Lois, I was suggesting something that has not been tried. The object is to get people to think. Check out Steven Pinker, it is not a game, words are important.What do you mean it hasn't been tried? What do you think the Secular Humanism movement is? What do you think the Rationalist movement is? What do you think the old "Bright" movement was? And funny thing, most Christians reject any attempt at dialogue. For most Christians, there are only two categories of people Believers and Unbelievers. If you don't absolutely, positively, not-the-slightest-shred-of-doubt believe in the same God they believe in, you're on the Unbeliever side. What I'm saying is if a Christian is open-minded enough to talk to you and really listen to what you say, it doesn't much matter what label you use, Secular Humanist or agnostic or even catheist.
Sorry Advocatus, I don’t know!
In context of the OP, lets make a few things clear. Title: Why did Carl Sagan say that atheism is stupid"?
This is a misleading title and leads one to accept that Sagan was a Theist.
Carl Sagan actually said:
"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." Philosophies of Men Mingled With Scripturehttps://www.quora.com/Why-did-Carl-Sagan-say-that-By-some-definitions-atheism-is-very-stupid#!n=37 I encourage you to also read the comments by other minds in regard to this statement, such as
Robert Frost, Instructor and Flight Controller at NASA, He didn't say "atheism is very stupid." He said "By some definitions atheism is very stupid." Those two statements are not the same.
Sagan's views on theology were shifting and amorphous and are probably closest to agnosticism (although others argue he was an atheist). He was open to the idea there was some form of god, but felt that conventional religious conceptions of God were too anthropomorphized, too small and too local and fell apart when the immenseness of the universe was viewed. In a series of lectures he gave, that have been gathered in a book called The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God, Sagan said:The OP uses this distortion of the phrase as proof Sagan was a Theist. A false assumption to begin with. p.s. the term for "Catheism" is "Apostate". In some religions you can be killed for that.I think if we ever reach the point where we think we thoroughly understand who we are and where we came from, we will have failed. I think this search does not lead to a complacent satisfaction that we know the answer, not an arrogant sense that the answer is before us and we need do only one more experiment to find it out. It goes with a courageous intent to greet the universe as it really is, not to foist our emotional predispositions on it but to courageously accept what our explorations tell us
In context of the OP, lets make a few things clear. Title: Why did Carl Sagan say that atheism is stupid"? This is a misleading title and leads one to accept that Sagan was a Theist. Carl Sagan actually said:The OP uses this distortion of the phrase as proof Sagan was a Theist. A false assumption to begin with. p.s. the term for "Catheism" is "Apostate". In some religions you can be killed for that. Theists have a habit of doing that. Lois"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." Philosophies of Men Mingled With Scripturehttps://www.quora.com/Why-did-Carl-Sagan-say-that-By-some-definitions-atheism-is-very-stupid#!n=37 I encourage you to also read the comments by other minds in regard to this statement, such asRobert Frost, Instructor and Flight Controller at NASA, He didn't say "atheism is very stupid." He said "By some definitions atheism is very stupid." Those two statements are not the same.Sagan's views on theology were shifting and amorphous and are probably closest to agnosticism (although others argue he was an atheist). He was open to the idea there was some form of god, but felt that conventional religious conceptions of God were too anthropomorphized, too small and too local and fell apart when the immenseness of the universe was viewed. In a series of lectures he gave, that have been gathered in a book called The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God, Sagan said:I think if we ever reach the point where we think we thoroughly understand who we are and where we came from, we will have failed. I think this search does not lead to a complacent satisfaction that we know the answer, not an arrogant sense that the answer is before us and we need do only one more experiment to find it out. It goes with a courageous intent to greet the universe as it really is, not to foist our emotional predispositions on it but to courageously accept what our explorations tell us
Lois, I was suggesting something that has not been tried. The object is to get people to think. Check out Steven Pinker, it is not a game, words are important.What are you trying to get them to think? Lois
Lois, A correct way of thinking is to use the scientific method of evaluating any claim. People listen to claims about a god and do not question. It is really scary the high numbers of people who do not question their preacher.
Write4you, read my Oct,29th post
Jr. Member Lois, A correct way of thinking is to use the scientific method of evaluating any claim. People listen to claims about a god and do not question. It is really scary the high numbers of people who do not question their preacher.IMO that's because there is a disconnect between the two, science teaches facts while religion favors values according to Stephen J. Gould. He even coined an acronym for it, NOMA. If you're not familiar with it's "non-overlapping Magseteria whereby the two may exist together in society. This is why you may see a physician in the pews at a Catholic Church. He knows full well that Transubstantiation is bunk but participates in the ritual anyway. Or a university educated PhD. who listens to his favorite exorter drone on about hell fire and damnation. And don't forget that even atheists sometimes like the rituals churches perform, if nothing else just to enjoy the music, e.g. Dan Barker and Richard Dawkins. Cap't Jack
Thevilageaatheist, I prefer Dan Dennett, especially when everyone I know is catholic.
Thevilageaatheist, I prefer Dan Dennett, especially when everyone I know is catholic.Have you heard Dennett's talk on what is good about religion?
Lausten, Sagan was a scientist and O’Hair was a lawyer, one seeks truth the other by training just wants to win an argument. I said that I agreed with the assessment that that atheism is stupid. My reason is that for almost 2000 years the religious leaders of the time gave the word atheist it’s meaning. Using the word just solidifies in the brain of believers something evil.
