Who are some of the best minds of atheism?
>>403297
Well the first that comes to mind would obviously be the prophet Athe, the founder of Atheism
>>403297
Richard Carrier
Richard Feynman
Richard Dawkins
Anyone with a first name of "Dick"
>>403306
>Carrier
>Dawkins
Dont know who Feynman is but man if these two consist the best minds then /his/ is a fecking meme board
>>404504
That or atheism is a meme ideology. If they don't believe in a God why do they spend all of their time reaffirming that belief?
>>403303
Underrated post
The ones under drinking age
>>404752
Atheism isn't an ideology at all.
>>404752
To spread the arguments for others to see and to show those with faith where they go wrong rationally. Its like seeing someone who doesn't understand basic math and has a hard time trying to conceptualize how addition works and you trying to explain it.
>>403303
Fucking underrated, solid kek.
>>404504
Dawkins wrote a good book on atheism. It's simple, but very good intro material aimed at the mass public. So I'd say he is an excellent educator.
Carrier is just a fantastic philosopher and historian. Only asshurt Christfags like yourself hate him
>>403297
>>405279
You're right to dismiss that troll making atheism sound like fervent supporters of an irrational belief structure.
Atheism isn't a political ideology, but it's part of ideology as a whole (starting in the Althusserian sense). It contributes to the idea that you shouldn't support something which we have no evidence for. In fact, ideologically (not in a pure political sense in support of one political ideology or another) it's probably led people astray in that they might have doubted a family member when it wasn't necessary, or turned away from what was a healthy and active part of their life due to skepticism.
>>405953
I might be advocating for a definition of "atheist" that doesn't apply to atheists as a whole (there are certainly YouTube Atheists that I am aware of that not only are rabid evangelists but disbelieve for the wrong reasons) but...
For me, atheism is one part of a general healthy skepticism I subscribe to; although I have what I call "provisional beliefs" that I adhere to in spite of a lack of proof ("Golden Rule" as a rough example).
Yes, it definitely "contributes to the idea that you shouldn't support something which we have no evidence for." We find the opposite position to be far too "open."
>>405953
your speech intrigues me and i would like to join your cult
>>404752
Because everyone who still believes in a god is fucking up the world.
>>405866
I'm going to samefag to kinda bump my post and spread some awareness...
If you haven't watched "The Atheist Tapes" for Colin McGinn, you should. He's pensive and respectful and does a good job of unpacking belief in god.
>>405796
>Carrier is just a fantastic philosopher and historian.
One thing that became clear to me during my preparation is that while Richard is a fine bibliographer, he is just hopeless as an exegete. I love Michael Licona’s characterization of Carrier’s exegesis: “It is a torture chamber in which texts are stretched until they are made to say what Richard wants them to say.” Just as the hapless victim laid on a medieval torture rack is stretched until he says what his inquisitors want him to say, so the biblical texts are stretched until they yield Carrier’s view. His stretched interpretations of Pauline texts are so outrageous that they merit my appellation “crank exegesis.” I wanted our audience to see clearly this point and so prepared my rebuttals with this in mind.
-William Lane Craig
If you really dismiss Craig as a "asshurt Christfag" then you are definitely of the intellectually dishonest type whom I'd prefer to not waste time discussing this with.
>>406017
Dues upfront. Kidding. Kind of. Well if you do join, don't let it interfere in your personal interests. I'm not a very good cult leader.
>>405999
We all fall victim to improperly contextualized ontological fragments, whether about atheism, skepticism, or whatever because there's just a lot of different types of ideas and even more situations to apply them differently within. The step where you compare many examples of ideas to scenarios, then against each other again for worthwhile action vs amateur, and all that, is mind-boggling.
I didn't mean to say that the contribution of atheism in the non-political ideological sense was bad, or you sticking to the golden rule is bad, or even people outright claiming god doesn't exist and saying you have to think that to be an atheist is bad. I was just pointing out stuff we should probably spend time discussing. Whether rampant belief is too open is definitely something we've all spent a lot of time discussing.
>>406187
Give an example of how a text was stretched, before you call people who disagree with you or Craig's criticism unworthy. There's no substance in your post.
>>406187
>>406353
He's not wrong
>>406363
Killing an entire adult population by whitewashing every single adult as corrupt is the definition of wrong. Killing children because they'll be spiritually saved is wrong. Sweeping generalizations based on supernatural nonsense get a pass from you?
Marx
>>405796
>Carrier
>Fantastic philosoper
>historian
kek
>>404504
>Don't know who Feynman is
Top kek
>>406406
Trying to invalidate WLC based on this statement is as stupid as trying to invalidate all of Schopenhauer based on his essay on women.
>>404504
>don't know feynman
I don't know whether to feel sad about this statement
Or happy for you, because you have so much to read and watch now
>>403297
None, all are irrational.
>>403306
unfortunately true.
>>405279
Its a worldview
>>405953
You are defending that which you take on faith alone.
Your existence and your ostensible paradigm are contradictory.
>>405999
You attempt to find Reason from non-Reason.
Atheism is the bane of Man.
Atheism gave rise to the totalitarians of 40s, they justified their actions by Reason alone, no matter the personal beliefs they were atheistic in nature.
Atheism seems kind, comfortable, reasonable, unassuming, a secure paradigm.
I can assure that couldn't be more wrong.
Atheism is at its core irrational and dangerous.
I am not advocating banning atheism for one can not ban the irrational.
I am advocating assailing those who deny Truth and are so fanatically entrenched in their paradigm that their skepticism and abuse or Reason becomes a stumbling block for Man.
>>407301
Religion is the bane of Man.
Religion gave rise to the totalitarians of (insert almost any year before 1900), they justified their actions by Faith alone, no matter the personal beliefs they were Religious in nature.
Religion seems kind, comfortable, reasonable, unassuming, a secure paradigm.
I can assure that couldn't be more wrong.
Religion is at its core irrational and dangerous.
I am not advocating banning religion for one can not ban the irrational.
I am advocating assailing those who deny Truth and are so fanatically entrenched in their paradigm that their belief and abuse of Faith becomes a stumbling block for Man.
>>406953
>butthurt christfag
Kek
>>407301
>Atheism gave rise to the totalitarians of the 40s
>They justified their actions on reason alone.
Hitler was a devout Catholic who believed himself to be undertaking a holy crusade and Stalin only repressed Orthodox ideology because it went against his Socialist ideology. He promoted the religion of the state rather than the religion of deities, which is why studies like genetics were banned in the Soviet Union.
>on /his/
>doesn't know anything about history
jej
