More Religious Nuts

[darkside]

If you are an atheist and you know it, clap your hands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

As usual the loudest in the room, are usually the ones in the back which are 'least' understood.

Thats, pretty much on the money , it's well documented that the Swedes are by and large an athiest society, and have one of the safest and most livable countries in the world .
And America has the highest representation of christianity and its well, lets just say not in the top ten of lovely places. !!

 

[weird]

Thats, pretty much on the money , it's well documented that the Swedes are by and large an athiest society, and have one of the safest and most livable countries in the world .
And America has the highest representation of christianity and its well, lets just say not in the top ten of lovely places. !!

77% believe in either a god/spirit/life force ... what is your definition of atheism ? I thought with atheism we are just a random quirk of nature, without needing any communion force, mind or purpose.

 

[darkside]

77% believe in either a god/spirit/life force ... what is your definition of atheism ? I thought with atheism we are just a random quirk of nature, without needing any communion force, mind or purpose.

My Definition of Atheism is just about the same as all the other Athiests that read this thread, in fact i can speak for us as a majority, and i doubt many will rebuke it , as we only have a simple creed , i don't think you can do the same with religion.
Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.

If humanity is to move forward and ultimately survive on this planet we have to admit to ourselves that superstition cannot play a productive part in our affairs. Socially, politically and environmentally, civilisation is at the crossroads of success or failure .

What is an Atheist? If you are not one now, then potentially, it is you

 

[weird]

Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.

If humanity is to move forward and ultimately survive on this planet we have to admit to ourselves that superstition cannot play a productive part in our affairs. Socially, politically and environmentally, civilisation is at the crossroads of success or failure .

What is an Atheist? If you are not one now, then potentially, it is you

The use of science as evidence of achievement outside of physics is so abused, as we have made so much progress in that one area, we think we have made so much progress in other areas of science.

The idea that we need to dismiss something because we have no scientific or factual reliable evidence is ludicrous. Doctors use to think it was ludicrous to have to wash their hands before surgery ... the idea of germs ... was ludicrous.

 

[trainspotter]

What we have here is an ecumenical matter. God cannot be proven via science or facts, so therefore He does not exist. God does exist via religion and faith so therefore He does exist.

Hmmmm ... not sure about the washing of the hands thingy. This was borne from ignorance and had nothing to do with science. We know now that hygeine is a priority when one is performing an operation. So why does Golden Staph survive in the cleanest of environments ie the hospitals? Is it because it prefers a clean environment? Yes.

The earth was flat until science proved otherwise and so on and so forth. Everything is easy once someone has shown you how to do it.

 

[bellenuit]

I thought with atheism we are just a random quirk of nature, without needing any communion force, mind or purpose.

Atheism is not believing in the existence of a god or gods. Full Stop. It doesn't state anything beyond that.

It makes no statement as to how we came here or why we are here. It doesn't require you to accept evolutionary theory, the big bang, gravity, life on other planets or anything else for that matter.

How atheists view these matters is an individual choice.

 

[weird]

Dudes going out , and have not intentions on logging on to the computer until tomorrow, so don't take my lack of reply to agreeing.

You are all wrong, I am right, because I would not have said it, if it was not true.

 

[darkside]

The use of science as evidence of achievement outside of physics is so abused, as we have made so much progress in that one area, we think we have made so much progress in other areas of science.

The idea that we need to dismiss something because we have no scientific or factual reliable evidence is ludicrous. Doctors use to think it was ludicrous to have to wash their hands before surgery ... the idea of germs ... was ludicrous.

Unfortunately , your just grasping at straws, we don't have to prove there is a god, thats a given , all you have is blind gullible faith.

Religion is dependent on infant indoctrination – Hindus beget Hindus, Muslims beget Muslims and Christians beget Christians.

Atheism is akin to when a child finally accepts that Santa is just pretend. The child lets go of a cherished belief and replaces it with a greater maturity in facing life as life is. If we failed to discard the Santa fantasy, our mental development would assuredly be impaired and a full and proper understanding of the wonder of the natural Universe and our place in it, lost forever, Hence doctors and handwashing.

Religion is our grown-up Santa. Think about it.

 

[wayneL]

My Definition of Atheism is just about the same as all the other Athiests that read this thread, in fact i can speak for us as a majority, and i doubt many will rebuke it , as we only have a simple creed , i don't think you can do the same with religion.
Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.

If humanity is to move forward and ultimately survive on this planet we have to admit to ourselves that superstition cannot play a productive part in our affairs. Socially, politically and environmentally, civilisation is at the crossroads of success or failure .

What is an Atheist? If you are not one now, then potentially, it is you

What you would describe is more agnosticism.

Agnosticism is the only truly scientific stance one can take. As the existence of God (in any of infinite forms) cannot be disproven.

Ergo, "atheism" is a belief. A belief that God(s)/whatever does not exist.

Furthermore, one should separate the existence of God(s)/whatever, from the practice of religion.

If there is some form of "whatever", there is no incontrovertible proof that it wants to be worshipped.

 

[trainspotter]

Dudes going out , and have not intentions on logging on to the computer until tomorrow, so don't take my lack of reply to agreeing.

You are all wrong, I am right, because I would not have said it, if it was not true.

Hmmmm ... slight God complex there? Or is it a narcissistic personality disorder. I am right, you are wrong ... so there !

 

[weird]

Hmmmm ... slight God complex there? Or is it a narcissistic personality disorder. I am right, you are wrong ... so there !

Still here, but almost out the door .. I thought atheists would have a sense of humor by definition !

 

[darkside]

Golden Staph survive in the cleanest of environments ie the hospitals? Is it because it prefers a clean environment? Yes.

Trainspotter, that is simplistic and brilliant all rolled into one, i have so got to use that analogy at work , with your permission of course !!!

 

[darkside]

Still here, but almost out the door .. I thought atheists would have a sense of humor by definition !

Weird , i was laughing with you , i have a sense of humour, enjoy your night at the temple champion !

 

[trainspotter]

Trainspotter, that is simplistic and brilliant all rolled into one, i have so got to use that analogy at work , with your permission of course !!!

Use away my friend. Good to see you are picking up what I am putting down.

P.S. You don't work in a hospital do you?

 

[darkside]

What you would describe is more agnosticism.

Agnosticism is the only truly scientific stance one can take. As the existence of God (in any of infinite forms) cannot be disproven.

Ergo, "atheism" is a belief. A belief that God(s)/whatever does not exist.

Furthermore, one should separate the existence of God(s)/whatever, from the practice of religion.

If there is some form of "whatever", there is no incontrovertible proof that it wants to be worshipped.

Great question, and well written , my brother inlaw David Nicholls wrote on exactly the same lines, perhaps you know him !

 

[wayneL]

WayneL, agnostics are more fence sitters, they neither believe nor disbelieve in god, gods or the supernatural, they will take a neautral stance untill given unequivicol proof either way.

Atheism is the only truly scientific stance . As the existence of God (in any of infinite forms) cannot be proven.

Atheism" is a belief. A belief that God(s)/whatever does not exist.

There is absolutely no similarity between the Atheist stance in life and that of the religious. Atheists accept only facts, whereas the religious et al find no need for them.

Darkside,

That's the binomial argument - Atheism versus religion. Both are beliefs.

Actually, religion can be tradition more than anything. There are plenty of atheists in church.

Also a person who feels that there is some form of "god", may totally reject religion.

Science considers possibilities. I think science can rightly discount the Judeo/Christian (and other primitive representations) model of God, and therein lies the difficulties that human then extrapolate that to all possible models. It is possible that god could exist in one an infinite number of other models. Hence the truly scientific approach is to be open to these possibilities, while being satisfied that the primitive model is incorrect.

It is assumed that god must be supernatural. What if we speculate that there could be a natural god.

We are currently only scratching the surface of physics, with a number of interesting theory and hypotheses... string theory, electric universe theory etc.

The interesting thing about humans is the phenomenon of "attitudinal polarization", the tendency to gravitate towards extreme opposites in debate, hence traditional religion versus atheism with zero consideration of any possibilities in between, or outside the debate.

Dumb.

I like the ignore the extremes and look everywhere else. I want to know everything everybody else pointedly ignores. Think about it, consider it. Open your minds. It doesn't mean that you can't hold beliefs, but it means those beliefs can evolve as information comes to hand.

Both atheism and traditional religion have a rigidity that is unacceptable for truly enlightened discussion.

All IMO of course.

 

[darkside]

Use away my friend. Good to see you are picking up what I am putting down.

P.S. You don't work in a hospital do you?

No but i do work in the Emergency Services and always in and out of hospitals.

 

[darkside]

Darkside,

Both atheism and traditional religion have a rigidity that is unacceptable for truly enlightened discussion.

All IMO of course.

Ah WayneL so true, and a topic that will be debated for years to come , mind you , i believe that only a "fool says in his own heart" there is no god.






























The wise man says it to the world

 

[Julia]

Ce n'est pas.

I certainly agree with your statement: "Turn the thing around and many religious atrocities come down to issues of power as well."

Just because one follows a religion doesn't make that religion responsible for one's every action. Even some actions that are done in the name of some religion, may be done purely as a power play, rather than adherence to that religion's dogma. Tyrants/terrorists will use whatever can assist them in their goals, whether it is religion, nationalism or ethnicity. However, there is no denying that the teachings or dogmas of many religions are motivation for some people to commit atrocities or repugnant acts. It would be fairly safe to say that suicide bombers commit their acts, not for their own personal gain (at least in this life), but because they believe they are following the teachings of their faith.

Atheism does not have a dogma or any sort of teachings. Neither does deism (in its truest sense). Because deists do not believe in an interventionist God, there is no dogma to follow. A fundamentalist deist is just as nonsensical as a fundamentalist atheist. It is just as nonsensical as classifying those who do not believe in aliens as fundamentalist or non-fundamentalist. Fundamentalism, IMO, means strict adherence to teachings or a dogma, no matter how irrational they may be. Refusing to budge in one's opinion, when contradictory evidence is proven beyond doubt. Religion goes beyond deism or the simple belief that there is a god and introduces the concept of an interventionist God, who prescribes how we are to act through so-called revelations. This is where the teachings and dogmas come in and allows us to then differentiate between fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist in relation to adherence to those teachings and dogmas.

I can't agree with your opinion of Dawkins as a fundamentalist atheist. He is primarily an educator and asking that religious statements, particularly those that relate to the realm of science (creationism for example) be tested scientifically, is in the domain of any educator. In fact every religious person should also do they same.

Being offended by religious beliefs hardly makes one a fundamentalist atheist. How many Christians are offended by Islamic beliefs? Dawkins opposition to religion is not to "promote atheism", though he would obviously see atheism as the better alternative, but to stop the evils inherent in religion. He sees religion as a form of child abuse where before they can even think rationally, they are indoctrinated with the religion of their parents often accompanied with threats of eternal damnation should they ever question those beliefs. Why do 95% of people have the same religion as their parents? They certainly didn't sit down at a table, study all religions and non-religions, and come to the conclusion that that particular religion was better than any other belief system. It was because of what was drummed into them at an early age. And if what was drummed into them is what is being taught in the madrasa in Pakistan or parts of the UK, that surely is child abuse.

The bus campaign was rather silly IMO, but its message was to overcome the fears drummed into you at an impressionable age and think for yourself.

I agree to a certain extent, though I would not think they follow their parents to the same degree when it comes to politics, education or occupation. However, there certainly isn't the same psychological trauma associated with adopting a different religion or no religion when deciding not to follow in your parents footsteps for occupation or education. Perhaps there is a bit of trauma for politics. With religion, you not only have to overcome your personal fears (a belief that you may be eternally damned) but for some religions and in some countries, you may be ostracised or even killed for rejection of your religion.

However, I would not shy away from the use of the phrase "child abuse". From my own personal experience of a fairly strict Catholic upbringing, I found it very difficult to reject the Catholic church. Even though I concluded that it was all nonsense, I still saw myself as a non-practising Catholic, rather than an atheist. It is hard to describe how difficult it was to take this final step. It was purely because of the fear instilled in me at an early age that made it so difficult. It was exposure to the works of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris that "liberated" me from that irrational fear.

Must have been quite a journey, bellenuit.
Thanks for your articulate and interesting comments.

The idea that we need to dismiss something because we have no scientific or factual reliable evidence is ludicrous. Doctors use to think it was ludicrous to have to wash their hands before surgery ... the idea of germs ... was ludicrous.

Um, hard to see the connection with the topic at hand.

What you would describe is more agnosticism.

Agnosticism is the only truly scientific stance one can take. As the existence of God (in any of infinite forms) cannot be disproven.

Ergo, "atheism" is a belief. A belief that God(s)/whatever does not exist.

Furthermore, one should separate the existence of God(s)/whatever, from the practice of religion.

If there is some form of "whatever", there is no incontrovertible proof that it wants to be worshipped.

Ah, thank goodness. Finally, we come to the utter sense of agnosticism.

I remember a few years ago when we had a discussion along these lines that Dukey mentioned pantheism. This works for me.

 

[weird]

Originally Posted by weird View Post

The idea that we need to dismiss something because we have no scientific or factual reliable evidence is ludicrous. Doctors use to think it was ludicrous to have to wash their hands before surgery ... the idea of germs ... was ludicrous.

Um, hard to see the connection with the topic at hand.

Sorry Julia, don't understand, the prior post was that things needed to be proven before we would accept them (and anything not should be rejected), which I believe atheism is based on. Bad logic.

As given in the previous example, why do you expect knowledge to be given to anyone of a platter. Doctors thought germs were ridiculous before learning to wash their hands, does it mean germs didn't exist until that point ?

I have had this argument before with an atheist, for some reason their brain somehow rejects even processing this thought, so not surprised to see the 'hard to see the connection with the topic at hand' comment.