Lausten, Sagan was a scientist and O'Hair was a lawyer, one seeks truth the other by training just wants to win an argument. I said that I agreed with the assessment that that atheism is stupid. My reason is that for almost 2000 years the religious leaders of the time gave the word atheist it's meaning. Using the word just solidifies in the brain of believers something evil.It can be proven that the very exclusivity of the various religions prevents any compromise, except through gradualism, hopefully through the internet. Proof of this can be found that if you want to sign up for religious forum, you must expressly state that you believe in God.or you are denied membership. Do you ever see an atheist proclaiming his atheist views on a religious site? It is always the theist prostletizing on secular sites. All the discussions on theist sites are just discussions of nuances of scripture without even allowing opposing views. Fundamental Religions are by their very nature immune from critcism, or violent retaliation will result, they are Immutable Words of (their) God. Do you honestly believe that introducing a new name for what you described as s loosely organized collection of artheists will deter the (thankfully) relative few fundamentalists to turn a kind ear? You'd just be another threat to be dealt with. In Islam, apostasy is punishable by death. I recognize the humanistic intent, but any outside intereference only complicates the issue. As long as there are people willing to die for an abstract idea, the fault lies in the limits of cooperation of the rest of the world as well as the ecosphere of the earth itself.. Man has no natural enemy other than Man and this may well be the way Natural Selection will play itself out at the Human scale. The ever increasing of violence and the power of modern military weapons should be clear indication that the next 30-50 years is not going to end well for many humans. Natural selection is in principle a natural war of attrition and seems to be the natural way to control overpopulation.
Lausten, Sagan was a scientist and O'Hair was a lawyer, one seeks truth the other by training just wants to win an argument. I said that I agreed with the assessment that that atheism is stupid. My reason is that for almost 2000 years the religious leaders of the time gave the word atheist it's meaning. Using the word just solidifies in the brain of believers something evil.Yes, I understood everything you just repeated here. You added nothing to the conversation with this statement and didn't respond to my comment. I was commenting on the culture that Sagan was speaking into, not comparing how Sagan and O'Hair were similar.
Lausten, Sagan was a scientist and O'Hair was a lawyer, one seeks truth the other by training just wants to win an argument. I said that I agreed with the assessment that that atheism is stupid. My reason is that for almost 2000 years the religious leaders of the time gave the word atheist it's meaning. Using the word just solidifies in the brain of believers something evil.So, you propose that Public opinion decides what is true?
Lausten posted, Yes, I understood everything you just repeated here. You added nothing to the conversation with this statement and didn't respond to my comment. I was commenting on the culture that Sagan was speaking into, not comparing how Sagan and O'Hair were similar.I understand your argument and agree.
Thevilageaatheist, I prefer Dan Dennett, especially when everyone I know is catholic.Everyone you know is Catholic? No Fundamentalists, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, non believers, Muslims??? And I thought I lived in a homogenous neighborhood! Cap't Jack
I said that I agreed with the assessment that that atheism is stupid. My reason is that for almost 2000 years the religious leaders of the time gave the word atheist it's meaning. Using the word just solidifies in the brain of believers something evil.I'm not sure that you even know what an "atheist" actually is! The closest you come to a definition is "evil, bad, possessed". Christians seem to have a false belief that "God" is the same as "morality" -- so to them an "atheist" rejects the very idea of God AND morality at the same time. That's simply not true. An atheist merely does not have a belief in God (in fact the Romans called the early Christians atheists, because they didn't believe in the Roman gods). Our endeavors should be not to simply make up a new name, but to teach them what is wrong with their false conception. Because history has shown us time and time again that making up a new name just doesn't work.
Atheism is stupid, according to Carl Sagan. I agree with his view and here is the reason why. The word atheism started to gain attention in the 15th century when christian era ruled. The christian leaders at that time gave the word a negative meaning ex. evil, bad, possessed and reinforced the belief and fear by actual torture. When this word is used by the common christian, their preconditioned brain automatically shuts down their ability to reason. I use a new positive word to help in a discussion about religion and that word is "catheist". This way i get a chance to discuss and explain how my own beliefs in a god have changed without them prejudging me. It keeps the discussion going. Definition: Catheist is a person who does not know if there is a god.Cool if it works for you. As for me, I don't give a damn what people think about me. Nor, am I interesting in discussing with those who would prejudge me. Screw them. I'm an atheist. Have been since 5th grade. *smiles*
Advocatus, Christians seem to have a false belief that “God" is the same as “morality"—so to them an “atheist" rejects the very idea of God AND morality at the same time.And for a true believer the moral thing to do is to kill all the atheists and infidels. You want a lesson in religious morality? Watch this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_tr_k59O6s
Saying atheism is stupid does not make it so any more than saying theism is “smart” makes it so.
Saying atheism is stupid does not make it so any more than saying theism is "smart" makes it so.Maybe not. But it brings the subject into the light of discussion. No different than what Trump did with immigration, in saying our immigration policies are stupid. Trump has not changed immigration, but now that people see that taboo subjects can be talked about, changes of mind and policies are possible. The Atheists are not fighting Christians. The Christians are using the Atheist’s thinking to help their cause. The Christians are not looking at Atheists as one of their major problems, because the Atheist’s platform is not as much of a threat. Pa ray is right. Atheism is stupid. The Atheist’s need to change their platform to their own thinking or stay a pawn of the Christian thinking. Trump on the other hand not only did lip service, but he took the subject one step further than the Atheists by telling us his solution. The Atheists have no solution. A solution is required because this subject is proven by history to be a worldwide human psychological problem that has been around long before the Christians. The last man to try and fix the problem was Jesus and they stole and changed his works. Maybe not on purpose, because after the crucifixion there was nobody with Jesus’s insight that lived long enough to keep the Gnostic thinking alive.