Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Does atheism matter?
Options
Comments
-
Atheists in an Atheism & Agnosticism forum? Whatever next - bowling on shabbos?seanybiker wrote: »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.
Out of the gene pool, please.seanybiker wrote: »Im not gonna get into all this darwin crap. I dont have a clue who this chap is.0 -
-
Rev Hellfire wrote: »I for one am looking forward to this brave new word with its rivers of chocolate and its candy drop trees ...
I would settle for people not flying planes into buildings because they have been convinced that their cause is the cause of God and they will be rewarded in the afterlife
But chocolate rivers would be nice too0 -
0
-
Aw crap did I leave out the chocolate rivers from the Atheist Utopia speech again? Wicknight, shape up or I'll have to hire a new speech writer.0
-
Advertisement
-
The phrase you used about humanity maturing as a species sounded so important. I suppose I was expecting a bit more description. You listed a lot of problems that most reasonable people would wish the world to be rid of. But most of them have been shown to be quite possible without religion. Remember also that atheism is just atheism. It's not intrinsically more rational than theism.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.
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?
I don't think you particularly know what I believe. You seem to lump everyone who isn't atheist into the same box. I have an aversion to people who want to ideologically homogenise a diverse humanity. But I don't feel the need to insult at the drop of a hat.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.0 -
You listed a lot of problems that most reasonable people would wish the world to be rid of.
Well yes, but most religious people aren't very reasonable. That's the problem.Remember also that atheism is just atheism. It's not intrinsically more rational than theism.
Haha yes it is.
"Not believing in Thor is just not believing in Thor. It's not intrinsically more rational than believing in Thor."0 -
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.
Here, here.0 -
Most humans aren't very reasonable, whether religious or not. If history is anything to go by at all. As I said, most of the problems you listed have been shown to be quite possible without religion.Well yes, but most religious people aren't very reasonable. That's the problem.
That is a correct statement, since it is possible to think of beliefs that are even less rational than believing in Thor.Haha yes it is.
"Not believing in Thor is just not believing in Thor. It's not intrinsically more rational than believing in Thor."0 -
Most humans aren't very reasonable, whether religious or not.
Such obtuse and irrelevant statements you make. Yes people are generally stupid and irrational, they're also generally religious. However, it has been shown that of the population of scientists (surely the most rational people on earth) they have a disproportionate amount of atheists in their ranks. Curious.That is a correct statement, since it is possible to think of beliefs that are even less rational than believing in Thor.
*blink*
Wow.0 -
Advertisement
-
It is not an obtuse and irrelevant statement, especially since you agree with it in the very next sentence. Most people I know are not religious, yet are just as irrational as anyone who is. I don't see how atheism will have a transformative effect on human nature to make us a more rational species.Such obtuse and irrelevant statements you make. Yes people are generally stupid and irrational, they're also generally religious. However, it has been shown that of the population of scientists (surely the most rational people on earth) they have a disproportionate amount of atheists in their ranks. Curious.
I would also be sceptical of the power of reason, even if it were to somehow shine its light into every crevice of the human condition, to significantly reduce the natural violence of life.
Refutation missing? Are people who believe in Jesus Christ or Buddha and do not believe in Thor more or less rational than people who believe in Thor? How about people who believe in night unicorns from the sock drawer?*blink*
Wow.0 -
I would settle for people not flying planes into buildings because they have been convinced that their cause is the cause of God and they will be rewarded in the afterlife
But chocolate rivers would be nice too
You know, it'd be nice to see a world where the people don't launch wars against countries because "they hate our freedoms". Or where they don't criple a country with sanctions and cause the deaths of 250,000 children.
It'd be nice to see a world where the rich educated few don't foster wars in the third world for profit. Or hold countries to ransom because of debt.
I wonder of we look at all the suffering and wars over the last 100 years, how much is due to religion?
I've seen dawkins and Hitchens talk. And their tolerance for others non-existant. A world of people like that, with beliefs that strong, would end up with it's own secret police, with it's own vigilanties burning down churchs and mosques.
The dark ages were not dark because of religion. They we dark because barbarian hordes ravaged europe. At the same time a muslim empire was thriving and producing some of the best philosophers, mathamaticians and scientists the world knew. The renanainse happened because muslim scholars saved the works of byzantium, translated them (with their jewish counterparts) in spain and they then travelled to the rest of europe.
