No - an atheist is simply someone who does not believe in or denies all gods, so you either are or you aren't. You can get anti-religious extremists, who are really miffed with every religion, but that's a bit general - most nutters of this type would be called anti-christian, anti-islam or whatever fits at the time, as they probably don't care so much about some of the more obscure or dying out religions to be labeled "anti-religious" generally. Often they are reacting against the power that the popular religions still have in and over our society. Personally, I think secularism is the only sensible way to go as it guarantees unrestricted and accepted worship in whatever religion you follow - with the annoying caveat for people who want it all their own way, that you do not take precedence over others and the way they live. So no noise-polluting calls to prayer, no tax breaks for your church, no requirement that only different sexes can get married and it must be in a church etc...
MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
"If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine
Not entirely on subject but has anyone been watching the BBC2 programme 'How the world made us'? (Tuesdays BBC2 9pm)
Its an absolutely fascinating insight into how 'we' as humans have developed through time and how the natural disasters have shaped us. (some of the photography in it is simply breathtaking )
Its highlighted to me, how any disaster such as Haiti, is put into perspective, when you look at the timeline of the earth.
MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
"If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine
which means, we must face up to the fact that its not religion that is the problem - its people. It doesn't actually matter if religion can be said to "cause" wars or not - not all religions can be correct, if any are at all, and the popular ones are all fairly recent (it's been 150,000 years since humans came "out of africa"), yet we have always had wars. Religion is just an extra badge for warmongering humans to wear - you know, like in the boy scouts.
Bah, humans, overrated.
I take it the scientist in you never studied logic. That we do not know A does not prove anything with respect to B unless you can similarly prove A and B are related. You have presumed that the things that came before the big bang and what the universe are expanding into are related to some sort of higher power and our ignorance of these things proves the higher power. Logically, that claim simply doesn't hold water. As belief claim, you're welcome to hold it. But as a claim of science, it's specious.
Religions are one way of defining a doctrine for behaving in life. To claim they are the only way is wrong. Or to claim that any doctrine for how to behave in life is a religion is equally wrong. That's a fairly important distinction to make.
So there's only one doctrine for how to behave in life? Interesting... especially as it doesn't tell us a great deal. Both hard-core socialists and hard-core libertarians tend to say they want everyone to be treated the same way. But the way they want everyone to be treated is radically different.
A rather sweeping generalisation that ignores a lot of stuff we know about both religion and human behaviour. For example, religion often exists to explain the unknown. Similarly, the mechanisms for the control of behaviour vary quite widely from person to person and from culture to culture. That common beliefs are a mechanism of control is true, but has very little to do with religion. And it continues to exist in the face of atheism.
Some - most notable Marx - claim that this is the primary reason for religious institutions. Of course, that's a contentious claim.
Really? So if everyone was either a Muslim, a Christian or a Jew, we could all live together in perfect harmony, just like they do in Jerusalem? Or perhaps what you're asking for is either adherence to your conception of morality? Either that or uniformity of belief? Hedonism is a moral grounding. One could raise a child to believe that pleasure is the primary good. Anything that gives them pleasure is good; anything that detracts from their pleasure is bad. Is that a good moral grounding, in your view?
Conversely, one can rather easily bastardise any religious doctrine to countenance pretty much any act. For all the "thou shalt not kill" the Bible condones and encourages a hell of a lot of murder. A lot of the more virulent anti-Muslims in the US - the sort who think the US should have conducted a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran years ago - were raised in the sort of good, religious household you're talking about with clear moral definitions. Much the same as the Muslim extremists draw on their good moral grounding in Islam to justify terrorist attacks.Funnily enough, people - including children - have committed horrendous crimes since time immemorial. This seems to have happened regardless of moral upbringing and other possible behavioural controls. I seem to recall a case or two where priests - who I assume have the sort of strong moral grounding you're talking about - have committed rather unpleasant acts. Similarly, one wouldn't have to look too hard to find acts of wonderful compassion or forgiveness from people with limited moral grounding. Perhaps the moral grounding is only a small part of the story. Perhaps the capacity for wonder and horror is innate in the human animal.
This sounds too much like 'golden agism' - "things were so much better yesterday, so let's turn back the clock" (the phrase, 'young hooligans' is a dead giveaway). I generally think people who make this argument tend to blind themselves to the sins of the past.It's fine not to believe, but you have to believe in something?
Mostly because they realised that the meek do not inherit the earth. People like Richard Dawkins assumed that science would speak for itself and didn't need defending against religion extremists spouting forth creationist nonsense. Unfortunately, he learnt that being religious doesn't stop people lying and deceiving in defence of their god. A great example is I read on a prominant creationist website a few years ago the claim that the eye was an example of irreducible complexity - they used the phrase "what use is half an eye?" They went on to claim that this was a question that evolutionists neither asked nor answered. And the existence of irreducable complexity was proof that the eye was designed by an intelligent designer.
