Atheism 2.0

  • Arcade
  • Arcade's Avatar Topic Author
  • Guest
26 Feb 2013 00:16 #95775 by Arcade
Atheism 2.0 was created by Arcade
During research for my essay on atheism (for the IP) I came across this video. It's from an atheist's perspective, but he shares some interesting ideas. I particularly appreciated his thoughts on how atheists can benefit from religion and certain religious practices (and by nurturing a spiritual mindset).

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Akkarin
  • Akkarin's Avatar
  • Guest
26 Feb 2013 00:42 #95776 by Akkarin
Replied by Akkarin on topic Atheism 2.0
I have seen this before. Not the same lecturer but the same topic, when Alexandre returns I will ask him who the author was, I can't remember at all :dry:

Please Log in to join the conversation.

27 Feb 2013 09:44 #95930 by Alexandre Orion
Replied by Alexandre Orion on topic Atheism 2.0
Not to keep you waiting, but Alain de Botton is probably talking about something that he has written himself ... I'll have a look at that conference later (in a week or two) and get back to you about it. In fact, I'm not even sure what the question is ; if it turns out that the author is in fact the lecturer, M, I will kick your mickey all the way to Titan (get prepared)


Be a philosopher ; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man.
~ David Hume

Chaque homme a des devoirs envers l'homme en tant qu'homme.
~ Henri Bergson
File Attachment:
The following user(s) said Thank You: Arcade

Please Log in to join the conversation.

27 Feb 2013 16:47 #95952 by Gisteron
Replied by Gisteron on topic Atheism 2.0
Interesting eventhough questionable sermon. In some places he really suggests support for religious treats that have been or can be abused easily.

And there are two things I disagree with concretely:
1 - To change the world doesn't mean to get together with a lot of people. A good idea is just enough; you don't need an army of enforcers. I can even see people being discouraged by that tiny statement that sole people don't change the world and it is contrary to numerous examples of both influential philosophers who improved it and dreadful dictators who, in the end, at least taught us to be cautious.
2 - The idea that art is for art's sake is contrary to everything I heard from any artist or arts teacher. Self-explanation, too, is not discouraged in arts, it just is no longer a requirement officially (which, granted, I, too, find rather disturbing). However, what de Botton suggests instead, that arts is (or should be) a means to deliver a didactic message, is also wrong as far as I know. Art as I learned and do practice it, is a means of expressing oneself (deep personality and feelings that is) in an way that conventional communication methods do not allow for sufficiently. Art can be self-explanatory and educational, but that intention is not a necessary condition for the resulting work to be art nor is it the purpose of the artist's investment and dedication during his work.

Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: RexZero