The renainance, that great era of learning, just started more wars. The industrial revolution made it more efficent. The biggest wars of the last century occured between educated countries, and was about politics, not religion. The greatest danger the world has ever faced (The cold war) was caused by politics, not religion.
Religion hasn't always been great for people. (BTW, you're also forgetting all the hospitals and charity that religion is responsible for. Or do you think the red cross and red crescent and full of fanatics) But every major conflict is about either profit or a belief. It may be a religious, cultural or political belief, but it's the belief. And an athiest country, say the USSR, will be just as much a threat as any other. It's human nature, not just religion.
Your brave new world is going to end up turning in on itself.0 -
St_Crispin wrote: »Your brave new world is going to end up turning in on itself.
Good post, quite succint. However to be fair to Wicknight I think that he generally does not go in for this naive utopian stuff.0 -
St_Crispin wrote: »You know, it'd be nice to see a world where the people don't launch wars against countries because "they hate our freedoms". Or where they don't criple a country with sanctions and cause the deaths of 250,000 children.
It'd be nice to see a world where the rich educated few don't foster wars in the third world for profit. Or hold countries to ransom because of debt.
I wonder of we look at all the suffering and wars over the last 100 years, how much is due to religion?
I've seen dawkins and Hitchens talk. And their tolerance for others non-existant. A world of people like that, with beliefs that strong, would end up with it's own secret police, with it's own vigilanties burning down churchs and mosques.
The dark ages were not dark because of religion. They we dark because barbarian hordes ravaged europe. At the same time a muslim empire was thriving and producing some of the best philosophers, mathamaticians and scientists the world knew. The renanainse happened because muslim scholars saved the works of byzantium, translated them (with their jewish counterparts) in spain and they then travelled to the rest of europe.
The renainance, that great era of learning, just started more wars. The industrial revolution made it more efficent. The biggest wars of the last century occured between educated countries, and was about politics, not religion. The greatest danger the world has ever faced (The cold war) was caused by politics, not religion.
Religion hasn't always been great for people. (BTW, you're also forgetting all the hospitals and charity that religion is responsible for. Or do you think the red cross and red crescent and full of fanatics) But every major conflict is about either profit or a belief. It may be a religious, cultural or political belief, but it's the belief. And an athiest country, say the USSR, will be just as much a threat as any other. It's human nature, not just religion.
Your brave new world is going to end up turning in on itself.
Hmmm in the spirit of not attacking the poster..I don't have the energy to address your immensly flawed post but here is a list of current religious conflicts - I tihnk I'd like to give the alternative a go
Afghanistan:……Extreme, radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups, non-Muslims. Osama bin Laden heads a terrorist group called Al Quada (The Source) whose headquarters were in Afghanistan. They were protected by, and integrated with, the Taliban dictatorship in the country. The Northern Alliance of rebel Afghans, Britain and the U.S. attacked the Taliban and Al Quada, establishing a new regime in part of the country. The fighting continues.
Bosnia:……Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic), Muslims. Fragile peace is holding, due only to the presence of peacekeepers.
Côte d’Ivoire:……Muslims, Indigenous, Christian. Following the elections in late 2000, government security forces “began targeting civilians solely and explicitly on the basis of their religion, ethnic group, or national origin. The overwhelming majority of victims come from the largely Muslim north of the country, or are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants…”
A military uprising continued the slaughter in 2002.
Cyprus:……Christians, Muslims. The island is partitioned,creating enclaves for ethnic Greeks (Christians) and Turks (Muslims). A UN peace keeping force is maintaining stability.
East Timor:……Christians, Muslims. A Roman Catholic country. About 20% of the population died by murder, starvation or disease after they were forcibly annexed by Indonesia (mainly Muslim). After voting for independence, many Christians were exterminated or exiled by the Indonesian army and army-funded militias in a carefully planned program of genocide and religious cleansing. The situation is now stable.
India:……Animists, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs. Various conflicts that heat up periodically producing loss of life.
Indonesia, province of Ambon:……Christians, Muslims. After centuries of relative peace, conflicts between Christians and Muslims started during 1999-JUL in this province of Indonesia. The situation now appears to be stable.
Iraq:……Kurds, Shiite Muslims, Sunni Muslims, western armed forces. By mid-2006, a small scale civil war, primarily between Shiite and Sunni Muslims started. The situation appears to be steadily degenerating.
Kashmir:……Hindus, Muslims. A chronically unstable region of the world, claimed by both Pakistan and India. The availability of nuclear weapons and the eagerness to use them are destabilizing the region further. More details Thirty to sixty thousand people have died since 1989.
