Atheism intelletually bankrupt?

[lmbarre]

It seems to be that Atheism is intellectually bankrupt because it does answer basic, traditional philosophical and/or theological questions. It appears to be a one-trick pony that states nothing positive about human existence but only exists by attacking any theistic position, particularly Christain belief. It further seems that atheists are mostly in knee-jerk reaction to their Christian upbringing and are usually not familiar with other forms of theism.

[Alan H]

It seems to be that Atheism is intellectually bankrupt because it does answer basic, traditional philosophical and/or theological questions. It appears to be a one-trick pony that states nothing positive about human existence...

There's no reason why 'atheism' should be expected to answer any such question.

...but only exists by attacking any theistic position, particularly Christain belief.

No, atheism exists simply because of religion and is simply a descriptor of the position held by those who do not have a belief in god/gods. It is no more than that.

It further seems that atheists are mostly in knee-jerk reaction to their Christian upbringing and are usually not familiar with other forms of theism.

It's not just xtians who become atheists: many were brought up in many other religions - or indeed none.

[lmbarre]

I asked no question.

Yes, I am sure not all atheists are "ex-Christians."

Do you have what might be called a "Christian" background?

[Ken H]

"According to a survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, atheists and agnostics tend to know more about religion than members of most faiths, the Los Angeles Times reports."

"Why did atheists do so well? The study concluded that those who reject faith often do so after growing up in a religious household, and studying and deliberating keeping the faith. Also, atheists and agnostics tend to be better educated in general. Why did Christians do so poorly? It may be because once someone accepts a faith, they stop examining it.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/28/sur ... z2G7MvNLaG

[lmbarre]

Make that "intellectually" backrupt.

[Ken H]

Make that "intellectually" backrupt.

Perhaps intellectually "bankrupt"?

[lmbarre]

Make that "intellectually" backrupt.

Perhaps intellectually "bankrupt"?

Thank you. I stand corrected.

Are you an atheist or an agnostic?

[Ken H]

I consider myself a Freethinker. I am open to ideas about the origin of the universe, but I just can't see the possibility of an intelligent force behind it all. So, I would classify myself as an atheist and a Humanist.

[Tetenterre]

It seems to be that Atheism is intellectually bankrupt because it does answer basic, traditional philosophical and/or theological questions.

That just doesn't make any sort of sense! (And it is exactly the opposite of what you asserted in this post -- and I wonder why you have not addressed any of the points raised in response to what you asserted there.)

It appears to be a one-trick pony that states nothing positive about human existence but only exists by attacking any theistic position, particularly Christain belief.

Those assertions are entirely false (and are in logical contradiction to your opening sentence):
* It is not a "one-trick pony" -- atheists come in a variety of "flavours".
* It states one very important thing about the human condition, viz. that humans do not need to invoke some species of magic sky fairy in order to live fulfilled lives or to behave with compassion to our fellows.
* Atheism "attacks" theistic positions to exactly the same extent as baldness attacks hair-colour (i.e. not at all).

It further seems that atheists are mostly in knee-jerk reaction to their Christian upbringing and are usually not familiar with other forms of theism.

Can you provide evidence for that assertion? Most (if not all) people I know who are described as "atheist" (I prefer not to call myself "atheist", for reasons I give here) are familiar with more species of theism than are most religious people I know (yes, I concede that is anecdote, not evidence) and their absence of religious credulity is merely a recognition that it is unnecessary to allow such irrational baggage to infest their lives.

I asked no question.

Disingenuous, for at least two reasons:
* What is the subject of this thread, if not a question?
* It's not my place to speak for Alan H, but you wrote that in response to his clear (from his quoting of your assertion) reference to your mention of "traditional philosophical and/or theological questions."


You have asked a few questions of others in this thread; perhaps you would answer a couple:
#1. Do you wish to engage in honest, open debate?
#2. If so, when will you address the points that have already made in response to your assertions (e.g. in the previous thread, which you appear to have abandoned)?

[Dave B]

It seems to be that Atheism is intellectually bankrupt because it does [not] answer basic, traditional philosophical and/or theological questions.

Imbarre, I have altered your opening sentence - was this what you intended to write? This, at least, makes it consistent with the previous post of yours that TT linked to.

But this only indicates that if you can't get your way in one thread you try it in another. That is a "debating technique" often used by those with a very narrow mind set or who dislike having their dearly held theories/beliefs challenged. Try asking the same question over again until you trip the opposition up. It is, of course, also a standard interrogation technique.

It is interesting for a atheist, or even a humanist, to act as devil's advocate and challenge their own faith to get others thinking outside of the box (one can get new insights that way) but you come over more as a theist, and a preacher, than anything else IMHO.

Also, if I may ask, is English your first language?

[Alan H]

I asked no question.

Yes you did. You titled the thread "Atheism intelletually [sic] bankrupt?"

Do you have what might be called a "Christian" background?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. However, my background is irrelevant to this discussion.

[duncolm]

I’m not sure what “intellectually bankrupt” means. I’m guessing it would indicate a lack of inclination to inquire, perhaps to hide from the problems of the world rather than tackle them.
It seems to me that the phrase would be better applied to religion. Rather than apply their intellect and take responsibility for their own lives, it’s followers tend to blame a supernatural outside force for events, and restrict their inquiry to the contents of “holy books” whose origins are at best obscure.

[Carja]

I've never been a Christian or belonged to any religion. I was born and brought up in an atheist home and taught ethics and empathy. I do what I think is right for the benefit of humanity and to make my life better for myself and those around me. I don't have anyone watching every move I make or tuning into every thought I have, and yet I lead a good and law abiding life. I am more honest and charitable than any one I know who claims to be religious in one breath and talks about hating others in the next breath.

I have been on a quest to learn as much as I can in my life and I still have the same curiosity as I did when I was a child. Religious people, who try to make themselves feel better about blindly following legends by insulting those who are non-religious, or free thinkers, must have some doubt in their minds about the path they are following. They would learn more reading books on the history of the world or books on nature. Even reading about religions, other than their own, would be a real eye opener.

[Woody Duck]

I think any position that insists on an intellectual end point or conclusion stands the risk of becoming intellectually bankrupt. The desire for labels and conclusions is a cultural way of doing philosophy that is bankrupt which has sadly replaced philosophical positions becoming processes or ways of life.