The Growth of Atheism and What it Means for Our Future

Originally posted by polit

And why are you arguing with me? What is your point? They did it, so we can do it too. I never said it was strictly the atheists being rude.

Would you like to point out where I am arguing with you?

You are the one telling the story of the behavior of these Atheists. You did not offer a counter point - - therefore I can only assume - - your intention was strictly about Atheists being rude.

I just offered a counter point - - and said: Bad and rude behavior is bad and rude behavior - - - it is not "Atheist" behavior.

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by gentledissident

 

How was your materialist outlook on things any less of a wild assertion?

I said things are as they seem. We are just another species. You started making up things and validating them with "faith of the fathers". I don't see where I have made a wild assertion. It's fantastical speculation to manufacture a "reality" and replace the obvious with it. It is obvious we are animals and not plants.

Religion isn't what is holding back science. It never has; despite widespread beliefs, the church did not oppose the theory of evolution at first. Most scientists in the 1800s and early 1900s were christian. We know nearly everything today because of religious people. The problem is there's a very close-minded, very vocal "sect" of christians that are opposing the progress we've already made.
A religious scientist is much better than a atheist scientist for one very important reason. The religious scientist is much less likely to use their knowledge to harm others. *I'm talking about real religious people, not hypocrites. The hypocrites are very numerous right now though.

You're very wrong when you say religion is keeping evolution from becoming a "law" rather than a "theory." That's simply not true. Laws include stuff like gravity, and conservation of energy. Evolution is not a fully understood mechanism. We don't understand it, and we probably never will, in as great as detail as necessary to call it a law.

The world would not be better if we were all atheist. And the world would not be better if we were all close-minded religious people.
It really is possible to be religious and scientific at the same time.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
. . .

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Atheism - lack of belief in a deity

Black - lack of color

Black is not lack of color. Black is the color of objects that emit or reflect no light in the visible spectrum.


So, more correctly:

Atheism - lack of belief in a deity
Clear- lack of color
. . .

From wiki:

Black can be defined as the visual impression experienced when no visible light reaches the eye. (This makes a contrast with whiteness, the impression of any combination of colors of light that equally stimulates all three types of color-sensitive visual receptors.)

Pigments that absorb light rather than reflect it back to the eye "look black". A black pigment can, however, result from a combination of several pigments that collectively absorb all colors. If appropriate proportions of three primary pigments are mixed, the result reflects so little light as to be called "black".

This provides two superficially opposite but actually complementary descriptions of black. Black is the lack of all colors of light, or an exhaustive combination of multiple colors of pigment.

Clear is the absence of reflected light, and is the complete opposite of having a color.

There is no black color, though pigmentation can APPEAR to make something look black.


Therefore, Atheism is a religion, but with the proper spin, you can make it APPEAR to not be one.

This is a very interesting thread. Personally, my spiritual views have changed dramatically since I was a child --- I was raised Christian --- then became an Atheist --- and now I guess I’d consider myself somewhat “spiritual” though I haven’t quite figured out what makes sense to me.

I strongly believe that the majority of the religious doctrine – (which ingrains the belief in a vindictive God) is very detrimental to society. The God of the Old Testament seems all too happy to smite his creation and if this is the honest truth and I ever had the change to meet God one on one ... I might suggest that next time “a little more "snipin" guidance on earth would have been nice!” Like, really, am I (or really anybody) to know for sure what religion I should give myself to! We certainly can’t believe our crooked/sadistic/child molesting religious figures. And unless, someone would be so kind as to give me a bump on the head so I can start seeing Angels...I don’t think I’ll ever know for sure what to believe in unless I’m dead...and then what good is to me now?!

Rant aside, (in my humble opinion) I think it should be obvious to most that this “mean old man/God” figure is simply there to frighten humanity into submission. The theology is patently based on earlier myths and folklore. And that says nothing about the hypocrisy that abounds when we see that the people who pretend to be the most devout/superior are generally the most evil people amongst us. (at least the ones who have too much power and can afford to be) The poor just end up being miserable and making their children feel miserable and guilty about everything.

