Philosophical Concepts of Atheism - Ernest Nagel (1957)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 พ.ค. 2024
- Ernest Nagel gives a lecture on philosophical concepts of atheism in a 1957 series on basic beliefs at Cooper Union in New York.
#philosophy #epistemology #atheism
![🎮เกมยิงปืนใหม่ ภาพสวย และ สมจริงที่สุดในโลก [ BODYCAM ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/My3l1owRY9I/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank god I’m an atheist!
You're Welcome.
God bless you brother
@@alwaysgreatusa223 so you are the acting gawd?
@@anothermike4825 It's a joke DUMBASSS !
We are the history of all mankind. Why are we still murdering one another after these centuries? What creates violence, hatred, and anger?
What is psychological time?
Duality and non Duality?
I am a whistler, and I will get back to this discussion soon.
What is love?
He is not a philosophical atheist, yet he is an atheist nonetheless.
Interesting how he didnt include Nietzsche in his lists of atheists toward the end, probably because hes an outlier in regard to the "definite worldview" he talks about
Nietzsche was an atheistic prophet.
In the 50s, Nietzsche was yet to be rehabilitated from his adoption by the Nazi party. Not a happy association, I think.
Probably because Nietzsche wasn’t atheist
Nietzsche wasn't
In my opinion Nietzsche was a greco pagan inspired agnostic whose strong anti Christian stance made him out to be one but this is a very contentious subject.
I have no idea why this man would want to lump atheism into _"the great tradition of religions."_ (so-called) I also completely disagree with the idea that atheism is, even in the _slightest_ sense, a religion as he suggests at the end. That's one. Secondly, the man never defined what _he_ means by "atheist." I thought that the number one rule in philosophy was to define terms!
I come away from this talk with a rather bad taste in my mouth for many reasons, so this is my catharsis:
Let's define atheism in a literal sense. A = AGAINST; THEISM = BELIEF IN ONE OR MORE DEITIES. You could say it means 'Against God(s).' This is why I refuse to adopt the label of atheist. How can you be _against_ that which you don't believe exists simply because believers have never proved their claim(s)? It makes no sense when _literally_ translated.
Just as different people mean different things by the term 'God,' different people mean different things by the term 'atheist.' It gets confusing; people, intentionally or nay, get bogged down in semantics and end up talking right past one another.
The topic is very clear to me, so here is my opinion on the matter: I am a man who stands, arms folded over my chest, waiting for believers to prove their case(s) for 'God.' Having been dissatisfied with literally every single "proof" I've ever heard, I refuse to believe any of their claims. - *_they're_* making the claims, so *_they_* have the burden of proving their claims. Not one single person has even given a satisfactory _definition_ of God, let alone, proving their wild, emotion-driven claims.
No burden rests upon me as I figuratively sit here, arms folded, waiting for a proof of a claim that has merit; something that is demonstrable for everyone to see and know; something concrete and irrefutable. What that proof would be, I fully admit - I don't know - but then again, I'm not the one making the claim, so the onus is not on me to define what a reasonable proof of God would be. Hell, I don't even know what they _mean_ by the term God - and apparently, they don't either, as evidenced by the over 40,000 different sects of Christianity alone!
Man HATES saying "I don't know" and so he creates stories (mythos) to try and explain away the unexplainable. He doesn't like loose ends and uncertainty - it makes the more primitive parts of his brain recoil in horror. Man thrives off of emotion and passion, not logic and reason. (It took me many years to fully realize this.) The former two are what drive religion, which continues to spread over our globe like a metastasizing, memetic cancer; a virus of the mind which replicates itself from host to host, destroying their autonomy, belief in themselves, and their reason along the way.
To me, the question of religion is a separate question from God. I have no qualms about saying that I am totally anti-religion. Now if a person has some idea of what they _personally_ believe God is, and they want to worship it in their own way, then who am I to begrudge them that? I fully support their freedom to do so. However, when religion becomes an institution; when religion is used to grab old people's and grieving people's money; when religion is used to encourage and excuse man's murderous ways against other men; when religion is used to tell ME what I should and shouldn't believe, what I should and should not do - that's where I draw the line.
I also feel that pumping a child's fertile, yet plasticine mind with these falsehoods and lies; the guilt, shame, and fear that these people put into a child (as was done to me) is a CRIME. Let the child come to the age of reason and decide for himself or herself! (Shout out to Thomas Paine)
I refuse to adopt labels such as 'atheist.' I simply do not believe any of the claims for God(s), from ancient Sumeria all the way down to the current day. *_History is littered with discarded Gods, Gods that people believed in as fervently (or more) as any God is today; Gods they defended with their lives; Gods they went to war for and against; Gods that told them that slavery was fine and that selling their children was normal; on and on and on ... yet, today their Gods are in the trash heap with all the others._*
The Gods of today will, in time, no doubt meet the same fate. I can't say with certainty that no God(s) exist(s) - number one because it is undefined, so what am I even looking for? - and number two, it's a BIG Universe; possibly infinite - and who am _I_ to say what exists and what does not; this tiny life form I am, trying to grasp the ungraspable, on a rock hurtling round a fireball, in a galaxy of upwards of 400 billion such fireballs, in a Universe with hundreds of billions of such galaxies??? Can you imagine the utter arrogance it would take for me to definitively aver things I simply cannot know?
To wrap it up, the question is, when will man stop adopting new Gods in the place of the old discarded ones and simply admit that he doesn't know what happens when we die, and that he hasn't a clue how the Universe began, if indeed it began at all? Inserting another mystery (God) to explain the first mystery only complicates things - and for some, that is their intent, so that they can manipulate man's ignorance to their advantage; but I digress.
The only thing I know FOR SURE is that I am, _at the very least,_ smart enough to know that I don't know, to borrow a turn of phrase from antiquity.
Post Script - (I adopt no political labels either - I simply take each issue on its own merits and use my innate reason and moral sense to guide me to a position, rather than viewing everything through the tainted lenses of some political dogma or propaganda.)
Now _that_ was cathartic! Ciao.
So, taking your words literally (as you seem proud of doing) If I teach my son my religious beliefs, that is a crime, and then like how all crimes are treated, I should be fined or imprisoned? How about a "Go Fuck Yourself" instead?
Oh no, my karma ran over my dogma!
What a snooze-fest! 😴I could deliver a way better defense of atheism. Far more perspicuous too.
We’ll be on the lookout for it 🙂
@@douglasdamron6007 LOL, I was going to say...
Do it
I agree - If you want to read my 'perspicuous' take, feel free - I just posted it. Strap in; it's a long one... (and don't take that out of context, please... )
@@douglasdamron6007 I agree - If you want to read my 'perspicuous' take, feel free - I just posted it. Strap in; it's a long one... (and don't take that out of context, please... )