Atheists officially outnumber Christians for the 1st time
Discussion
///ajd said:
Efbe said:
....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?
Its been covered, but these morals don't come from religion. They are human nature pure and simple, and as also quoted - ironically, likely stem from evolution. Religion has adopted them as a powerful way to keep the faithful in the flock and persuade them to stay and not leave - or moral decline will unfold. Its an untruth. PS How nice to be agreeing with EY. I think we disagreed on something or other a while back - the scot indie ref I think it was. I always find it interesting to see how posters here I may strongly disagree with on one subject turn up in another unrelated topic and I find I totally agree with them - and vice versa.
I've found I agree with Derek on nearly everything however
For what it's worth, I think turning the other cheek is absolutely against human nature.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No conflict here.We use the scientific method to work out the mechanisms of things but it cannot be used to help us understand if there is any meaning to what happens or any reason behind it.
I think that is the fundamental error that some pseudo-scientific opponents of religion and spirituality make.
The second error is to apply their faith in the power of science with slavish abandon. They don't show understanding of the concepts they champion, they act dogmatically, they don't seem to be very good at critical analysis. It marks them out as being the mirror image of the religious examples they make. The majority of people in this world seem to be able to accept that religious faith/spirituality/theism and science can coexist, can be shared and respected simultaneously, both offering something the other cannot. I would argue that the type of person who does think that science is somehow a thing that challenges religion, and must rule supreme, shares many personality traits with religious fundamentalists.
SpeedMattersNot said:
///ajd said:
Efbe said:
....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?
Its been covered, but these morals don't come from religion. They are human nature pure and simple, and as also quoted - ironically, likely stem from evolution. Religion has adopted them as a powerful way to keep the faithful in the flock and persuade them to stay and not leave - or moral decline will unfold. Its an untruth. PS How nice to be agreeing with EY. I think we disagreed on something or other a while back - the scot indie ref I think it was. I always find it interesting to see how posters here I may strongly disagree with on one subject turn up in another unrelated topic and I find I totally agree with them - and vice versa.
I've found I agree with Derek on nearly everything however
For what it's worth, I think turning the other cheek is absolutely against human nature.
Has religion really made people "treat others how you would be treated" etc.? I think that is far more fundamental instinct that is learned through every day nature experience and nil credit need be given to religion - its a myth pushed & indoctrinated by the church.
Religion has certainly helped preserve discrimination against women and gays etc. - that persists to this day. Where are the morals there? That's centuries of repression and flawed morals that keeps parts of the society still rooted in the dark ages.
Turning the other cheek is not necessarily against human nature at all - this is also natural and potentially evolutionary. Revenge carries risk and waste of resources; survival rates would be higher if you turn the other cheek. Many atheists turn the other cheek - what can that have to do with religion?
///ajd said:
Yes, the disgusting things are also human nature - and these are also reflected in religion through the ages.
Has religion really made people "treat others how you would be treated" etc.? I think that is far more fundamental instinct that is learned through every day nature experience and nil credit need be given to religion - its a myth pushed & indoctrinated by the church.
Religion has certainly helped preserve discrimination against women and gays etc. - that persists to this day. Where are the morals there? That's centuries of repression and flawed morals that keeps parts of the society still rooted in the dark ages.
Turning the other cheek is not necessarily against human nature at all - this is also natural and potentially evolutionary. Revenge carries risk and waste of resources; survival rates would be higher if you turn the other cheek. Many atheists turn the other cheek - what can that have to do with religion?
You are letting your prejudices cloud your judgement. You make a highly illogical statement when you say that religion cannot take any credit for nurturing the 'treat others as you wish to be treated' approach because that trait is, you believe, inherent and primordial, but must be held responsible for the perpetuation of discrimination against women and homosexuals. Is gender inequality and rejection of things that don't fit the norm not also an inherent trait of mankind? So how, scientifically, have you deduced this? Or is it just that your M.O is that nothing good can come of religion, only bad? Has religion really made people "treat others how you would be treated" etc.? I think that is far more fundamental instinct that is learned through every day nature experience and nil credit need be given to religion - its a myth pushed & indoctrinated by the church.
Religion has certainly helped preserve discrimination against women and gays etc. - that persists to this day. Where are the morals there? That's centuries of repression and flawed morals that keeps parts of the society still rooted in the dark ages.
Turning the other cheek is not necessarily against human nature at all - this is also natural and potentially evolutionary. Revenge carries risk and waste of resources; survival rates would be higher if you turn the other cheek. Many atheists turn the other cheek - what can that have to do with religion?
HUmankind, 
The two main religions that came out of the Middle East were anti women, some scholars think that Paul was a woman hater, and that was how the next 2,000 years of European history went down.
The Romans had issues with cultures that didn't hate women. Of course religion was also a nice shroud to persecute gays while allowing for the inner circle to have gay sex, the best cover of all!
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/what-ancient-celt...
The two main religions that came out of the Middle East were anti women, some scholars think that Paul was a woman hater, and that was how the next 2,000 years of European history went down.
The Romans had issues with cultures that didn't hate women. Of course religion was also a nice shroud to persecute gays while allowing for the inner circle to have gay sex, the best cover of all!
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/what-ancient-celt...
Efbe said:
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 think a more accurate statement is that every society has attempted to explain the world around them. The problem is, not one of them came up with an explanation that went beyond their environment and knowledge.
Did the Eskimos worship the sun, for example, or was it cultures that happened to live in really sunny places?
If we'd found the Australian Aborigines had equivalent stories about Jesus or Thor, it would have been a revelation but they didn't. Isolated from everyone else, they came up with their own stories based on nature and what they could see around them.