So yes, even though I don’t consider myself a full-on atheist, I can certainly see the value in doing away with most mainstream religions.

On the other hand, I wouldn’t know how to go about it through. Because perhaps it’s true...perhaps we do have a spiritual aspect to ourselves that shouldn’t be ignored. Moreover, if we were to ban all religions...we’d end of forgetting the point of banning Christianity, Judaism and Islam in the first place. (Which I assume is to promote tolerance, equality and freedom from religions oppression)

It’s a hard nut to crack! Moderate-ism likely won’t work – because of all the extremists. People want to be heroes, or feel like they have some control. When really all that religious violence serves to do is to make sure everyone else is miserable and filled with hate.

Forgive me, I think I’ve digressed from the post. You mentioned that 16% percent or so of people are Atheists now...perhaps that as good a start as any. Removing the violence and hatred from religious doctrine will no doubt take time and hopefully 10 years down the road this figure will be even greater.

People don’t have to turn to Atheism...as long as they practice their faith in a peaceful and non-oppressive fashion, I will support them 100%!

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Yes, and religious faith would be the furthest away from truth and 'faith' in science (which is really being used as a synonym for trust here, which is why it's skewing things a bit) is as close to truth as we can possibly get in this world.

If you have faith this is the real world.

...anyone who thinks what they see is real doesn't understand that they have a massive blindspot in the middle of their field of view.

You sounds like a man of profound faith to me.

...it's the scientific method. If I swing a pendulum I can be very sure that the crest of the arc on the other side will not be higher than the dropping point on the side of origin. That's what science is. No faith needed. It's repeated testing that's been cataloged and critiqued and restested over centuries.

You have faith that those repeats will produce the same answer always and for ever. I have faith that everything I pray for and hear and answer too will comes to pass as it was said to. Really, it's the same faith. What you place your faith in is simply observable. Doesn't change the fact that its faith. If suddenly something caused gravity to change, your faith will be ruined. As would mine if something I heard an answer from didn't go about as told it would. What you put your faith in is simply more reliable to human nature because you can see it with your eyes, but that too is faith that your eyes indeed see what is happening.

...wow, that's only moderately insulting.

That would require you to have faith that what you think you know about the brain is true. Simply put, there is not enough known to know for sure.

...except that I have no faith in any deity, in any concept. I have trust based upon experience and testing, nothing more. I am readily aware that new evidence could change my position on just about anything, which is why I'm open to allowing for that. This is what separates me from someone who has faith, I don't claim that my position is unassailable.

Actually, you do. Because you have trusted that the faith you put in your own experiences and testing are indeed true. Trust is earned and faith is freely given without proof nor need for proof. Trusting in yourself is a good quality for a person, but if you turn out to be wrong then really, you can only blame yourself. Trusting your faith in your belief that there is no God is your opinion. The only way you cannot have any faith in a concept is if you are ignorant of the concept and have never fathomed it. Being that you are human, and all humans have heard of some sort of God, you have trusted that your faith in this belief is indeed true. Therefore the only way you could have no faith is if either A, you do not have the mental capacity to understand it, or B, you have never heard of the concept before.

Citation needed much?

koko the Gorilla. They taught her sign language and asked a bunch of questions.

When I was young I thought that being atheist is a sign of maturity.
I was looking down on the poor guys who still thought that there is a God for them.

In time, as I've learned and experienced a lot, I understood a very important thing:
Religion is a necessity for humanity.
Most people are never mature enough to hold their animal instincts without the fear of a greater power than the human law. Most people are never strong enough to stand alone against the hardships of life and death without the hope of a stronger arm to hold theirs. It seems that one of the most difficult things for people is to differentiate between good and bad by themselves. We, as society, would only be a bunch of cruel primates without religion.

The history teaches us that there never existed a society or civilization without religion. I don't think we are smarter by denying that lesson. To take religion away from people, we should give them something else instead, equally strong and convincing. Otherwise there will be a total chaos.

Today, I'm still an atheist, but I respect every person who has a belief. For them is real, and it has a purpose.
So no, I don't think that the growth of atheism is a good thing. Especially when most people think that being atheist is revolting against any common accepted moral value. The passion with which they go against believers is not maturity to me, but the other side of same coin we don't like at the fanatic believers.

