Does atheism matter?

Húrin

In the recent fashion for public debate between atheists and theists, do you think there is anything of historical signifigance? Do you think that these debates will affect the course of western culture, or the course of politics? Or are they just a fun way to pass time and engage one's mind?

Zillah

Atheism is only important because religion is around.

Y'know, like, the chemicals one uses for chemotherapy are irrelevant without cancer.

More seriously, yes, I believe atheism is extremely important for the future. Religion has an awful influence on our species, from retarding scientific growth and understanding to sustaining bigoted stupidity from the bronze age.

Once we leave it all behind we can finally start to grow up as a species. The ongoing public debate is helping to achieve that. A great many people (and I mean the vast majority of believers I've met) don't really believe in anything and mostly continue with their religion out of a sense of duty/guilt/obligation. Publicizing the legitimacy of atheism helps these people shake off their child hood indoctrination.

Joe1919

Zillah wrote: »

......... Religion has an awful influence on our species, from retarding scientific growth ............

I'm just wondering if this is true. I always thought the opposite e.g. Copernicus was a priest, Mendel (father of genetics ) was a monk, Lemaitre (big bang theory) is a priest. Monasteries were 'centres of excellence' and learning in their own time.

Max Weber in his 'Spirit of Capatilism' argues that much of the Capitalist system was affected and promoted by the 'Protestant work ethic'.

Of course, war is said to promote scientific growth but is war or scientific growth always necessary a good thing.
Indeed, is uncritically believing in scientific growth as the measure or 'goal' of man itself not a type of religion. (having faith in Science)

Anyhow, can anyone cite a fairly good historical source on this,(Religion has retarded scientific growth), one that give facts and stastics and thats unbiased. I would be interested.

achtungbarry

Joe1919 wrote: »

I'm just wondering if this is true. I always thought the opposite e.g. Copernicus was a priest, Mendel (father of genetics ) was a monk, Lemaitre (big bang theory) is a priest. Monasteries were 'centres of excellence' and learning in their own time.

Max Weber in his 'Spirit of Capatilism' argues that much of the Capitalist system was affected and promoted by the 'Protestant work ethic'.

Of course, war is said to promote scientific growth but is war or scientific growth always necessary a good thing.
Indeed, is uncritically believing in scientific growth as the measure or 'goal' of man itself not a type of religion. (having faith in Science)

Anyhow, can anyone cite a fairly good historical source on this,(Religion has retarded scientific growth), one that give facts and stastics and thats unbiased. I would be interested.

The examples you cite are very valid (and there are many more) but they seem to be exceptions when we view the overall picture.

The Roman Empire was full of different and wildly varying religious beliefs. The Roman government was quite tolerant of different religious belief as long as it did not threaten the stability of the state.

However the adoption of Christianity by the Roman State coincided with a long and severe decline in the empire that lasted almost a thousand years.

It was only in the 1400s when certain people began to place an emphasis on questioning, empirical inquiry and the principles of humanistic thought did we finally see a "Renaissance" of learning, artistic expression and scientific discovery.

We see a renaissance in political value at the end of the 18th century when the divine right of monarchs was questioned leading eventually to revolution which eventully led to the western style republican democracies we have today.

History seems to tell us that it was only when people questioned the status quo whether that be religious, political or other, did we really advance as a race in terms of science, art, thought etc.

The 1000 or so years of the European Dark age were dominated by obediance to and a non questioning of the church authorities/doctrine.

Zillah

Joe1919 wrote: »

I'm just wondering if this is true. I always thought the opposite e.g. Copernicus was a priest, Mendel (father of genetics ) was a monk, Lemaitre (big bang theory) is a priest. Monasteries were 'centres of excellence' and learning in their own time.

I think you'll find that almost everyone was religious during those periods, so anyone who makes any contribution to science is likely to be religious anyway. Not to mention the fact that for a long time the clergy were generally the only people who were taught to read or encouraged to think deeply or delve into older writings. Speaking of older writings, the absolute scandal that is the Church's handling of the Hellenic legacy is evidence enough for me that irrational religion is anti-knowledge. Robin, if I recall, could go into more detail on this.

Same argument can be used for the Church as a whole. People frequently claim that the church funded a great many universities etc and therefore contributed to science. Well, at the time the only two groups that had any money were the Church and the Nobility. If other people had the money (like today) we see science progressing fine without Church patronage (like today).

Anyhow, can anyone cite a fairly good historical source on this,(Religion has retarded scientific growth), one that give facts and stastics and thats unbiased. I would be interested.

I can't quote anything to the standard you're asking, but anecdotally its very convincing. Whatever about the past, all you need to do is look at the Middle East or the US and see the nightmarish things religion is doing to science and people's understanding of it. From college students announcing that they don't believe in genetics to massive lobbying for creationism, it's really sabotaging a whole generation of potential scientists.

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

In the recent fashion for public debate between atheists and theists, do you think there is anything of historical signifigance? Do you think that these debates will affect the course of western culture, or the course of politics? Or are they just a fun way to pass time and engage one's mind?

While these debates and things will probably have very little effect in the immediate future, the more public atheism becomes combined with the already present shift in attitudes towards religion means that atheism isn't one of those things that will suddenly result in a massive change in any direction and become of historic significance. It's more of a slow creep which will eventually change the world but not in such a way that history books will talk of the great "Bible, Creationism and Prophecy" thread which shaped the future. Small changes accruing over a long time which lead to a completely different future. Much like evolution.

5uspect

Scepticism is very important in everything we do. Atheism (as a lack of belief) is essentially scepticism of religion.

Rev Hellfire

5uspect wrote: »

Atheism (as a lack of belief) is essentially scepticism of religion.

Not strictly true, since you can conceivably have atheists who are followers of a religion which lacks gods.

Atheism is totally irrelevant.

5uspect

Yes, but as I said Atheism as defined as a lack of belief.

Rev Hellfire

5uspect wrote: »

Yes, but as I said Atheism as defined as a lack of belief.

But that's not what atheism is.
Scepticism and atheism might be linked, but they're not equivalent.

5uspect

I originally wanted to post that scepticism is important. So, yes, I'll agree with you.
Mu definition of Atheism was too narrow.

stevejazzx

Húrin wrote: »

In the recent fashion for public debate between atheists and theists, do you think there is anything of historical signifigance? Do you think that these debates will affect the course of western culture, or the course of politics? Or are they just a fun way to pass time and engage one's mind?

As it's growing number of followers increase it's importance and impact will too. I think Zillahs answer covers it really. I think that religion is in it's final universal stage - the newer generations are far more resistant to dogmatic belief (due mainly to the availability of mass information: some might say this is ironic!) and take much cohercing to in order to 'fall into line'. As it enters it's final stage we will see a great resistance pioneered by fundamentalists who will be so deluded that they would rather invoke ancient spells that deal with reality or the death of the very thing that lets them hide from it.

Joe1919

stevejazzx wrote: »

the newer generations are far more resistant to dogmatic belief (due mainly to the availability of mass information: some might say this is ironic!) and take much cohercing to in order to 'fall into line'.

I often wonder if its the case that the people today are still being led by the high priests of advertising, fashon, image, mass media etc. Are we still as gullible as ever?
Look at all the people who were guilled by auctioneers and the property markets to buy properties that were only worth a fraction of what they paid. How many people look into a mirror and are truly happy with themselves?

Are we not, to some extent, controlled and led on by 'mass information', which is full of myths.

Some argue that we are as further away from reality as we always have, perhaps even further. The caveman with his superstitutions proberly had a better grasp of reality than we have. We think food come in packages.
We live in a 'simulated world', we have no independance and are more helpless than ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

stevejazzx

Joe1919 wrote: »

I often wonder if its the case that the people today are still being led by the high priests of advertising, fashon, image, mass media etc. Are we still as gullible as ever?
Look at all the people who were guilled by auctioneers and the property markets to buy properties that were only worth a fraction of what they paid. How many people look into a mirror and are truly happy with themselves?

Yes that s true but there are still twisted reasons (not saying I agree with them) which pruport to make the above (fashion, media, image etc) valid objects of worth and desire. The twisted reasons for religious interactions are falling into obscurity.

joe wrote:

Are we not, to some extent, controlled and led on by 'mass information', which is full of myths.

Yes and atheism is something which can attmept to question that which is held as sacred.

joe wrote:

Some argue that we are as further away from reality as we always have, perhaps even further. The caveman with his superstitutions proberly had a better grasp of reality than we have. We think food come in packages.
We live in a 'simulated world', we have no independance and are more helpless than ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

Yeah I might even agree with you there. I'm attempting to wirte a book about that exact subject! And of course religion is a powerful tool of illusion.

Joe1919

stevejazzx wrote: »

I'm attempting to wirte a book about that exact subject! And of course religion is a powerful tool of illusion.

I do wonder have people this 'vacuum' that needs to be filled with some type of myths or lies. Perhaps we just cant take reality and we have to stuff our heads with nonsense, TV, romance, video games.........

The best of luck with your book.

DublinWriter

stevejazzx wrote: »

Yeah I might even agree with you there. I'm attempting to wirte a book about that exact subject! And of course religion is a powerful tool of illusion.

'fraid Dawkins beat you to it. The God Delusion is a powerful tome.