That for me is the clearest evidence that there is absolutely nothing supernatural about organised religion.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Was it spirituality that found the reason why people got sick? Was it spirituality that showed us the reason why the sun comes up?
Was it spirituality that showed us the reason why crops don't grow?
What justifiable reason does religion give us for anything that happens?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, and you're projecting a religious context onto it without any justification. Scientists do not slavishly follow scientific understanding, they constantly challenge it because that is the whole point.The premise of your argument seems to be that some people did some scientific experiments a few thousand years ago, wrote a book with their findings and we've been adhering to that ever since. That's not how it works.
Scientific understanding has been in a perpetual state of change since it began. Scientists know large chunks of their current understanding will either be built upon or discarded. It's their job to make sure they've done it well enough to ensure its more of the former than the latter.
Science is a map of nature, drawn in ever increasing detail by scientific exploration and study. And I'm sure it's no coincidence that each time we add more detail to the map, a little bit of religious doctrine gets erased.
durbster said:
The premise of your argument seems to be that some people did some scientific experiments a few thousand years ago, wrote a book with their findings and we've been adhering to that ever since. That's not how it works.
I disagree, that's not how it should work, but it is what has happened in the past.I'd like to think it won't happen in the future but knowing human nature,I'm afraid it will.
Edited by vanordinaire on Thursday 26th May 10:58
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I more or less agree with what you're saying there.I'll add though that I think we can make a vague distinction between religion and spirituality. Religion often has arbitary doctrine/dogma that is less compatible with our scientific understanding, sometimes contary to what is now accepted in the consensus reality. Whereas various spirtual belief particularly new agey ones can be less obviously falsifiable, particularly if arrising from personal experience as opposed to acceptance of a given text.
For me it often boils down to whether one is a materialist or dualist. Whether you consider consciousness to be an emergent property of a deterministic physcial system (quite possible precluding free-will), or whether you consider consciousness or the soul as it were to have a metaphysical origin... or at least one that isn't understood by todays sciences...
Edited by XJ40 on Thursday 26th May 17:31
lionelf said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
People who believe in Science "don't seem to be very good at critical analysis"? Yet the spiritual are?I think I've heard it all now.
I/we are talking about certain people, particularly prevalent on PH it appears, who seize upon science as their basis and their justification or their guide. Also particularly about the way they seize upon it and hold onto it without really understanding or questioning it, how very similar this is to those that need theist religious fundamentalism. It's probably because they can't deal with uncertainty and unknowns so they think that 'what scientists say' gives them the certainty they need. The truth is you don't need anything to justify or explain atheism.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Personally, I don't see how somebody who uses a sceptical, rational process to decide what things they think are real and what things they think are not real can make an exception for gods without either some cognitive dissonance, deep intellectual dishonesty or just not being very good at thinking. I suppose it depends what you mean by "spirituality", but I don't see why one would be willing to accept "magic" as an explanation for some things and not then anything.otolith said:
Personally, I don't see how somebody who uses a sceptical, rational process to decide what things they think are real and what things they think are not real can make an exception for gods without either some cognitive dissonance, deep intellectual dishonesty or just not being very good at thinking. I suppose it depends what you mean by "spirituality", but I don't see why one would be willing to accept "magic" as an explanation for some things and not then anything.
Depends if you think a satisfactory explanation of love, meaning, purpose etc is that they are just emergent properties of a purely mechanistic universe. That's the view I take, but I can see why others might find that implausible and build their world view up from a different set of assumptions that include making stuff like meaning fundamental. It doesn't require cognitive dissonance, it just requires a different set of initial assumptions.NinjaPower said:
New report about to be released: http://news.sky.com/story/1701109/christians-in-uk...
Hardly a surprise really, but the biggest shift has been people brought up with religion now ticking the 'no religion' box whereas previously these people would have still ticked the box for the religion they were brought up with, despite not practicing it.
I'm at the age where my friends are getting married, and most of the weddings I have attended over the last few years have been non-religious, which I wouldn't have predicted if you asked me 10 years ago.
I remember having an argument with my mum when I was about 20 where I told her I thought religion was utter nonsense and that I didn't wish to partake in it. She was really quite annoyed and stated that I was 'raised Church of England' and therefore I couldn't just be 'non religious'!
Can you back up that claim with stats for the whole population of the world please given your rash claim in your headline.Hardly a surprise really, but the biggest shift has been people brought up with religion now ticking the 'no religion' box whereas previously these people would have still ticked the box for the religion they were brought up with, despite not practicing it.
I'm at the age where my friends are getting married, and most of the weddings I have attended over the last few years have been non-religious, which I wouldn't have predicted if you asked me 10 years ago.
I remember having an argument with my mum when I was about 20 where I told her I thought religion was utter nonsense and that I didn't wish to partake in it. She was really quite annoyed and stated that I was 'raised Church of England' and therefore I couldn't just be 'non religious'!
Gandahar said:
Why don't you rename this thread
"I like to bash religious people"
It would be more accurate.
Well... we have had a good 250,000 years of religious types bashing, stabbing and executing those who didn't want to recognise the Jub Jub in the mountain, Thor, Poseidon - and the current incumbent... the executioner of 31 million innocents give or take up to 0 BC. And then... well.. the religious types kept on going pretty much up to the current day."I like to bash religious people"
It would be more accurate.
So... I think the religious types have had their turn.
Why would you argue against the other side putting their point of view across... without stabbing or executing you?
It is after all... only words..
What do you have to be afraid of?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff