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. !!
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.
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
I thought with atheism we are just a random quirk of nature, without needing any communion force, mind or purpose.
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.
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
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 !
Golden Staph survive in the cleanest of environments ie the hospitals? Is it because it prefers a clean environment? Yes.
Still here, but almost out the door .. I thought atheists would have a sense of humor by definition !
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 !!!
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.
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.
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,
Both atheism and traditional religion have a rigidity that is unacceptable for truly enlightened discussion.
All IMO of course.
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.
Must have been quite a journey, bellenuit.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.
Um, hard to see the connection with the topic at hand.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.
Ah, thank goodness. Finally, we come to the utter sense of agnosticism.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?