People will always find an exuse to be biggotted and see others as their lessers . This is a crock that Christianity is somehow solely responsible for all the wrongs in the world just take at look at the rest of the world . It's humans who do bad when they adopt fanatic idiology . Maoist China much !

Originally posted by gentledissident

Originally posted by kallisti36If there is no God, no universal spirit, or individual soul then there is no point, no plot, and no reason.

Does the truth hurt so much you will believe a lie?

We naturally try to survive, feel good, and reproduce. That is what animals do. You'd do better if you stopped fighting it and learned to maximize the surviving and feeling good. The reproduction part is easy.

Life, as a human being, is about more than surviving and feeling good. Furthermore, in the ascent of creative evolutionary progression, mankind as the most cerebralized or neuroligically developed, now stands at the unique position in time and histroy, of having the capacity for self reflection. Part of the problem with altheism, is that it makes of the human being nothing more than another animal, at best, and a mere "thing" at worst, neither of which is congruent with our experience as a human being, which involves as much an internal, inner being, as much as it does the outer appearance or the material.

Another problem arises in regards to the idea of a purely "secular humanism".

M. Scott Peck, MD, in his book "A World Waiting to be Born - Civility Rediscovered" defined Civility as: Consciously motivated organizational behavior that is ethical in submission to a higher power (even if only that of an imagined perfect observer)."

A "rational self interest" operating within a competitive environment works up to a point, but in a time of crisis, absent a trascendant moral imperative, FALLS into a chaotic quagmire where nothing but "survival of the fittest, law of the jungle" rules the roost, and we've seen the "data" on that score, and the degenerate, dehumanizing actions which ensue therefrom.

We must have an ideal to guide us, which also transcends us, and calls us to be more than we are or were.

The religious traditions of the world, however misguided their adherents, all point to mankind as representing the highest creative impulse and expression of an infinite and eternal Godhead, as part of a process or a work in progress, never as a mere "thing" or an "animal" who's instinctual drives are dominant. We also have another nature, which is both at once entirely human AND divine. If we deny the divine nature, both within our own selves and in the creation, then what was an evolutionary path of progress towards perfection could very easily become a degenerate regression into our more base animalistic nature, which needn't be supressed but reintegrated into our highest possible state of being or what some call "Godliness".

I am not interested in participating in the top down stratification of civilization according to nothing more than than principal of might makes right survival of the fittest and strongest or wealthiest. I am not interested in barbarism, or a secular humanism which will slide into barbarism when put to the test of a crisis.

I am interested in the OmegaPoint and the realization of our destiny as created beings made in the image of God (consciousness).

In this way, atheism, and the rise of atheism, quite simply put, isn't helpful.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by gentledissident

Originally posted by kallisti36If there is no God, no universal spirit, or individual soul then there is no point, no plot, and no reason.

Does the truth hurt so much you will believe a lie?

We naturally try to survive, feel good, and reproduce. That is what animals do. You'd do better if you stopped fighting it and learned to maximize the surviving and feeling good. The reproduction part is easy.

Life, as a human being, is about more than surviving and feeling good. Furthermore, in the ascent of creative evolutionary progression, mankind as the most cerebralized or neuroligically developed, now stands at the unique position in time and histroy, of having the capacity for self reflection. Part of the problem with altheism, is that it makes of the human being nothing more than another animal, at best, and a mere "thing" at worst, neither of which is congruent with our experience as a human being, which involves as much an internal, inner being, as much as it does the outer appearance or the material.

Another problem arises in regards to the idea of a purely "secular humanism".

M. Scott Peck, MD, in his book "A World Waiting to be Born - Civility Rediscovered" defined Civility as: Consciously motivated organizational behavior that is ethical in submission to a higher power (even if only that of an imagined perfect observer)."

A "rational self interest" operating within a competitive environment works up to a point, but in a time of crisis, absent a trascendant moral imperative, FALLS into a chaotic quagmire where nothing but "survival of the fittest, law of the jungle" rules the roost, and we've seen the "data" on that score, and the degenerate, dehumanizing actions which ensue therefrom.

We must have an ideal to guide us, which also transcends us, and calls us to be more than we are or were.

The religious traditions of the world, however misguided their adherents, all point to mankind as representing the highest creative impulse and expression of an infinite and eternal Godhead, as part of a process or a work in progress, never as a mere "thing" or an "animal" who's instinctual drives are dominant. We also have another nature, which is both at once entirely human AND divine. If we deny the divine nature, both within our own selves and in the creation, then what was an evolutionary path of progress towards perfection could very easily become a degenerate regression into our more base animalistic nature, which needn't be supressed but reintegrated into our highest possible state of being or what some call "Godliness".

I am not interested in participating in the top down stratification of civilization according to nothing more than than principal of might makes right survival of the fittest and strongest or wealthiest. I am not interested in barbarism, or a secular humanism which will slide into barbarism when put to the test of a crisis.

I am interested in the OmegaPoint and the realization of our destiny as created beings made in the image of God (consciousness).

Does the truth hurt so much you will believe a lie?

Originally posted by WhiteHat
The history teaches us that there never existed a society or civilization without religion.

The Pirahã have no concept of a supreme spirit or god and they lost interest in Jesus when they discovered that Everett had never seen him. They require evidence for every claim you make. They aren't interested in things if they don't know the history behind them, if they haven't seen it done. However, they do believe in spirits that can sometimes take on the shape of things in the environment.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Pirahã: People who define happiness without God
Monday, 17 May 2010

This speech, slightly edited for publication, was delivered by Daniel Everett at the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s 32nd annual convention on Nov. 7, 2009, in Seattle. Everett went from missionary to atheist while working with the Amazon Pirahã tribe.

machineslikeus.com...

reply to post by gentledissident

I use my reason to try to discern the truth which resonates as congruent with my own experience. It takes courage and imagination and work and striving, to seek and to find.

For me the alterative view (there is no God) is a lie, which just doesn't fly.

"God made our spirit with wings to fly in the spacious firmament of love and freedom. How pitiful then would it be to lop off our wings by our own hand, and suffer ourselves to crawl like vermin upon the earth."
~ Khalil Gibran

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by gentledissident

 

I use my reason to try to discern the truth which resonates as congruent with my own experience. It takes courage and imagination and work and striving, to seek and to find.

For me the alterative view (there is no God) is a lie, which just doesn't fly.

"God made our spirit with wings to fly in the spacious firmament of love and freedom. How pitiful then would it be to lop off our wings by our own hand, and suffer ourselves to crawl like vermin upon the earth."
~ Khalil Gibran

Yes it does take imagination.

The burden of proof is on you. You have presented something where there was nothing. You have introduced the concept of God to explain your feelings. Your proof is your feelings and the feelings of others. You have failed to prove this God is there. It is like saying you feel a monster is under your bed.

The "vermin" comment shows that you are uncomfortable with the truth, that we are animals.

reply to post by gentledissident

First off, I am beginning with the idea that the human being is part of a whole process, and not a "thing". I am also referring to something called "qualia" or personal experience as a valid and integral part of the whole process that is life. Secondly, I was not suggesting that God is a "feeling", you misunderstand and assume like all atheists who think they're so smart and who keep on repeating the same stale arguments, while never offering a valid hypothesis of their own other than the conclusion that life is without purpose or meaning, and that consciousness is at best an add-on as an epiphenomenon of matter, when the TRUTH of the matter is that consciousness appears to be the very object and goal of an eternal, creative, evolutionary process. Man as a phenomenon, as a process, changes the whole frame of reference, as does God as the first/last cause or the "Alpha and Omega" of existence who is motivated or driven by a will or an intent or creative impulse, a will to create for the sake of mutuality, and therefore, of love.
To even begin to "grok" where such arguments lead yes, requires some imagination and some work or intellectual "heavy lifting".

Of course it's much easier to call the human being an animal and a thing, and assign to the material world no meaning, purpose or significance, being also nothing but a bunch of things, and say that there is no God, that's easy!

