Yes, as I thought the FAQ Atheism is not "just". It was anticipated that eventually I remember (or be confronted with) more questions / statements often made, and recently I came across two more. A comment in a very silly of a believer in Catholicism Portal (post a month already), added another on a blog in Planet Atheism , and one that I just remembered, but I saw a lot in the past.
Today I am a little busy, but I hope to address this in the coming days. But I have to mention the issues, over:
1 - "atheism / materialism does not explain the love / friendship / good and evil / poetry / beauty / irrational numbers in mathematics / <another abstracto> example of human concept, then they are wrong / God exists!"
2 - "That your atheism is merely a phase of rebellion, because, deep down, everyone knows that God exists." (Like this entry , but not quite the same thing, the focus here is " deep down everyone knows ").
3 - "'Atheist'? Do not you mean agnostic? Atheism does not imply a dogmatic certainty about something we can not know? And not just better to be agnostic, 'just in case'? "
Again, if 1) as believers, have any questions that I have not addressed in the FAQ , or 2) as atheists, remember to questions posed by believers in conversations with you, just comment here.
EDIT: one more:
4 - "Atheists today are so militant and fanatical as the believers!"
Possibly related posts:
Greetings!
I found out today through the PT-Atheism Atheist Portal, a site visit with some regularity.
The "post's" are all written by Mr.. Dehumanizer? I liked the way a little more formal and specific than usual, which deals with the themes, especially the philosophical positions that are always more sensitive to expose. I can say that intellectuals have very similar positions on the issues I saw. He loved to read an article about empiricism, the problem of knowledge and reality based on our subjective truths (here I think you already see the point I'm getting at). These reflections arose during an exchange of arguments with a believer, I must emphasize that the discussion was perhaps the first that proved fruitful for me and forced me to address issues on which I had never spent much time. The position of believers is fragile and easy to mine, but really liked to see this essential basis for more enlightened atheism. We can exchange e-mail's to elucidate the specificity of the question if it was not clear in this comment, so there will be more material to write an article on the subject.
Greetings, have a nice day
Hello,
first, I hope you do not mind, but I prefer to treat others, and be treated by "you". I do not think "you" necessarily mean intimacy or informality, but equality, and for me, this equality is the way they treat people that makes more sense. The Brazilians, of course, are free to replace "you" with "you."
Yes, the articles so far are all written by me, some are translations of things he had written for years, in English, and others (most of them) are current. This blog is relatively new (one month did yesterday, by chance), but has written extensively about these issues in another blog of mine, created in 2005 and ultimately stopped through the Way of the Mind . I am also the administrator of Planet Atheism , the largest aggregator of blogs atheists in the world (I love saying this
but really there is not much competition), all of them at the request of the authors or with their authorization (ie, do not limit myself to add that I find interesting blogs, aggregators like I've seen others do). Maybe one day create an equivalent for the English language, but I think half a dozen blogs do not justify an aggregator.
Did not think my posts are more "formal" than usual, but rather in spite of writing correctly, I am in my very informal way to do it. This is largely intended to be as accessible and enjoyable as possible, and also because I have a weird sense of humor occasionally.
With regard to communication, even prefer to speak of these things here, comments, and not in private. So what is spoken is available for future readers may find it useful.
On the question, do not know if I understood you correctly. I think eventually expand this, but for now I can say is that I have no great knowledge or training in relation to philosophy (although I think this fix in the future), but anyway, I believe that issues such as whether or not of God or gods are not philosophical questions, but scientific, philosophy can provide ideas, concepts, and different definitions of 'god', but what the majority of religious believes esmagadoríssima - a god who created the universe and matter with us - is a scientific hypothesis that science can and should study (in terms of evidence, evidence, falsifiability and predictability of future events). In other words, I am not currently interested in definitions "strange" of God (ie the universe, love, energy, a theoretical maximum of what can be), I am, yes, interested in the basic question: what kind of god that 2 / 3 of the world believe there is or not? The religions are right or not?
Well, just write a first contact with more care not to disturb anyone with the closeness and trust that the "you" bring to some people. But for me it does not have a preference or interpret differently the two forms of addressing people, and is the will of the customer! Whether "you" so ...
(Even the religious realized this, and now they say they do not take the Bible literally, and so on. Called progressive only expose the weak foundations of the religions that are made). And since you follow that route, the discussion I was having with a believer was precisely the validity of science and empiricism, and the ability to tell us what is real and true. I later put here's a few emails exchanged. I find this extremely important subject because ... "What would we be without science?"
As for the articles, said the more formal address by the fact that philosophical themes and currents of thought instead of just criticizing religion, to say what is wrong and show them bullshit. Not that you do not like this aspect, but I think that atheism should be seen as an intellectual position natural and inherent to human beings. I imagine an enlightened society that has never heard nor religion nor the gods, seems to me that these people never think about it. But such a society does not appear by spontaneous generation, and the human being to come to the knowledge, ethics and current values had to go through several phases. And that alone is what explains the current situation and the existence of religion in almost all people (need to go through a more primitive stage). I do not consider God merely a scientific hypothesis, in the end only regard it as a tool that humans use, since to explain phenomena, to the emotional comfort and control peoples / nations. So atheism is an intellectually superior position, and philosophy will help defend the bastion of reason and humanism. Just as the science that broadens our knowledge and interprets the best way the universe works. After reading your comment I saw that last answer, and contrary to what was perceived, do you think God is a scientific hypothesis. I can say that I agree, but being from this point of view it would be too easy
Take care