What interests me is the need in the human psyche for what Dawkins called an extension of the childhood notion of the 'imaginary friend', i.e. a benevolant over-arching all-caring God-figure.

Even tribes untouched by greater humanity have developed some superstitious/supernatural belief system.

I personally believe that the next step in the evolution of mankind in the casting of superstitious beliefs, like so much redundant DNA.

Zombrex

DublinWriter wrote: »

I personally believe that the next step in the evolution of mankind in the casting of superstitious beliefs, like so much redundant DNA.

Probably not since this seems to be a fundamental way our brains work and has benefits in children learning about human to human interaction and modelling the world around them.

It is some what of an evolutionary by product that it leads to humans viewing the world in terms of human like agents, religion leading on from that. But the underlying reasons we do this seem to be some what necessary to how our brains process the world.

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

Once we leave it all behind we can finally start to grow up as a species.

What would this consist of?

Joe1919 wrote: »

I often wonder if its the case that the people today are still being led by the high priests of advertising, fashon, image, mass media etc. Are we still as gullible as ever?
Look at all the people who were guilled by auctioneers and the property markets to buy properties that were only worth a fraction of what they paid. How many people look into a mirror and are truly happy with themselves?

Are we not, to some extent, controlled and led on by 'mass information', which is full of myths.

Definitely. Most people believe the same things as each other. However, they believe different things to what previous generations believed.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Yes and atheism is something which can attmept to question that which is held as sacred.

Atheism does nothing to question the myths of capitalism.

stevejazzx

DublinWriter wrote: »

'fraid Dawkins beat you to it. The God Delusion is a powerful tome.

Oh it's fictional. I'd be terrible at just naming and shaming. I need a more submersive means by which to ply my metal.

dw wrote:

I personally believe that the next step in the evolution of mankind in the casting of superstitious beliefs, like so much redundant DNA.

Yes, I agree and the extended imaginary friend complex is a simple and quite exact description of religion.

stevejazzx

Húrin wrote: »

.


Atheism does nothing to question the myths of capitalism.

Do you consdier capitalism sacred? Capitalism is it's own most industrious critic.

stevejazzx

Wicknight wrote: »

Probably not since this seems to be a fundamental way our brains work and has benefits in children learning about human to human interaction and modelling the world around them.

It is some what of an evolutionary by product that it leads to humans viewing the world in terms of human like agents, religion leading on from that. But the underlying reasons we do this seem to be some what necessary to how our brains process the world.

Although the mechanics that leave us predisposed this way currently are still in effect I think I can envisage them dying off - our pattern seeking minds are after all, pattern seeking so if we can't find advancement through superstition (which is clearly the case) we will go another route.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

What would this consist of?

Honestly? I think it would consist of an adult population who are educated, reasonable and open to rational debate. It would consist of a world built on agreed principles and common values, rather than archaic, dictated and rigid dogma. It would consist of a world where an otherwise intelligent human being will not make a ludicrous announcement such as "I don't believe in evolution". It would be a world where people don't riot, murder and vandalise because someone in a different part of the world drew a cartoon. A world where a 16 year old girl won't be lied to by a pro-lifer on a pregnancy helpline who is more concerned with magic than realism. Where stem cell research cures a range of dehumanising and torturous diseases. Where a person will make a sincere effort to improve their life rather than waste time begging an empty sky for help. Where injustice isn't rationalised as being part of a "greater plan". Where people don't fly planes into buildings.

That's what that world would consist of Húrin, a world where your ilk are considered as nothing more than a peculiar oddity. A world where even a child is wise enough to scoff at the idea of getting our values from a barbarous bronze age text.

Joe1919

stevejazzx wrote: »

Yes, I agree and the extended imaginary friend complex is a simple and quite exact description of religion.

Although it is important to appreciate the role that imagination plays in our cognition.
Our senses give us a crude image of the world and we fill in the gaps with our imagination. All our objective thinking is really imaginative in that there is actually no way of getting outside of our own skin (subjectivity).

Our humanity is based on imagination; we empatise by imagining what its like to be the other person. We give our children imaginary nipples (dummys) to soothe them.
In being objective, we 'imagine' that we are not ourselves so to speak. To a certain extent, we are creatures of imagination. Instead of living in the present, we are always either projection ourselves into the past or into the future. As Aristotle says, we are Goal directed animals. We are always looking for a Goal, going somewhere but this is an illusion. Our final destination is the Grave. We suffer at the horrors of past injuries and we worry about possible future threats and failures. Yet neither the past or future exist . We fantasise about what or where or who we would like to be.

Of course, one could argue that religion is the ultimate fantasy. Pure rapture and eternal bliss..........