"What use is half an eye?" is a question that was raised by Darwin. It has been answered numerous times with very good empirical evidence showing how each component of the eye can be seen in various species, with survival benefits. From these components, it's shown how the eye evolved to its current form.
Even without this evidence, the scientific process means that the rejection of the base hypothesis does not prove the alternative hypothesis. Should we find evidence of any feature of an organism that could not have evolved, then evolutionary theory as we know it would be significantly changed (and before anyone says it, bacterial flagellum - a more recent poster child for irreducible complexity - are not irreducibly complex). However, that would not be proof of an intelligent designer.
Both of these are elementary errors that I forgive in most creationists. But when they are committed by people who should know better - people with some training in science - then their actions are a form of active deception. Dawkins, Hitchens, and the other more intelligent atheists are, in part, reacting against this sort of tactic. Some - excluding those two - end up adopting the same tactics as the creationists, which makes them equally abhorrent.People are, by and large, mostly irrational (technically, arational is probably closer to the truth). Even people who claim to be rationalists. I know I can easily write as if I am perfectly rational and objective, but my behaviour is often neither. There are lots of good reasons for this - in cognitive science they talk about a number of boundaries to rationality. What we tend to do is apply heuristics and all sorts of other cognitive short-cuts rather than rationally applying our minds to everything.
There you go, DTS: if this doesn't kick things off properly, nothing will.
Hmm, that's a bit of a conundrum
*scratches head and thinks outloud*.........
So, a long time ago, a 'few' people, out of their interpretations of 'the bible/God/the meaning of life/death etc etc...started creating religions
and then they started preaching, some would call it educating the people, on how they should conduct themselves to follow Gods will.
They make rules, some of which started out having understandable and reasonable origins, e.g. not eating Pork or shellfish etc. although what this has to do with religion in today Western societies, still baffles me?
Anyway, I digress...
So, one group of people educated by *blah blah* believe 'this' and another group of people educated by *so n so* believe 'that' (or if they live in certain area's have to "live by the rules' of the religion, even if they DON'T believe it)
But in reality, these leaders, who're preaching 'Religion', imposing rules, actually have no more knowledge about the 'truth' that me or anyone else
I still stay, if religions weren't invented, we'd be better off!
MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
"If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine
Wow!!!! If Dawkins is the most capable and least abhorrent of the prominent anti-religion atheists what are the others like?
A few years ago I was curious so I picked up a copy of Dawkins 'The God Delusion' while I was in Borders bookshop. After a flick through I put it down and decided not to buy it. It took me just a few seconds to form the opinion that it was filled with rabid, hate-filled rage against religion. No doubt it pleases some of his fans, however, unfortunately I find that style of writing a major turn off.
It's turtles all the way down.Dawkins is an exceptionally capable scientist. His arguments are always well reasoned and well researched. I don't agree with all of them - nor with his conclusions (he attributes all bad things to religion, which is something I disagree with; they responsibility really lies with humanity).
Compared to the religionists he's typically debating, Dawkins really is the lesser evil. And not by a narrow margin. This is even more true of Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens spends most of his time in the US...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...30813464694890This video is four of the smarter atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Daniel Dennet, and Sam Harris) having a chat about atheism and religion. It's a two hour long session, but very good.
Wars are fought in a misguided use of religion by people using the religion to gain power over others. The religions themselves do not tell you to go to war.
Jihad means "struggling to please God"
I refer to my original point, people [the church or other religious establishment] using religion as an excuse to exert power over others.
Governments have committed just as many, if not more, horrendous crimes and started many wars, yet we're not about to dismiss them. It's not the concept religion or government that's the problem, rather greedy, selfish people.
Couldn't agree more - and just as in the case of people dressing up their own particular prejudices, selfishness or whatever using religion we can see some similarities in the way that some unscrupulous people in Government can twist things to get us to do things that would otherwise be wrong - like say invading Iraq.............................
you're jumping the gun a bit. Humans were hunter gatherers, then came language and a far greater understanding of the world and with understanding it becomes apparent just how much more we do not know. Supernatural explanations are an easy answer to fill in the blanks. These old religions died out; because they were never written down (no writing then), because society changed , because whole tribes would cease to exist or merge into others, because some of the theories were too easy to disprove so there had to be new ones etc... So the history of religion is as diverse as the people themselves. Once a society gets big enough and records can be kept across generations, then its easy for religions to last a bit longer, as clearly they do.
