed recently), so it's a better than 99% chance that if the name of a god were pulled out of a hat, you'd be an atheist with respect to it.

Anaxagoras was an atheist because he didn't believe the Greek gods were real. You don't believe that the Greek gods are real either. What's the difference between your atheism and Anaxagoras'?

When you think about that, you'll probably realize that everyone is an atheist with respect to the vast majority of gods that have ever been worshiped and for "the atheist philosophy" to apply, it has to encompass everyone. There is no such philosophy.

[humblebum]

133. Keep telling yourself that. nt

[laconicsax]

134. Why shouldn't I? It's the truth. n/t

[humblebum]

135. Denial must be part of the philosophy. nt

[cleanhippie]

136. What philosophy is that?

[laconicsax]

141. The atheist philosophy that he, an atheist, subcribes to.

He's an atheist by the same criteria as atheists like Anaxagoras.

[laconicsax]

138. You tell me. It's your philosophy as much as it is mine. n/t

[humblebum]

139. Tell you what? nt

[laconicsax]

140. If denial is part of our shared atheist philosophy.

You're every bit as much of an atheist as Anaxagoras (even more so since you don't believe in more gods than he'd even heard about), so clearly you must subscribe to the atheist philosophy.

[humblebum]

142. Congratulations. You have just shown me that you do indeed

have a philosophy. However, it in no way resembles mine.

[laconicsax]

143. WOOSH!!!!

That was the sound of the point flying over your head.

I'll try again in the hopes that you may notice it this time:

-By your own assertion, atheists subscribe to "the atheist philosophy"
-You are an atheist by the same criteria as Anaxagoras, Epicurus, Diagoras of Melos, and Theodorus the Atheist

Therefore, you subscribe to "the atheist philosophy."

[humblebum]

144. You give new meaning to the phrase "artful dodger" and you

are now admitting that there is indeed a philosophy of atheism.

[laconicsax]

145. All I'm saying, is that if there's a philosophy of atheism, you, an atheist, must follow it.

-You were the first to assert a philosophy of atheism.
-You are an atheist.

Therefore, if such a philosophy of atheism exists, you subscribe to it.

[humblebum]

146. Your reasoning is a vacuous to say the least, though I have seen

it before. But it doesn't fit the criteria outlined in the list of philosophies mentioned earlier. Just because someone is a monotheist does not mean that they do not accept the existence of other "gods."

BTW, I wasn't the first to posit a philosophy of atheism, as I have shown by my several references to the subject.

[laconicsax]

147. I bet I can name dozens of gods you don't believe in.

Zeus, Marduk, Amaterasu, Enlil, Rudra, Demeter, Odin, Helios, Myesyats, Ra, Teshub, Hephestus, Hanuman, Tian, Sebek, Hermes, Umai, Njord, Al-Uzza, Hazzi, Bishamon, Lakshmi, Vesta, Min, Anubis, Fukurokuju, Mot, Quetzalcoatl, Nut, Tefnut, Nergal, Vajravarahi, Aglaia, The Lu, Hevajra, Balor, Rhiannon, Atlas, Honir, Nusku, Kurukalla, Don, An, Macha, Jurojin, Govannon, Abarta,Hepat, Hahhimas, Apsu, Hyperion, Rhea, Aizen-Myoo, Nephthys, Potrimpo, Mati Syra Zemlya, Eos, Ea, Anu, Men Shen, Ansa, Cybele, Vohu Mano, Lao Jun, Gukurokuju, Yama, Manat, Itchita, The Lah-Dre, Nodens, Ebisu, Jumala, Coeus, Dana, Heimdall, Daksha, Gungnir, Hestia, Jupiter, Mahatala, Kataragama Deviyo, Mitra, Pusan, Perkuno, Epona, Allah (pre-Islam), Ceridwen, Wakahiru-Me, Dumuzi, Forseti, Nammu, Zao Jun, The Gulses, Ahura Mazda, Kwannon, Durga, Inaras, Arianrhod, Lir, Metis, Nga, Ouranos, Cliodhna, Attar, Yuqiang, Reshef, Taranis, Isis, Hannahanna, Teutates, Morrigan, Menulis, Pattini, Mahadevi, The Marutus, Goibhniu, Dylan, Aine, Aphrodite, Coatlicue, Kadaklan, Bragi, Hodr, Izanami, Boru Deak Parudjar, Fjorgyn, Otshirvani, Shamash, Dionysus, Aten, Heruka, Euphrosyne, Adad, Nekhbet, Saturn, Inana, Guanyin, Clotho, Astarte, Inari, Gefion,Yam, Dagda, Shiva, Etain, Wayland, Nechtan, Hera, Men, Bastet, Agni, Svantovit, Aryaman, Poseidon, Hinkon, Hupasiyas, Camulos, Manawydan, Mithra, Hecate, Anat, Tomam, Al-Lat, Surya, Kumarbi, Attis, Taiyi Tianzun, Setesuyara, Tishtrya, Boreas, Aonghus, Shu, Leto, Sif, Santas, Hubal, Anahita, Faunus, Ishtar, Skuld, Veles, Adonis, Atropos, Tapio, Badb, Wadjet, Mandah, Freyr, Nerthus, Dyaus, Asclepius, Athena, Basamum, Amida, Anshar, Sadb, Wadd, Murukan, Kied Kie Jubmel, Uu,Cerdandi, Ereshkigal, Dazhbog, Lelwani, Sin, Ullikummi, Balder, Tsukiyomi, Artemis, Thoth, Tezcatlipoca, Dian Cecht, Utu, Baal, Iskur, Wen Chang, Ame-No-Uzume, Xolotl, The Daevas, Hades, Circe, Telepinu, Thor, Ninlil, Ganesha, Donn, Hachiman, Frigg, Vulcan, Saule, Ec, Nanna, Indra, Nu Gua, Tlaloc, Ninurta, Vidar, Patollo, Madder-Akka, Bhaga, Nemglan, Korrawi, Mnemosyne, Cernunnos, Es, Caer, Grid, Brigid, Perunu, Seth, Cronos, Juno, Lachesis, Tuoni, Tammuz, Khosadam, Prometheus, Persephone, Svarazic, Tyr, Hathor, Cupid, Vishnu, Maat, Moloch, Geb, Ukko, Apollo, Boann, Aglibol, Suku-Na-Bikona, Ruda, Varuna, Ulgan, Dhatr, Brahma, Eros, Anbay, Ninhursaga, Semara, Kishimo-Jin, Ganga, Llyr, Kurunta, Ida-Ten, Benten, Ogma, Freyja, Oceanos, Osiris, Susano-Wo, Horus, Vayu, Kegutsuchi, Vayu, Belenus, Loki, Ki, Nudd, Pan, Aditi, Karttikeya, Thalia, Taru, Minerva, Nasr, Idun, Neptune, Natha, Shou Lao, Gadd, Uke-Mochi, Mars, Leib-Olmai, Lugh, Mac Cecht, Izanagi, The Dagda, Marishi-Ten, Jurojin, Apep, Lei Gong, Khyung-gai, Huitzlopochtli, Eileithya, Taranis,Khnum, Amaethon, Geb, Hotei, Manannan Mac Lir, Prithivi, Shen Nong, Ebisu, El, Bellona, gShen-lha-od-dkar, Batara Kala, Psyche, Venus, Ningal, Urd, Ptah, Zarpanitu, Kuvera, Amon, Num, Searbhan, Shoten, Luonnotar, Neith, Daikoku, Kubaba, Indra, Aegir, Ariniddu, Mimir, Ares, Soma, Shaushka, Lugus, or Jbelieve

Do you believe in all of them, or do you just maybe, not believe in any of them? That's an awful lot of gods to not believe in and not be an atheist.

[humblebum]

148. That is a single interpretation of atheism, as has already been pointed out

in the sources provided. It is also your philosophy of atheism. First of all, you are dealing with what constitutes "God" and a "god" and what differentiates a diety from a spirit or whatever supernatural being or even physical "gods." In other words, it is all spin. I don't share your definition, nor do all atheists. Nonetheless, what they all have in common is a philosophy of atheism.

[laconicsax]

149. The truth is often simple.

Love the special pleading, by the way.

So tell me, do you believe in any of the gods I listed?

[humblebum]

150. All of them and none of them. And if there's been any special pleading,

it has been that I have played along with your red herring argument. My only point was that a philosophy of atheism does indeed exist. I provided the evidence - end of story. Everything after that was your enormous amount of totally subjective spin.

[laconicsax]

151. What an honest way to discuss things!

Make your claim, provide your evidence, and reject everything else.

Taken with your guide to cheating, admission of being a Poe, and assertion that you see confirmation where there is contradiction, I'm not sure why you even take yourself seriously.

[humblebum]

152. It's amazing, but predictable, how when your reasoning skills

turn to dung, you always pull out the ad hominem. By your skewed reasoning, it could logically be said that if you are an atheist, but believe in just one spiritual being or experience, you are also a theist, which makes as much sense as your blather and spin.

[laconicsax]

153. It only doesn't make sense to you because it doesn't fit your straw man.

The world isn't black-and-white, humblebum.

[humblebum]

154. You seem to think it is, not being able to handle the fact that

one general philosophy can encompass similar but different points of view.

[laconicsax]

155. And we're back to where we started...

There is no general philosophy of atheism, and even if there was, it would have to apply equally well to Buddhists, animists, and Hindus as all three groups have atheistic sects or are outright atheistic. Plus, any philosophy of atheism must encompass Christians, Muslims, and Jews since all three groups are atheistic by the same criteria that made atheists of Anaxagoras, Epicurus, Diagoras of Melos, and Theodorus the Atheist.

As I've been trying to explain, atheism isn't a belief or philosophy--it's just a negative answer to a question of belief. The only thing that atheists have in common is that they don't believe in at least one god. There's no philosophy of atheism for the same reason that there's no philosophy of living non-Californians. While a philosophy can vary within its subscribers, it needs actual beliefs. Atheism has no beliefs; it cannot have a philosophy.

[humblebum]

156. The comical thing about you rambling here is that you have just expounded your

philosophy of atheism. Precious.

[laconicsax]

157. Just like your hobby of not doing Schenkerian analysis on post-tonal compositions.

Where I see contradiction (eg 'atheism isn't a philosophy'), you see confirmation (eg 'this is the philosophy of atheism').

:eyes:

[humblebum]

158. Very few groups of militant Schenkerian analytics have formed and organized

in that name, i.e. The New Schenkerian Analytics movement.

[laconicsax]

159. Link or it didn't happen.

Considering your track record, I won't hold my breath.

[humblebum]

160. Huh? nt

[laconicsax]

161. Thought so. n/t

[cleanhippie]

109. Dude, you are a laugh riot! Please stop, I need to breathe for a minute...

[humblebum]

110. It's still getting more difficult to find anything intelligible in your posts. Oh well.

If your comforted by your opinions...

[cleanhippie]

112. BWahahahahahahahahahaha!

Stop it Smalls, You're killing me!

[skepticscott]

121. You probably think

that melanism is a philosophy too. That would be about your level of understanding.

[humblebum]

96. Here's a list of some of the others who don't understand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_philosophers

[laconicsax]

97. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[cleanhippie]

100. Oh. My. Dog.

Wow, dude. You have seriously lost it.

[skepticscott]

119. A list of philosophers who happen to be atheists

doesn't make atheism a philosophy, any more than a list of philosophers who happen to be bald makes baldness a philosophy.

If that's the best you have...Fail.

[frogmarch]

60. Goparaju Ramachandra Rao

(Gora in the article whose link you posted) led a campaign to rid India of the caste system. He was an atheist, and his philosophy - his approach to addressing social problems - was influenced by his atheism.

My philosophy too is influenced by atheism and the fact that I am an atheist – but atheism itself is not a philosophy. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in deities. That is all. I don’t believe in fire-breathing dragons either. Is lacking belief in fire-breathing dragons a philosophy? Of course not. What are some things you don’t believe in? Flying orange skunks, perhaps? If so, then would you call your lack of belief in flying orange skunks a philosophy?

[humblebum]

61. I never said atheism was a philosophy (although if it is reasoned)

then I think it is. Nevertheless, I was speaking of "atheistic philosophy", not the "philosophy of atheism", which there are many references to.

[cleanhippie]

63. Do you see what he did there? ^^^

More of the same.

[frogmarch]

67. Yes I did

and yes it is.

[ZombieHorde]

68. There is no atheistic philosophy. Similarly, there is no theistic philosophy.

Objectivists and Zen Buddhists have different philosophies, but the they are both atheists. The Roman Catholic Church and Al Qaeda have different philosophies, but they are both theists.

[humblebum]

69. So then, is atheistic existentialism not an atheistic philosophy?

And are Kierkegaard's ideas on Christian existentialism not a theistic philosophy? And are not Zen and objectivism both atheistic philosophies?

[ZombieHorde]

71. I understand your point, and I suppose you could use those classifications, but

I think those labels are deceptive.

Even the term "Christian philosophy" is too broad to have any real meaning.

[humblebum]

72. Soren Kierkegaard is considered a philosopher and his ideas

were heavily influenced by his religious beliefs, so it is difficult to label him anything but a theistic or christian philosopher.

[ZombieHorde]

74. I agree he is a Christian philosopher, I also agree calling any Christian's

philosophy "Christian philosophy" is technically true. But I fear terms like "Christian philosophy," or even worse, "theist philosophy," will lead to broad brushing and unfair, yet technically true claims.

So I will concede the point, but I think the practice is unwise.

[Humanist_Activist]

82. "atheistic" is far too broad, it can encompass anything without a god component...

do we have atheistic college courses in math and science? No they are secular, but secularism is so ingrained in such subjects that the use of the term is practically meaningless. As far as philosophy, many can be considered secular, including any that are explicitly atheistic. Secular has a broader meaning though, without supernatural elements. While many sects of Buddhism are atheistic, they aren't secular, hence why they are only rarely referred to as philosophies. Objectivism is also secular, but so is Secular Humanism, contrasting with Christian Humanism which is a religious philosophy.

The problem is your use of the term "theism" in any significant way to refer to philosophies, which, for most of them, are generally outside religion. Using the term, in any form, is rather meaningless when people who follow those philosophies don't match the term. Deists can be Secular Humanists, or Objectivists, so that wouldn't make the philosophies themselves atheistic, now would it? No single philosophy encompasses everything about the universe, many are quite specific, other politically oriented, others can be religiously oriented. Just because a philosophy doesn't require a belief in a god doesn't mean that philosophy is explicitly "atheistic", no more so than math or any other non-religious subject is explicitly "atheistic".

[Odin2005]

46. All theology is nothing but trying to rationalize bullshit.