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

Honestly? I think it would consist of an adult population who are educated, reasonable and open to rational debate. It would consist of a world built on agreed principles and common values, rather than archaic, dictated and rigid dogma. It would consist of a world where an otherwise intelligent human being will not make a ludicrous announcement such as "I don't believe in evolution". It would be a world where people don't riot, murder and vandalise because someone in a different part of the world drew a cartoon. A world where a 16 year old girl won't be lied to by a pro-lifer on a pregnancy helpline who is more concerned with magic than realism. Where stem cell research cures a range of dehumanising and torturous diseases. Where a person will make a sincere effort to improve their life rather than waste time begging an empty sky for help. Where injustice isn't rationalised as being part of a "greater plan". Where people don't fly planes into buildings.

That's what that world would consist of Húrin, a world where your ilk are considered as nothing more than a peculiar oddity. A world where even a child is wise enough to scoff at the idea of getting our values from a barbarous bronze age text.

In other words, you think that a good strong dose of atheism will heal the moral flaws that you see in human nature? Pretty funny stuff. You forgot to mention that atheism will cure cancer and make world peace.

You mainly explained what the utopia you envision would not consist of, rather than what it would consist of. The last paragraph was frankly aggressive.

Húrin

stevejazzx wrote: »

Do you consdier capitalism sacred? Capitalism is it's own most industrious critic.

No, I'd say that socialist groups are the most industrious critics of capitalism.

Overblood

Húrin wrote: »

You mainly explained what the utopia you envision would not consist of, rather than what it would consist of. The last paragraph was frankly aggressive.

Zillah's utopia will lack the insanity inspired by religion we see today. And that's a good thing. So what if he listed what the world would not consist of. Is his argument flawed just because of that?

If I envisaged a world without lions and said "in the future nobody will be eaten by lions", would you come along and argue: "well , you mention what the world wouldn't have, rather than what it would have..."

What he said was plain and simple truth. And his last paragraph is a world I look forward to.

JimiTime

Zillah wrote: »

Honestly? I think it would consist of an adult population who are educated, reasonable and open to rational debate. It would consist of a world built on agreed principles and common values, rather than archaic, dictated and rigid dogma. It would consist of a world where an otherwise intelligent human being will not make a ludicrous announcement such as "I don't believe in evolution". It would be a world where people don't riot, murder and vandalise because someone in a different part of the world drew a cartoon. A world where a 16 year old girl won't be lied to by a pro-lifer on a pregnancy helpline who is more concerned with magic than realism. Where stem cell research cures a range of dehumanising and torturous diseases. Where a person will make a sincere effort to improve their life rather than waste time begging an empty sky for help. Where injustice isn't rationalised as being part of a "greater plan". Where people don't fly planes into buildings.

That's what that world would consist of Húrin, a world where your ilk are considered as nothing more than a peculiar oddity. A world where even a child is wise enough to scoff at the idea of getting our values from a barbarous bronze age text.

LOL. Though I do rather like the poetic twist on 'begging an empty sky', might use that line. Some of you guys have really snappy phrases.

Overblood wrote: »

What he said was plain and simple truth. And his last paragraph is a world I look forward to.

And he's got followers. I suppose if its plain and simple truth and all......

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

In other words, you think that a good strong dose of atheism will heal the moral flaws that you see in human nature?

I think a good strong dose of atheism will heal the moral flaws that are caused by religion and similarly irrational thinking, yes. Note that I didn't say anything about war, poverty or disease, nor did I use the word "utopia". I simply described some of the awful things that religion causes. If you want to build a strawman out of my argument feel free, but that reflects more on you than I.

You mainly explained what the utopia you envision would not consist of, rather than what it would consist of.

So? Atheism is the lack of religion, so is it not reasonable to describe an atheistic world as one that lacks the problems caused by religion?

The last paragraph was frankly aggressive.

I wish to see your world view expunged from humanity. I hate what you believe and what it causes. So yes, it'll probably come across as aggressive.

JimiTime wrote:

Though I do rather like the poetic twist on 'begging an empty sky', might use that line. Some of you guys have really snappy phrases.

Thanks, I do try.

seanybiker

Im athiest and it dont bother me. I must say though that on boards atheism is as bad as any religion, if not worse.
The amount of people on here that push atheism is mental.
Live and let live.
Im not gonna get into all this darwin crap. I dont have a clue who this chap is.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

In other words, you think that a good strong dose of atheism will heal the moral flaws that you see in human nature? Pretty funny stuff.

You asked him a question. If the answer cut a little close to the bone for you Hurin it is not his fault.

Rev Hellfire

I for one am looking forward to this brave new word with its rivers of chocolate and its candy drop trees ...