Its a certain forceful and imaginative personality type that allows people to make up explanations for things, and to then push ideas they like onto others - the majority of us are not that bothered. Not everyone can be a preacher, its just a shame that that sort of personality type often makes it into power.and then they started preaching, some would call it educating the people, on how they should conduct themselves to follow Gods will.
People need to think for themselves a bit more, but this is especially hard when the society you are in stamps on any sort of freethought.So, one group of people educated by *blah blah* believe 'this' and another group of people educated by *so n so* believe 'that' (or if they live in certain area's have to "live by the rules' of the religion, even if they DON'T believe it)
Indeed, but they got into power so they must know better, right ? Our society certainly has it wrong, wanting to get into power politically should ban you from ever getting there.But in reality, these leaders, who're preaching 'Religion', imposing rules, actually have no more knowledge about the 'truth' that me or anyone else
I think it part of being a sentient life form - finding your own answers is part of the growth of intelligence in a species (and the future of AI).I still stay, if religions weren't invented, we'd be better off!
I agree. What I'm trying to say is that as societies we need sets of rules by which to live, in most cultures those rules have developed from the evolution of a religion.
I'm sure it's possible. I have friends and family who are Catholic, Christian, Muslim and Jewish, and we can all get along fine without the desire to go to war with each other.
No, Im just saying that we need to have some form of rules by which society lives, for may those rules stem from a religious upbringing or belief. If we were to abolish religion (hypothetically, of course) because it causes wars/there are too many to get along with each other/God doesn't exist, then we still need to have a doctirine in place for people to abide by or face consequences. Yes, there is the Law, but short of having everyone pass a Bar exam and making us all lawyers, it's easier to have a shorter set of 'commandments' with basic rules of behavior.
So while I'm saying that I personally don't subscribe to a religion, I recognise society's need for it.
At it's vase level, provided their pleasure is not at the expense of anyone else then yes, it's a starting point.
True, people will always have free will do do what they know is wrong, but we need to have some kid of mechanism in place to educate our young as to what is right and wrong. A child who is raised in an abusive environment where parents have little respect for others can come to believe that such behavior is normal and acceptable.
No, I'm not blind to sins of the past, but I recognise the mechanisms in place to try and prevent those sins, as imperfect as it may be.
Not what I was saying at all. While religion isn't perfect, I have no better solution.
It's possible we can travel through time. However, no-one's managed to do it thus far. I think that's a fairly good analogy. While individuals can get on with one another quite easily, it's rare to have people with strong adherence to more than one religion actually co-habiting peacefully for extended periods of time. Idealism is nice, but the world is rarely ideal.You claim you don't subscribe to a religion. But everything else you say sounds a great deal like a subscription to a religion to me. I suspect you don't believe in God (or whatever), but you certainly sound like you believe in religion.Once again: people can have any moral basis they like, as long as it fits with your basic idea of what good behaviour is (ie "not at the expense of anyone else"). Funnily enough, in most ideological wars, both sides believe they are right. If history has taught us anything, it's shown that this detail matters a great deal. People don't just get along, unless they all believe the same thing.To paraphrase you: things weren't better in the past, but they really were. A perfect statement of golden agism, "while the past was imperfect, we had mechanisms in place to minimise the imperfections". The implication being that there are no mechanisms today and society has simply gone to hell. If you believe that, fine. But living in the past is rarely useful in the present. An informed understanding of the past is very powerful at all times; but that's not what I'm hearing.Not what you thought you were saying, but a relatively simple interpretation of what you said: everyone needs (my conception of a) religion.
I'm clearly not explaining myself well. No, I don't believe in God, but recognise why we have religion and why it still has a place in modern society. So while I don't subscribe to any religion myself, I am not against others who do.
Not at all, I just believe that children should be raised with some kind of structure rather than an everyone for themselves attitude.
Again, I'm clearly not very good at explaining myself. Perhaps I should have worded it as: while the past and present are imperfect, we have mechanisms in place to minimise the imperfections.
Again, not at all. Society needs a structure.
I now refer back to my very first statement
"Religious arguments are pretty pointless as I doubt either side is going to be 'converted'."
Nice of you. Are you not against others who subscribe to religious belief that causes them to harm others or dictate how people live their life? not even a little bit?
Where have you seen this "everyone for themselves" attitude in action then? Do we live in an anarchyNot at all, I just believe that children should be raised with some kind of structure rather than an everyone for themselves attitude.
Children can be brought up badly regardless of how religious their family is, yet it sounds like you are trying to link - "good structure" to religion ? Although maybe i am reading too much into your "some kind of structure" and you are admitting that it is not necessarily a "good structure" that is needed. The Hitler youth was a great structure for budding nazis I hear*.
If it didnt have a structure it wouldn't be a society - just a group of disassociated people shouting "hey, who the hell are you" at each other.Society needs a structure.
*i claim my godwin prize
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks