Atheists officially outnumber Christians for the 1st time
Discussion
Whilst I largely agree with you, the distinctions of our arguements quite simply come down to what you take for granted. I don't think most people do have the capacity or skills/knowledge to question and test science, let alone give even an incling of a care. For them it just IS.
It is for these people, which is the majority of the world that it matters not where the story of why something is comes from. god/gravity/cthulu, they will accept the reasoning they have been given from birth and just go with it.
any this comes back to another point I was making, there are some good morals that come out of religion. it is what a lot of it was designed for. lets not get into the obvious poor morals and control side of it, but being nice to people, sharing and helping those in need; it's all good stuff. When these lessons stop being taught, where else do they come from?
It is for these people, which is the majority of the world that it matters not where the story of why something is comes from. god/gravity/cthulu, they will accept the reasoning they have been given from birth and just go with it.
esxste said:
However religion is more than just old or bad science. Religion lays claim to morality too.
it does.any this comes back to another point I was making, there are some good morals that come out of religion. it is what a lot of it was designed for. lets not get into the obvious poor morals and control side of it, but being nice to people, sharing and helping those in need; it's all good stuff. When these lessons stop being taught, where else do they come from?
Efbe said:
Whilst I largely agree with you, the distinctions of our arguements quite simply come down to what you take for granted. I don't think most people do have the capacity or skills/knowledge to question and test science, let alone give even an incling of a care.
That reflects a failure of our education system then, because the fundamentals are simple enough for a primary school age child to grasp. lionelf said:
That may have happened millennia ago but nowadays? I don't think so. And don't forget, what you are saying was Science 2,000 odd years ago actually wasn't, it was merely a perceived wisdom. The scientific method wasn't established until about 1200 AD.
If you can demonstrate that happening today then I'll accept your point.
I can think of a couple of examples, specifically some of the Scientology and Mormon doctrine, scientology is entirely based on the premise of misappropriated scientific knowledge.. It's not everyday that a new religion springs up but there is plenty of weird cults that latch onto a piece of scientific knowledge and turn it into doctrine - google "Eckankar" which as far as I understand is a misappropriation of Everett's the many worlds theoryIf you can demonstrate that happening today then I'll accept your point.
Efbe said:
it does.
any this comes back to another point I was making, there are some good morals that come out of religion. it is what a lot of it was designed for. lets not get into the obvious poor morals and control side of it, but being nice to people, sharing and helping those in need; it's all good stuff. When these lessons stop being taught, where else do they come from?
From all those people who are not religious, yet who manage to be decent human beings and to pass those values down to their children? From philosophers, sociologists, writers, journalists, teachers, campaigners, political activists? It's a depressing view of human nature to think that goodness only comes from empty threats of hell and promises of heaven.any this comes back to another point I was making, there are some good morals that come out of religion. it is what a lot of it was designed for. lets not get into the obvious poor morals and control side of it, but being nice to people, sharing and helping those in need; it's all good stuff. When these lessons stop being taught, where else do they come from?
FredClogs said:
scientology is entirely based on the premise of misappropriated scientific knowledge.
I'm sorry but I can't accept that the following doesn't sound like any science I've ever read.From Wiki
Hubbard once defined a thetan as: "... having no mass, no wave-length, no energy, no measurable qualities and no time or location in space except by consideration or postulate. The spirit is not a thing. It is the creator of things." According to Hubbard's son Ronald DeWolf (born L. Ron Hubbard, Jr.), his father stated that thetans are immortal and perpetual, having willed themselves into existence at some point several trillion years ago. After they originated, thetans generated "points to view" or "dimension points", causing space to come into existence. They agreed that other thetans' dimension points existed, thus bringing into existence the entire universe. All matter, energy, space, and time exists solely because thetans agree that it exists.
lionelf said:
FredClogs said:
scientology is entirely based on the premise of misappropriated scientific knowledge.
I'm sorry but I can't accept that the following doesn't sound like any science I've ever read.From Wiki
Hubbard once defined a thetan as: "... having no mass, no wave-length, no energy, no measurable qualities and no time or location in space except by consideration or postulate. The spirit is not a thing. It is the creator of things." According to Hubbard's son Ronald DeWolf (born L. Ron Hubbard, Jr.), his father stated that thetans are immortal and perpetual, having willed themselves into existence at some point several trillion years ago. After they originated, thetans generated "points to view" or "dimension points", causing space to come into existence. They agreed that other thetans' dimension points existed, thus bringing into existence the entire universe. All matter, energy, space, and time exists solely because thetans agree that it exists.
The operative word was misappropriated... I was thinking of the nonsense they do when auditing people with the lie detector machines...
Efbe said:
it does.
any this comes back to another point I was making, there are some good morals that come out of religion. it is what a lot of it was designed for. lets not get into the obvious poor morals and control side of it, but being nice to people, sharing and helping those in need; it's all good stuff. When these lessons stop being taught, where else do they come from?
Parents primarily, followed by family, friends and society. any this comes back to another point I was making, there are some good morals that come out of religion. it is what a lot of it was designed for. lets not get into the obvious poor morals and control side of it, but being nice to people, sharing and helping those in need; it's all good stuff. When these lessons stop being taught, where else do they come from?
I think this is one of the smartest hooks used by organised religion to make people fearful of leaving; instilling the notion that abandoning the church leaves you vulnerable to a moral decline. It takes some balls to take that chance if that idea has been indoctrinated into you.
But millions of people have evidently left religion behind and have we become a society of villains? Are the least religious societies conducting the worst atrocities? Do we fear the Danish because their lack of religion has left them a nation of evil?
Of course not. We've found time and time again that when people stop believing, nothing changes.
There is an evolutionary explanation. Humans are social creatures so our species wouldn't have survived if it allowed members of its group to get away with malice. We have an instinctive desire to help each other out, by and large, because that's how we survived.
On the whole, people are pretty pleasant to each other because you don't have to get down on your knees to realise that acting like a prick is bad for society.
98elise said:
Children shouldn't be brought up as part of any religion. They should be free to choose their own faith (or lack of).
I keep saying this. Religion should be categorised alongside other "adult" lifestyle choices, such as marriage, alcohol, smoking, age of consent, etc, and it should be illegal to indoctrinate (dare I say "brainwash") children who should make up their own minds when they're quite old enough to do so.vanordinaire said:
The atheist bit is irrelevant.
What I'm saying is that a piece of 'science or fact' one day , gets slowly turned and twisted into religious doctrine over the years till it is wrong and/or irrelevant but it is still spouted as 'gospel' by it's proponents. It's not right, it just happens though.
My example was a demonstration of this from the past, but still relevant today.
I don't think you quite understand what happens in the scientific community.What I'm saying is that a piece of 'science or fact' one day , gets slowly turned and twisted into religious doctrine over the years till it is wrong and/or irrelevant but it is still spouted as 'gospel' by it's proponents. It's not right, it just happens though.
My example was a demonstration of this from the past, but still relevant today.
Newton was hailed a genius, indeed still is, but then along came Einstein and overturned the accepted, and demonstrably true, theory that gravity was an attractive force. Many scientists weren't convinced at the time but the vast majority are now.
Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the greats of the 20th century, didn't believe in the big bang theory of the evolution of the universe, this despite coining the phrase. He was still listened to but eventually it was found that his theory was contradicted by observations.
I can't think of any scientific theory of the last century that hasn't been overturned, changed or modified. Everyone talks of Darwinism but others have taken his ideas to new heights, some of which have been surpassed themselves.
You can't believe 'in science' as it is not a belief system. Every scientist knows that theories will be overturned and that their suggestions are merely temporary explanations.
You can, as many do, believe that the scientific method is not only the best way of defining the universe, but will explain it all. The essence of a scientific theory is to predict (back to Einstein there) and some people feel that scientists will be able to predict everything, down to the smallest particle, when it is discovered that is. Others think otherwise.
The only 'gospel' of science is that proof is needed. That is hardly a belief system, hardly something which controls your life decisions. It just is.
But, and it is a big but, but even if science is a belief system, with a supreme being and directives, that does not support the religious in their beliefs in any way, shape or form.
Although this analogy is nowhere near as sharp as those previously, if you are trying to prove that you have a genius IQ, it is no good saying that your brother Alan can only make 92. There is no connection.
There may well be some form of god. I don't think there is but am happy to admit the possibility. However, the one thing I 'believe' is that the god of the abrahamic religions is no more a god than thor. She is an invention, just like the many other identical in method inventions before and since.
I can understand the belief that the sun is a god in people who had no access to mathematics. After all, if it cleared off, they'd all die. But that doesn't make it one.
My opinions have a lot to do with the amount of religious study I did as a 20-year-old. To me the contradictions in the old testament, and the way the christian bible was constructed, by whom and for what reason, should be enough to cause anyone to doubt that it is true.
But I'm happy for them to be deceived and for people to carry on in their bewildering beliefs. I resent my taxes supporting these religions because they are divisive. I resent the middle and higher management being used to inform decision makers. I resent them classing themselves as in some way superior when it is so damned obvious that their religions fall far lower than commonly accepted modern morals.
We criticise a golf course for refusing to have female members, and then treat the pope as a source of wisdom. I worked in Brighton as a police officer and gays there were transparent. It was as if they were normal people. There were good, indifferent and not so good. To suggest that they are all going to hell, to burn in eternity, for the horrendous crime of loving someone of the same sex is not only offensive but really nasty.
That it is professed by those who protected the buggerers of children just makes something that I thought was inexcusable much worse.
Getting rid of religions won't make the world wonderful as even if the nasty vicars have influence and protection removed, there are many others who will do the same as them.
I also believe, that word again, that everyone should be allowed to believe what they want to. I should have no say in it. But if they do not conform to modern accepted morals then they should have all public funding removed and their offensive conduct advertised. They should not be allowed to influence the decisions of governments and the top vicars should not be given preferential treatment.
The money save should go to similar clubs, like model railways.
CAPP0 said:
I keep saying this. Religion should be categorised alongside other "adult" lifestyle choices, such as marriage, alcohol, smoking, age of consent, etc, and it should be illegal to indoctrinate (dare I say "brainwash") children who should make up their own minds when they're quite old enough to do so.
Same could be said about numerous other forms of social conditioning. Why pick out religion as a special case?durbster said:
But millions of people have evidently left religion behind and have we become a society of villains? Are the least religious societies conducting the worst atrocities? Do we fear the Danish because their lack of religion has left them a nation of evil?
Of course not. We've found time and time again that when people stop believing, nothing changes.
There is an evolutionary explanation. Humans are social creatures so our species wouldn't have survived if it allowed members of its group to get away with malice. We have an instinctive desire to help each other out, by and large, because that's how we survived.
On the whole, people are pretty pleasant to each other because you don't have to get down on your knees to realise that acting like a prick is bad for society.
millions out of a population of what though? 100bn?Of course not. We've found time and time again that when people stop believing, nothing changes.
There is an evolutionary explanation. Humans are social creatures so our species wouldn't have survived if it allowed members of its group to get away with malice. We have an instinctive desire to help each other out, by and large, because that's how we survived.
On the whole, people are pretty pleasant to each other because you don't have to get down on your knees to realise that acting like a prick is bad for society.
I think it rather presumptive and egocentric to think that we are the special generation, the change to the rule that has preceded us since the start of reasoned man.
People in general need either religion or a substitute. Isn't it strange that every society ever, every civilisation we have found evidence of has had religion. I foresee that as the atheist population rises, a backlash will occur, religion will replace it as questions people actually want answering cannot be answered. (the question of what comes next)
I can't stand religion, I am completely atheist, but I am because of what I have been shown and taught. should I have been taught differently I'm sure I would have been religious. I am no more intelligent or reasoned than those 100bn that have gone before me and believed in a god.
Religion is blamed for so much. It is easy to do so, especially for those special few that are at the forefront of an atheist revolution in which we are so so much better and clevererer than everyone else ever. But religion has always been there. For all those wars and atrocities create by religion (if they actually were, and it isn't just human nature) there have been a million times more people that have lived peacefully, happily and successfully.
Derek Smith said:
Newton was hailed a genius, indeed still is, but then along came Einstein and overturned the accepted, and demonstrably true, theory that gravity was an attractive force. Many scientists weren't convinced at the time but the vast majority are now.
Despite which, the Newtonian mathematical model of gravity still works perfectly well for the purposes for which it was developed. It's not been shown to be wrong, it's been shown to be an approximation which works within certain constraints.otolith said:
It's a depressing view of human nature to think that goodness only comes from empty threats of hell and promises of heaven.
That isn't what motivates religious people, ergo saying religion fills a useful role in society isn't predicated on holding a depressing view of humanity. otolith said:
Despite which, the Newtonian mathematical model of gravity still works perfectly well for the purposes for which it was developed. It's not been shown to be wrong, it's been shown to be an approximation which works within certain constraints.
Newton made a number of observations from which he could predict. That was observational science. These observations are limited, as shown by GPS. The Americans flew to the Moon, not using Newtonian theories but his observations. A slight difference but an important one.My point was that Newton was the nearest thing to a god in science. He did his work in the 17th century. His calculations were remarkable and Principia could have become a bible if, and only if, science was a religion. Then along came Einstein, not a new messiah but another scientist. He challenged Newton in a way. If science was a religion we'd have both theories shown as right, and the evidence being we could fly to the Moon.
Detective Thomas Papania: You figure it's all a scam, huh? All them folks? They just wrong?
Rustin Cohle: Oh yeah! Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey, "He said for you to give me your f
king share." People... so god damn frail they'd rather put a coin in the wishing well than buy dinner.
Rustin Cohle: Oh yeah! Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey, "He said for you to give me your f
king share." People... so god damn frail they'd rather put a coin in the wishing well than buy dinner. Derek Smith said:
If science was a religion we'd have both theories shown as right, and the evidence being we could fly to the Moon.
There would have been a schism, and a terrible Holy War. We know which side would have won, the other side finding the conversion of mass to energy a foul heresy 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff