Does atheism matter?

OK I'm going to ignore the ridiculous arguments that came before (I say ridiculous because they're counter productive and ignore the original ethos of the question I think).

How Atheism can be important is by allowing us, our societies, and our species (possibly) to advance into something new. We can drop these preset notions of where we want to go, of what we want, of how we envision a "utopia".

Perhaps I should clarify why I would consider myself an atheist. I don't believe in God or other superstitions. Any other views may have grown for atheism but that's the extent of what atheism means for me - I don't believe in spirits and ghosts. So why would I think that this will change society?

Well... Religions are traditionalist institutions. Far more important than splinter groups decreeing war on one and all, these institutions maintain ancient societal practices without question. Now, some of these practices might be fine and dandy, but to just outright accept them is unacceptable when we want to advance ourselves.

We have to be willing to face change, to face suffering (by which I'd envision a loss of certain modern comforts rather than a collapse of civilisation through war or whatever), and to have to work to come out on top. We already do face most of these things but hopefully in the future we will realise that we have nothing else to blame but ourselves when things mess up. Responsibility tends to breed higher standards, so let's hope that this happens.

As an aside, the link between atheism and science currently is due to the demands of scientific legitimacy. People trying to practice "legitimate" scienctific pursuits are used to notions of fallibility in theories. There are many religious scientists (and many atheistic obviously) who would consider their beliefs to not be legitimate in the sense that their research would be - and they will often make this distinction. In short, the scientific method does not allow for leaps of faith. Scientists themselves are a little different...

lordsippa wrote: »

As an aside, the link between atheism and science currently is due to the demands of scientific legitimacy. People trying to practice "legitimate" scienctific pursuits are used to notions of fallibility in theories. There are many religious scientists (and many atheistic obviously) who would consider their beliefs to not be legitimate in the sense that their research would be - and they will often make this distinction. In short, the scientific method does not allow for leaps of faith. Scientists themselves are a little different...

Don't you think that the whole I demand scientific proof is a bit arrogant and the trust me Im a scientist is a bit overdone.

Wicknight wrote: »

why would it be arrogant to expect a demonstration that something is likely to be true (not "proof", that is not something science deals with) before you believe it is.

The willingness that religious people have to accept what religions say would not be applied in any other aspect of life. You wouldn't never buy a house, or start using a new drug treatment, or invest your pension, using the faith religious people use when embracing religion. Or if you did you would be considered very foolish.

but wicknight it is not a house or physical thing.

if you say that in ancient times people knew what hanging and strangulation were but didnt know what oxygen was

and yes people have made some disasterous penion investments and property investments too by rational decisions.

robindch wrote: »

...based upon the kind of wishful thinking that the religious would be familiar with.

It's not enough to build strong walls. The foundations have to be there too.

Actually Sam did a most excellent Occams argument on the Theocracy thread that embraced all views.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By confining the way of thinking to only rational thinking how do you limit its effectiveness?

You don't see the complete picture because your automatic response to something (even if you think about it) is governed by a set of pre-defined parameters. The reasoning system is dictated to by a set of what if questions and the associated fear, which in itself is not inheritently incorrect. It's when it becomes your only way of thinking, then that's a problem.
You have decided that the rational way to think about something is the only way to look at something. So in effect your perception and actions are governed by this "way" of thinking and as a result you have limited your understanding.

The expression thinking outside the box comes from this. It's not being hippy or spiritual, it's just taking time to think beyond your automatic responces to situations and form. How can you get a complete understanding of something if you confine your assesment to a pre-determined reasoning system.

robindch wrote: »

I'd imagine that's more of a conclusion than an assumption.

No it's an assumption. No one knows for sure, therfore it is an assumption, granted you will consider it a stronger assumption than assumptions made by others that god does exsist but it's an assumption all the same.

togster wrote: »

No it's an assumption. No one knows for sure, therfore it is an assumption, granted you will consider it a stronger assumption than assumptions made by others that god does exsist but it's an assumption all the same.

how reasonable is that assumption

CDfm wrote: »

how reasonable is that assumption

Reasonable within the confines of the percievers reasoning system.