P.S. The use of the word "vermin" was part of a quote, it wasn't my comment.
For the record, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with "vermin".

reply to post by nicolee123nd


My first thought after I read the OP was "does religion do more harm than good?" It's true that religion, like political affiliation, seems to be the reason for most of our modern day wars and conflicts when you get to the heart of it. People argue that Islam is a violent religion, and as such it needs to be wiped off the face of the earth for the cancer they consider it to be. Then it made me wonder why these people who oppose Islam thought that way, and whether or not their opinion to "wipe people off the face of the earth" was any less violent than the religion they were demonizing.

This lead me to believe that it wasn't so much religion that was the problem, it was the people who practice the religion to such a fundamental extreme that there is no leeway for leniency from straying from the supposed word of God, which more or less amounts to their own obtuse interpretation of their bible or holy book. It made me think that people intentionally interpreted the dogma that their respective religions teach in such a way that the dogma reflects their own inward negativity so that they can project it outwardly in the form of violence and debauchery. That gives them a reason to justify their own violent behavior, whether it be disposing of a cancer, or eradicating the infidels, this atrocious behavior is perceived as the will of God. Thus killing people in the name of God becomes justifiable.

But again the previous belief that I expounded upon in the paragraph above becomes conflicted since I've read a certain amount of studies and essays which seems to indicate that among developed democracies that practice theistic beliefs such as Christianity, there actually is an increased amount of violent, poor, and so-called immoral behavior than there are in societies that are predominantly non-theistic and which are more pro-evolution, which exhibit higher rates of non-violent, positive, and so-called moral behavior. The studies and essays appear to correlate bad behavior to religious affiliation.

Although that doesn't necessarily prove that religion is the root cause of any type of bad behavior, it does prove that some type of connection exists where maybe misguided, helpless, and impressionable people tend to gravitate toward religion. So maybe there is something about atheism that makes for a better society. But really I think it comes down to the individual practitioner and whether or not the practitioner exhibits bad behavior in the name of religion.

I personally believe that religion and spirituality can be a peaceful and beautiful thing that nurtures and strengthens a soul rather than causes a person to erode. But I guess some people will always remain sour apples.

reply to post by Gorman91

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Yes, and religious faith would be the furthest away from truth and 'faith' in science (which is really being used as a synonym for trust here, which is why it's skewing things a bit) is as close to truth as we can possibly get in this world.

If you have faith this is the real world.

It's not really a big leap of faith. We have no evidence to show that it is not the real world even if we cannot be certain that it is.

...anyone who thinks what they see is real doesn't understand that they have a massive blindspot in the middle of their field of view.

You sounds like a man of profound faith to me.

Nope, I just acknowledge the blind spot in the middle of my field of view. I can, however, verify my observations. As flawed as our brain's interpretation of sense data can be, as flawed as our perceptions may be, we can test them. If you can't believe something is really there, you test that it is. Simple as that.

You have faith that those repeats will produce the same answer always and for ever.

...no, I have no reason to think that they won't. There's a difference between 'faith' and not considering an incredibly unlikely alternative.

I have faith that everything I pray for and hear and answer too will comes to pass as it was said to. Really, it's the same faith.

...no, it's not. I don't have any faith, I have skepticism and doubt. You're simply believing without evidence, I'm making a conclusion based upon reasonable evidence.

What you place your faith in is simply observable. Doesn't change the fact that its faith.

...it's not faith. It's observable, testable, and in constant doubt. Anything I believe could be changed with a reasonable amount of evidence.

If suddenly something caused gravity to change, your faith will be ruined.

...but I have no faith that gravity is constantly the way it is, I merely accept that our only observations of gravity have shown that its effects are measurable, consistent, and any changes can be accounted for as interactions with other portions of the universe. If a new piece of data comes in, I incorporate without problem. It's called science, the place where we don't make absolute claims.

As would mine if something I heard an answer from didn't go about as told it would. What you put your faith in is simply more reliable to human nature because you can see it with your eyes, but that too is faith that your eyes indeed see what is happening.

...it's not really faith. Our eyes don't actually see 'what's happening', they merely perceive photons bouncing off of surfaces, we use this to approximate. We can then test things.

...wow, that's only moderately insulting.

That would require you to have faith that what you think you know about the brain is true. Simply put, there is not enough known to know for sure.

...so your basic argument that anything which is without epistemological certainty is faith? I'm sorry, but that's stupid. It refer to something that has been tested repeatedly and is under constant scrutiny as equivalent to something that is merely believed without evidence is idiotic.

...except that I have no faith in any deity, in any concept. I have trust based upon experience and testing, nothing more. I am readily aware that new evidence could change my position on just about anything, which is why I'm open to allowing for that. This is what separates me from someone who has faith, I don't claim that my position is unassailable.

Actually, you do.

I love it when people tell me things about myself.

Because you have trusted that the faith you put in your own experiences and testing are indeed true.

No, I assume it. I don't have faith because I'm open to the possibility that they're not or not entirely.

Trust is earned and faith is freely given without proof nor need for proof.

And I'm not giving this freely, so it's clearly not faith.

Trusting in yourself is a good quality for a person, but if you turn out to be wrong then really, you can only blame yourself. Trusting your faith in your belief that there is no God is your opinion.

We've gone over this, my position is that I do not believe. I have no belief in the absence of deities! Dear sweet Aunt May and sweet Christmas, how many times do I have to go over this?

The only way you cannot have any faith in a concept is if you are ignorant of the concept and have never fathomed it. Being that you are human, and all humans have heard of some sort of God, you have trusted that your faith in this belief is indeed true.

Babies no longer count as humans, good to know.
And this is a non-sequitur. Merely stating it doesn't make it true. How does it follow that the only absence of faith can be ignorance?

Therefore the only way you could have no faith is if either A, you do not have the mental capacity to understand it, or B, you have never heard of the concept before.

Or no, you're just wrong.

Citation needed much?

koko the Gorilla. They taught her sign language and asked a bunch of questions.

I know that, but when did she say she believed in a higher power?

Originally posted by gentledissident

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by gentledissident

 

I use my reason to try to discern the truth which resonates as congruent with my own experience. It takes courage and imagination and work and striving, to seek and to find.

For me the alterative view (there is no God) is a lie, which just doesn't fly.

"God made our spirit with wings to fly in the spacious firmament of love and freedom. How pitiful then would it be to lop off our wings by our own hand, and suffer ourselves to crawl like vermin upon the earth."
~ Khalil Gibran

Yes it does take imagination.

The burden of proof is on you. You have presented something where there was nothing. You have introduced the concept of God to explain your feelings. Your proof is your feelings and the feelings of others. You have failed to prove this God is there. It is like saying you feel a monster is under your bed.

The "vermin" comment shows that you are uncomfortable with the truth, that we are animals.

edit on 13-6-2011 by gentledissident because: Pink Floyd

With the exception that we don't owe you any proof. Just as we don't have to show you that there is such a thing as Good. No one can show you what 'good" is. People can vary on what it is. But really, you know it when you see it. Just as you know God exists when you also "see" God (used the word see just as an analogy the better word would be feel). Thus, it's not up to us to SHOW or PROVE that there is a God. There is no burden here. This is not a court room. Instead, we have told you that one exists. It is up to you to see God.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan To even begin to "grok" where such arguments lead yes, requires some imagination and some work or intellectual "heavy lifting"

I think it's pretty easy to read into what's actually going on. That animals create does not imply a creator. Even if you could prove it did, that would demonstrate the universe might be a part of or by product of another organism. Decay would also imply these organisms die as well. If an organism is communicating with us though subtlety, I would think it would want us to live long and prosper. I want the same for my cells and mitochondria and offspring. This revelation would in no way alter my point.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555 we have told you that one exists. It is up to you to see God.

Ah, if I believe, then I will believe. Finally, some logic.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
Instead, we have told you that one exists. It is up to you to see God.

Shouldn't that be - we have told you what we believers believe.

It is up to you to believe or not believe - - and to see God if that is your choice.