Kosovo:……Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims. Peace enforced by NATO peacekeepers. There is convincing evidence of past mass murder by
Yugoslavian government (mainly Serbian Orthodox Christians) against ethnic Albanians (mostly Muslim).
Kurdistan:……Christians, Muslims. Assaults on Christians (Protestant, Chaldean Catholic, Assyrian Orthodox).
Macedonia:……Macedonian Orthodox Christians, Muslims. Muslims (often referred to as ethnic Albanians) engaged in a civil war with the rest of the country who are primarily Macedonian Orthodox Christians. A peace treaty has been signed. Disarmament by NATO is complete.
Middle East:……Jews, Muslims, Christians. The peace process between Israel and Palestine suffered a complete breakdown. This has resulted in the deaths of thousands, in the ratio of three dead for each Jew. Major strife broke out in 2000-SEP. Major battle in Lebanon during mid-2006. No resolution appears possible.
Nigeria:……Christians, Animists, Muslims. Yourubas and Christians in the south of the country are battling Muslims in the north. Country is struggling towards democracy after decades of Muslim military dictatorships.
Northern Ireland:……Protestants, Catholics. After 3,600 killings and assassinations over 30 years, some progress has been made in the form of a ceasefire and an independent status for the country.
Pakistan:……Suni, Shi’ite Muslims. Low level mutual attacks.
Philippines:……Christians, Muslims. A low level conflict between the mainly Christian central government and Muslims in the south of the country has continued for centuries.
Russia,Chechnya:……Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims. The Russian army attacked the breakaway region. Many atrocities have been alleged on both sides. According to the Voice of the Martyrs: “In January 2002 Chechen rebels included all Christians on their list of official enemies, vowing to ‘blow up every church and mission-related facility in Russia’.”
South Africa:……Animists, “Witches”. Hundreds of persons, suspected and accused of witches practicing black magic, are murdered each year.
Sri Lanka:……Buddhists, Hindus. Tamils (a mainly Hindu 18% minority) are involved in a war for independence since 1983 with the rest of the country (70% Sinhalese Buddhist). Hundreds of thousands have been killed. The conflict took a sudden change for the better in 2002-SEP, when the Tamils dropped their demand for complete independence. The South Asian Tsunami in 2004-DEC induced some cooperation. The situation in mid-2006 is degenerating.
Sudan:……Animists, Christians, Muslims. Complex ethnic, racial, religious conflict in which the Muslim regime committed genocide against both Animists and Christians in the south of the country. Slavery and near slavery were practiced. A ceasefire was signed in 2006-MAY between some of the combatants. Warfare continues in the Darfur region, primarily between a Muslim militia and Muslim inhabitants.
Thailand:……Buddhists, Muslims. Muslim rebels have been involved in a bloody insurgency in southern Thailand — a country that is 95% Buddhist. The army has seized power and has agreed to talks with the rebels.
Tibet:……Buddhists, Communists. Country was annexed by Chinese Communists in late 1950’s. Brutal suppression of Buddhism continues.
Uganda:…. Animists, Christians, Muslims. Christian rebels of the Lord’s Resistance Army are conducting a civil war in the north of Uganda. Their goal is a Christian theocracy whose laws are based on the Ten Commandments. They abduct, enslave and/or raped about 2,000 children a year.
from
http://justsaynotoreligion.com/religious-wars/0 -
Refutation missing? Are people who believe in Jesus Christ or Buddha and do not believe in Thor more or less rational than people who believe in Thor? How about people who believe in night unicorns from the sock drawer?
Buddha > Jesus > Thor > Night Unicorns, in that order. They're all pretty damn irrational regardless. An atheist, however, takes the very rational position that there is insufficient evidence for any of these.
(A note on Buddha and Jesus: I'm willing to accept that they as people existed for the sake of argument, obviously I'm referring to their take on the supernatural nature of the universe)
St Crispin, quite a well written post. There's plenty of particular points that I could argue with (especially about Dawkins and his secret police lol), but my argument all along was about the smaller things in life. I listed a number of very real problems in the world today that can be squarely landed at the feet of religion, I'm not discussing wars throughout history.
Hurin, you're still presenting that dishonest utopia strawman you've gotten attached to. You're dragging it through this thread like a kid who won't leave their teddy at home. I never claimed it would solve all the world's problems, I never said it would make a utopia, I listed some very specific problems that religion causes that I would like to see the end of.0 -
-
St_Crispin wrote: »You know, it'd be nice to see a world where the people don't launch wars against countries because "they hate our freedoms". Or where they don't criple a country with sanctions and cause the deaths of 250,000 children.
It would be nice, but those are not caused by religion
It is a straw man to try and argue that the position is that if we get rid of religion we will cure all wars and violence. That isn't the position, it is simply an invented position that pro-religious people find easier to argue against.
Religion causes a lot of wars, it causes a lot of hatred and it causes a lot of manipulation and a lot of bigotry. It doesn't cause all of it but a lot of it.
The argument that we would just find another way excuse to kill each other so what is the point in objecting to religion is some what nonsensical. We may, but I'd object to those reasons as well. That is how society improves. Imagine if a doctor threw in the towel saying what is the point I cure the patient and he just ends up getting sick again. Better to just let him die now, sure he is going to die anyway.0 -
Since you admit that beliefs less rational than Thor are possible, surely disbelief in Thor is not inherently irrational if the disbeliever believes other, less rational things.Buddha > Jesus > Thor > Night Unicorns, in that order. They're all pretty damn irrational regardless. An atheist, however, takes the very rational position that there is insufficient evidence for any of these.
Many atheists disbelieve in these deities for that reason (lack of evidence). Many theists believe as they do on the grounds that there is enough evidence. That makes them rational also, surely.
However, some atheists disbelieve for other, less rational reasons. Thus atheism is not inherently rational. If you mean an actual ideology that you think the world should adopt, then you should name it because it seems not to be atheism itself.
You don't think that a statement so grand as "humanity maturing as a species" doesn't imply utopianism? You have ignored the fact that most of the problems you listed have also existed without religion. I see no reason why an end to religion would end these problems which are, in my opinion, rooted in human nature.Hurin, you're still presenting that dishonest utopia strawman you've gotten attached to. You're dragging it through this thread like a kid who won't leave their teddy at home. I never claimed it would solve all the world's problems, I never said it would make a utopia, I listed some very specific problems that religion causes that I would like to see the end of.
As we agreed, most reasonable people would wish to see the world rid of these nasty problems that are apparently caused by religion. Now we also agreed that most people aren't reasonable. So you're either saying that most people do not wish to live in a world without 9/11 attacks and clerical abuse, or that the world must be changed without the participation of its irrational inhabitants.CerebralCortex wrote: »Well if you could propose a more effective method we'd gladly listen?
I don't see why I have to. People (mainly white, upper-class, European men) have been prescribing reason (whatever that is) as a cure-all for the world's problems for more than two hundred years. However, every advance in 'rational human progress' has brought more ecological destruction, efficient warfare, and subjugation of peoples viewed as irrational. So I hope you can excuse me if I am sceptical of this prescription.
I just think that if someone is truly motivated by, say, a desire to see less violence in the world, one should advance the cause of non-violence. I say this in the context of this debate because it is apparent that both peaceful atheists and peaceful religious people exist - in my opinion, in the majority - so anyone on either side who says that the world must be rid of religion, or rid of atheism, to achieve a greater (if not perfect) peace, does not seem truly motivated by a desire to see less violence in the world. They come across as motivated by hatred of religion, or of atheism.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30436
Since you admit that beliefs less rational than Thor are possible, surely disbelief in Thor is not inherently irrational if the disbeliever believes other, less rational things.
So what you're saying is it's rational for an irrational person to believe in irrational things? I suppose belief in Thor would be rational if you were a Viking.Many atheists disbelieve in these deities for that reason (lack of evidence). Many theists believe as they do on the grounds that there is enough evidence. That makes them rational also, surely.
It would seem so, until you ask them to demonstrate this evidence that is.0 -
No, I'm saying that not everyone who disbelieves in Thor, or God, or whatever, disbelieves for rational reasons. It is possible to be atheist for irrational reasons. Thus atheism is simply atheism. It is not the same as rationalism, empiricism or positivism.So what you're saying is it's rational for an irrational person to believe in irrational things? I suppose belief in Thor would be rational if you were a Viking.
Seems to work for PDN and Jakkass.It would seem so, until you ask them to demonstrate this evidence that is.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Similarly, most atheists seem to rely on their own sense of reason revealing to their eyes the world as it truly is. This is why you so often get these people who are so certain that they have the clear truth, and that religious people are lying to themselves about the evidence. One depends on one's own sense of reason to determine whether one is being rational, and different people see evidence different ways for legitimate reasons. Zillah's idea of reason appears to be centred around atheism, a rather self-serving position.You have obviously never asked them :pac:
There is a big difference between claiming your beliefs are rational and that actually being true. In the end it always comes down to undefined "feelings" they have that something must be true.
Anyway, going off topic here.0 -
I sincerely hope that the atheists arguing against religious irrationality are not for a second suggesting that groups/governments that use religion as an excuse to butcher each other will not find a new excuse to continue butchering.
Some religions condone violence and murder, most do not. The moral principles of their ideology are rarely reflected in their actions.
May I point out the overwhelming possibility that religion has frankly very little to do with the state of the world, it's just a useful excuse.
If we get rid of religion, I suppose we still have skin colour as a clever reason to kill each other over. Mankind will always find excuses to commit atrocity. I am a pragmatic atheist, but do not for a single second consider it to be any kind of solution to the problems of the world, only a byproduct of some critical thinking, and a useful conclusion to the results. But that is all it can ever be, an individual perspective.0 -
-
You can't just 'get rid' of it.
Religion is like a splinter, it has to work it's way out.
I was not saying that we could. I was saying "if" we did, it would not change things really. Our intrinsic nature will not change, we will always find reasons to bash each others heads in.
All the same, I take your point!
As for Zillah's comment on the expansion of science etc., I would agree that removing the influence of religious groups would help it to flourish. I'm a postdoc myself, and would hate any kind of belief system meddling with our conclusions or scope.0 -
Indeed, we will always find reasons to discriminate, but possibly not ones that are exempt from the law. Religious discrimination without the protection it currently gets would suddenly be cultural or racial discrimination.0
-
That's bit like saying that anybody who doesn't break an arm is destined to break a leg instead.Our intrinsic nature will not change, we will always find reasons to bash each others heads in.
Amongst other things, religion acts as a legitimizer of aggression. There are plenty of other ones, but there are few which are as potent. Remove religion, or at least its unhealthy input into group politics, and you remove one of the most effective means by which group-on-group aggression can be sold as a Good Thing.0 -
@Hurin
Evidence based on personal experience is discounted, otherwise all evidence is equally valid & invalid but we know from the practical application of modern science into numerous fields of human experience that this is, quite simply, not the case.
Atheistic evidence can personal but it can also be scientific, religion cannot claim the same. Scientific evidence may not be 'perfect' and in the grand scheme of things it cannot 'prove' anything. However it remains our best benchmark of reality.
We need a way of agreeing upon what reality is and science/physics is the best method there currently is of doing this.
If we start at a position where the only acknowledgment we give to science is that it is simply another way of looking at things then we are starting off in a highly flawed manner. Science gives us methods for interacting with and understanding reality. It allows us to put planes in the sky and people on the moon.
Therefore it demands more respect from the cognitive reasoning parts of our brains than something like a supposed essence, spirituality or gods, which have absolutely no evidence which is applicable in any field of human experience.
The only way of not accepting this is by trotting out some half assed philosophical banter about the nature of existence itself but I'm sure you won't do this.:rolleyes:0 -
That's bit like saying that anybody who doesn't break an arm is destined to break a leg instead.
People out to steal property/land will still kill each other for it, the excuse may be the only thing that changes. Arguably, this may not be the case where people's religions specifically condone that behaviour and are the true root cause. But that is not true of most wars, where greed and power were the reality, religion (already an illusion) the illusion.Amongst other things, religion acts as a legitimizer of aggression. There are plenty of other ones, but there are few which are as potent. Remove religion, or at least its unhealthy input into group politics, and you remove one of the most effective means by which group-on-group aggression can be sold as a Good Thing.
I agree with you on that, I was just pointing out that widespread acceptance of atheism will not mean less wars, just the same wars for different reasons.0 -
Advertisement
-
Almost certainly false. Countries which have high rates of organic atheism are uniformly far, far more peaceful places, internally and externally, than countries which have high rates of forced atheism or high levels of religiosity.I was just pointing out that widespread acceptance of atheism will not mean less wars, just the same wars for different reasons.
There is no evidence at all that suggests that people will switch to an equivalently unpleasant legitimizer if religion is removed, and much to suggest that they will not. Though you will find a lot of religiously-inclined people (as well as religious apologists like Chesterton and Dostoevsky) who stick to the fallacious "well, if it's not religion, it'll be something else" notion.0
Advertisement