Thread: Atheism.

Originally Posted by Switch

Science is killing it. Not deliberately of course. Science is easier to teach because it does not require the same level of faith, required by religious teachings, and the associated dogma.

I do not deny others the opportunity to follow any religion of their choice, because if they persist, I know that one day, such flawed belief systems will be replaced by the reality of scientific knowledge.

Yes it might take a few centuries, but I believe it is inevitable.

People replace one God with another in their search for answers to existence. Even science can appear to contradict itself when reading Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics. Scientists believe there is much more dark matter in the universe than normal matter yet they have failed to find it.
One day there will be people worshipping Google the all-knowing. (Other than TC)

I think you don’t really understand how science works high cow

Originally Posted by TheRealKW

I think you don’t really understand how science works high cow

...poor thing: stuck in a fantasy with sky gods, winged fairies, rings of hell and...who knows? Maybe Dorothy and Toto as well...

Ruby red shoes…

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Religion

I'll go with Karl Marx:

The opium of the people (or opium of the masses) is a dictum used in reference to religion, derived from the most frequently paraphrased statements of German sociologist and economic theoristKarl Marx: "Religion is the opium of the people." In context, the statement is part of Marx's structural-functionalist argument that religion was constructed by people to calm uncertainty over their role in the universe and in society.

...^and the fear that individual consciousness will not survive death...thus all the religious constructs that promise (with certainty!) post-existence heaven, hell, nirvana, cherubs, virgins, demons and whatever else might pop into fevered minds: hooey for the hopeful ignorant...

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

People replace one God with another in their search for answers to existence. Even science can appear to contradict itself when reading Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics. Scientists believe there is much more dark matter in the universe than normal matter yet they have failed to find it.
One day there will be people worshipping Google the all-knowing. (Other than TC)

I don’t think that too many trade one religious faith for another. While some use guilt, or identify a general opposition as targets for their support, such as the ‘infidel’ as the hard line Islamists do, in general, the commonalities are not so different.

As I wrote originally, most contemporary religious foundations are based on simple equivalence of a few basic rules, and the exhortation to be a good person, who demonstrates kindness to others, even if they follow a different faith.

All the rest, like what you can and can’t eat, and the set days for prayer and following your god of choice, is just window dressing and minor divergence of rules to make their faith seem unique. The differences have developed over time, while the basic similarities take on a greater importance, and remain largely unchanged. This represents the teaching of moderate branches of every faith.

Originally Posted by tomcat

...if only there were a way to speed things up to avoid centuries of continuing ignorance...

Patience grasshopper, patience.

Should you trust a country who's official slogan is "In God we trust", and prints it on it's currency?

Originally Posted by Switch

Sure.

Thats why I’m an atheist.

Surely atheism means no believing in deities. As such it is a personal decision. It does not mean you belong to a different group.

Originally Posted by VocalNeal

As such it is a personal decision. It does not mean you belong to a different group.

...if you put a group of folks together who make the same personal decision that is different from others, you have...a different group...

Originally Posted by VocalNeal

Surely atheism means no believing in deities. As such it is a personal decision. It does not mean you belong to a different group.

It was in reply to Loopers somewhat disingenuous post, which failed to stir the pot, because it was simply not a serious reply.
He was trying to be serious, but he’s not smart enough to pull that off. I think he may have been drinking, or smoking something.

Atheism most accurately describes my beliefs. If they are different to others, then I am a maybe a group of one. If you find my acceptance of others right to choose difficult, it’s probably best to describe that particular trait as me trying to be tolerant.

Originally Posted by sabang

Should you trust a country who's official slogan is "In God we trust", and prints it on it's currency?

Seeking an imaginary gods approval is probably a sign of personal weakness. Religion and politics should be separated.
The UK parliament still awards seats to the church hierarchy. While the House of Lords remains an unreformed anachronism, these awards too should be removed. The church and the state should always be separated.

Originally Posted by Switch

because it was simply not a serious reply

I beg to appeal that it was in the most part intended to be serious.

The common religiosity seen in all human cultures everywhere suggests that the sense of a kind of divine spirituality that we feel at times is an evolved feature of our psychology.

There are lots of theories on why this behaviour would be selected for by nature.

That sense of spirituality can be a powerful force in modifying people's behaviour as well as a sensual experience in its own right.

We should seek to understand how it works and try to use it to our advantage rather than try to pour dry logical and scientific scorn on it.

Quasi-religious spiritual experiences can be the most transcending moments of some people's lives. If we can understand how it works we can learn more about how to safely enjoy it and enrich our collective lives.

^ I think those 3 have been my undoing....

Having said that, there have been several times in my life where I thought an invisible hand has guided me.

Originally Posted by Looper

I beg to appeal that it was in the most part intended to be serious.

The common religiosity seen in all human cultures everywhere suggests that the sense of a kind of divine spirituality that we feel at times is an evolved feature of our psychology.

There are lots of theories on why this behaviour would be selected for by nature.

That sense of spirituality can be a powerful force in modifying people's behaviour as well as a sensual experience in its own right.

We should seek to understand how it works and try to use it to our advantage rather than try to pour dry logical and scientific scorn on it.

Quasi-religious spiritual experiences can be the most transcending moments of some people's lives. If we can understand how it works we can learn more about how to safely enjoy it and enrich our collective lives.

My apologies for not taking your religious beliefs more seriously before.

At face value, your original post seems to be baiting rather than serious. For one who has travelled and who normally writes well, and with humour, it seems I may have misjudged you.

For what it’s worth, my view is that the move from hunter gather, to a more stable agricultural base, was possibly led by more feminine whiles than the need for any explanation of regular events. The sun, rising and setting in the same place every day would be out with the understanding of primitive man. Science like flint hand tools and weaponry was still in its infancy.

To imagine an ethereal hand guiding the sun, weather and the seasons, simply describes one part of primitive reasoning, and the desire for more cerebral leadership from men of different abilities and thought processes.

If primitive man sought reasons or explanation for scientific events, then it’s no surprise that a less physical leader might seek to attribute the unexplainable by making shit up, when the primitive mind was still coming to grips with the discovery of basic tools.

Women were responsible for extending desirable genetic traits, and while men would have a part to play in that, Darwin’s theory of natural selection would take care of the gene pool improvements.
Move forward a few millennia and it can be seen that, while physical attributes remain desirable, in the modern world, ‘smart’ has become of arguably greater importance and the role and purpose of females has developed way beyond their original purpose.

The clever branch of primitive men needed an outlet and saw the opportunity to apply much greater social cohesion to the ever changing agricultural settlement. Outnumbered by the physically dominant males, this two sided contest could produce the only response which was imaginary religious answers that could not be questioned. Why does the sun always rise in the East and set in the West?

Primitive man had it comparatively easy in those days. He had only to prove the superiority of his scientifically engineered weaponry, against the imagination of the ‘smart opposition. For the smart guys, the answer was simple. Just make up greater imaginary solutions, which his opponent could not imagine. Hence the invention of spiritual or religious growth, as mans quest for answers was greater than existing science was able to answer.

Humanity still struggles for answers even today, and the struggle is complicated by the rise of feminine influences, only recently coming to the fore. Human development has not taken decades to develop, but thousands of years to get where we are today.

We have more questions than answers, and evolution still has thousands of years to unravel the answers. Does the solution come from ever increasing scientific knowledge, or the violence that pervades radical religious or spiritual beliefs. At least both genders are now rightfully involved in that quest. Atheism provides the more pragmatic and realistic opportunity to move evolution forward in my view.