Atheists officially outnumber Christians for the 1st time

[ATG]

del mar said:

Leicester winning the premiership.

Explain that with all your science and fancy logic !!

That must have been the Lord at work.

Call your self a philosopher, Kant?? You didn't think of that ^^^^ though did you, eh?

In fairness he has been dead for a couple of centuries ...

Edited by ATG on Thursday 26th May 19:12

[anonymous-user]

XJ40 said:

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

I agree that dogma of any variety is counterproductive to humankind.
There will always be the discussion between dualists, monists and the materialists. It's a bloody big question and very hard to answer, will it ever be? The concept of materialism is to me, although a perfectly fair and viable scenario, quite sad. I'd like to imagine there's more to existence than just physical interactions although that imagining might just be the result of physical interactions that have nothing to do with free will.

[anonymous-user]

del mar said:

Leicester winning the premiership.

Explain that with all your science and fancy logic !!

That must have been the Lord at work.

Purely the devil's mischief!

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not really, my judgement is OK, thank you.

You are right to highlight that - yes - humans must be held responsible for all actions they make. Of course they are - and to an atheist this of course includes the way they invent religions. No-one else is doing it, there is no deity. The atheist realisation that humans made up religions is also backed by science which can help develop explanations for the evolutionary origins of religion. Science can also point to how certain religions were originated and linked to the relative sophistication of society at the time. E.g. basic civilisations rooted with heavy dependence upon successful agriculture tended to worship the sun for obvious reasons. It is further interesting to see how sun worship has evolved into some more recent religions - evolved by human thought and its capacity for imagination. This doesn't science a religion or belief - it only explains how religion is man-made.

It is true of course that human kindness and empathy is built into all of us, just as is the capacity (in some) to be bigoted and nasty.

You can argue that religions may try and perpetuate some behaviours which are good - but they are still fundamentally human, and defined by humans. An atheist simply doesn't think they are defined by e.g. a deity - and hence religion is fundamentally irrelevant. Religion is not necessary for atheists to have a positive moral code - a point sometimes rather offensively overlooked by the religious who it sometimes think that humans would be lost without the guiding light of a given church.

I highlight discrimination against women and homosexuals as a rather nasty human trait that some religions have in the past (or still do) actively reinforced - indeed it is clear that these traits are created and reinforced in some who without religion may not develop such bigotry at all. It is of course true that atheists can be bigoted, but they are not necessarily guided to be so by an organised church.

You can probably tell that I consider that faith/religious belief is - on balance - a detrimental feature of humans, long past its evolutionary benefits. That is offers some comfort to some is fine, and I would not deny anyone that right to believe, however the impact of religion on the lives of everyone - even those who do not believe - is something that needs to be progressively addressed. This should really start with giving children the choice to only choose a religion when they are grown up, and not brainwashed at an early age.

[ffc]

Einion Yrth said:

Jonesy23 said:

Actual hard atheism as a belief also requires a bit more effort than the more common 'don't care'.

This canard again; atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief, and it requires no effort whatsoever.

Unless you were indoctrinated from youth by Church schools, in which case you do need to work at rejecting the training.

[lionelf]

[redacted]

[ATG]

[redacted]

[lionelf]

[redacted]

[anonymous-user]

[redacted]

[ATG]

lionelf said:

So in the context of religion what are the "non-evidence based assumptions about reality" that we all have to make? Specifically.

What do you mean by "in the context of religion"? I don't understand how that relates to the rest of the question. I'm guessing you meant to ask "what sort of assumptions do we have to make about reality before we can start doing science?" Here are a two:

There are natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes for the events we witness around us.
It is possible to determine the nature of the causes by observing the events.

And even those two seemingly simple assumptions are based on further assumptions about the relationship between perception and reality for example.

Now all those assumptions seem entirely reasonable to me. But that doesn't stop them being assumptions, and you can't do science without them.

If one wasn't prepared to make the assumption that supernatural phenomenon didn't exist, you could still do science, but you'd do so on the basis that it couldn't necessarily explain all observations.

[///ajd]

ATG said:

lionelf said:

So in the context of religion what are the "non-evidence based assumptions about reality" that we all have to make? Specifically.

What do you mean by "in the context of religion"? I don't understand how that relates to the rest of the question. I'm guessing you meant to ask "what sort of assumptions do we have to make about reality before we can start doing science?" Here are a two:

There are natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes for the events we witness around us.
It is possible to determine the nature of the causes by observing the events.

And even those two seemingly simple assumptions are based on further assumptions about the relationship between perception and reality for example.

Now all those assumptions seem entirely reasonable to me. But that doesn't stop them being assumptions, and you can't do science without them.

If one wasn't prepared to make the assumption that supernatural phenomenon didn't exist, you could still do science, but you'd do so on the basis that it couldn't necessarily explain all observations.

I'm not sure there is a specific example in there.

I'm not sure I have to make any assumptions about anything that can't be tied to some form of evidence?

Science is either able to explain via evidence, or provide a basis for theory based upon evidence, pretty much everything we observe & experience? What are the exceptions? I can't think of any?

Conversely, there is no scientific evidence for a deity at all.

[Einion Yrth]

///ajd said:

I'm not sure I have to make any assumptions about anything that can't be tied to some form of evidence?

You have to assume that the evidence you have acquired is "real". A sufficiently whimsical all powerful god could make evidence based science appear to work, until it chose to do otherwise. I choose to assume that here is a "reality" that can be discovered, but it is an assumption, and I have to accept that. It just seems more likely, and indeed palatable, to me that it be true.

[///ajd]

Einion Yrth said:

///ajd said:

I'm not sure I have to make any assumptions about anything that can't be tied to some form of evidence?

You have to assume that the evidence you have acquired is "real". A sufficiently whimsical all powerful god could make evidence based science appear to work, until it chose to do otherwise. I choose to assume that here is a "reality" that can be discovered, but it is an assumption, and I have to accept that. It just seems more likely, and indeed palatable, to me that it be true.

Like a sort of Truman show? OK, yes, you could take it to that extreme, but that would mean absolutely everything was an assumption and nothing we perceive is real at all.

You could argue there is evidence that no one ever in the history of mankind has ever reported any lapses in the "truman show", and this is perhaps evidence that things we perceive are infact real.

It seems like a bit of a philosophical technicality.

[Einion Yrth]

///ajd said:

It seems like a bit of a philosophical technicality.

In many ways I don't disagree, but ontology, as a study, has its adherents, and I was merely trying to elucidate the point that I felt ATG was making.

[Derek Smith]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Odd question. We are currently living in a world where there is so much knowledge that we have no idea of. It's always been that way.

If someone said there were giant creatures 65m years ago before it was a science, the first question to ask them is how does he/she know. It is the only sensible response. If the person says: it has been revealed to me on golden tablets which I lost, then the sensible response is not to believe it. If the person found massive fossilised bones, then it would be intriguing and some would accept the possibility, at least if they were scientists who didn't believe in magic.

To support my contention then I'd bring in dark matter/dark energy. These 'forces' can only only deduced by their effects. What we have is a situation similar to gravity. It existed but we only knew because of its effects. No one has a bottle of it.

Now for a magic being who is not governed by her own rules one would have to ask where the evidence is. The explanation, that some god made the heavens and earth in days covers the points, and if you want to believe that, fair enough. But the logic is not for magic and magic doesn't happen nowadays and nor is there any evidence that it has ever happened.

That there is a god who knows everything and takes a day to day interest and seeing every sparrow's fall has nothing to support it. Dawkins mentions a child who was imprisoned by her father and then raped time and time again. There was other matters with that child which were, remarkably, even worse. Why did this god allow it to go on? It is not mysterious, it is criminal.

But believe what you want. I don't care if you accept magic as real, and agree with the gibberish of those who wanted to control others. You do what you want. Just don't do it in a manner that can affect me.

Unfortunately the religious cults do affect me and mine and that irritates me.

If train spotters can do their thing without bothering me, why can't those who believe myths?

[Troubleatmill]

Derek Smith said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Odd question. We are currently living in a world where there is so much knowledge that we have no idea of. It's always been that way.

If someone said there were giant creatures 65m years ago before it was a science, the first question to ask them is how does he/she know. It is the only sensible response. If the person says: it has been revealed to me on golden tablets which I lost, then the sensible response is not to believe it. If the person found massive fossilised bones, then it would be intriguing and some would accept the possibility, at least if they were scientists who didn't believe in magic.

To support my contention then I'd bring in dark matter/dark energy. These 'forces' can only only deduced by their effects. What we have is a situation similar to gravity. It existed but we only knew because of its effects. No one has a bottle of it.

Now for a magic being who is not governed by her own rules one would have to ask where the evidence is. The explanation, that some god made the heavens and earth in days covers the points, and if you want to believe that, fair enough. But the logic is not for magic and magic doesn't happen nowadays and nor is there any evidence that it has ever happened.

That there is a god who knows everything and takes a day to day interest and seeing every sparrow's fall has nothing to support it. Dawkins mentions a child who was imprisoned by her father and then raped time and time again. There was other matters with that child which were, remarkably, even worse. Why did this god allow it to go on? It is not mysterious, it is criminal.

But believe what you want. I don't care if you accept magic as real, and agree with the gibberish of those who wanted to control others. You do what you want. Just don't do it in a manner that can affect me.

Unfortunately the religious cults do affect me and mine and that irritates me.

If train spotters can do their thing without bothering me, why can't those who believe myths?

Even if you have the intellect of a domestic house cat or dog.

If you see bones of some deceased animal.... you know it was an animal.

If you find small bones... I would wager - the average house cat or dog knows it came from a small animal.

And even cats and dogs grasp things about animals being much smaller than they are. And also much bigger than they are.

If they found gigantic feck off sized bones. I think they would get it.


So... given that when neanderthal man finds a feck off sized skeleton.... does he think

a./ There are/ used to be really big things here that I can eat... or can eat me
b/ This is the work of the devil
c/ Strath Warth Dibble.
d/ The Jub Jub in the mountain is angry with me... and I have to do his bidding by persecuting and raping others.

Edited by Troubleatmill on Friday 27th May 21:22

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

Odd question. We are currently living in a world where there is so much knowledge that we have no idea of. It's always been that way.

If someone said there were giant creatures 65m years ago before it was a science, the first question to ask them is how does he/she know. It is the only sensible response. If the person says: it has been revealed to me on golden tablets which I lost, then the sensible response is not to believe it. If the person found massive fossilised bones, then it would be intriguing and some would accept the possibility, at least if they were scientists who didn't believe in magic.

To support my contention then I'd bring in dark matter/dark energy. These 'forces' can only only deduced by their effects. What we have is a situation similar to gravity. It existed but we only knew because of its effects. No one has a bottle of it.

Now for a magic being who is not governed by her own rules one would have to ask where the evidence is. The explanation, that some god made the heavens and earth in days covers the points, and if you want to believe that, fair enough. But the logic is not for magic and magic doesn't happen nowadays and nor is there any evidence that it has ever happened.

That there is a god who knows everything and takes a day to day interest and seeing every sparrow's fall has nothing to support it. Dawkins mentions a child who was imprisoned by her father and then raped time and time again. There was other matters with that child which were, remarkably, even worse. Why did this god allow it to go on? It is not mysterious, it is criminal.

But believe what you want. I don't care if you accept magic as real, and agree with the gibberish of those who wanted to control others. You do what you want. Just don't do it in a manner that can affect me.

Unfortunately the religious cults do affect me and mine and that irritates me.

If train spotters can do their thing without bothering me, why can't those who believe myths?

To be fair Derek, the way you preach your rhetoric affects me a lot more than my personal faith affects you. So please believe what you want as long as it causes me no bother. You harp on about making sure others don't bother you but you don't practise what you preach when you talk about the manner that affects others. Your answer given, however, explains that you are one that needs certainty and cannot handle the unknown.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Humans, as recently as say 10K years ago, knew sweet f.a. about anything. We didn't understand rainbows, earthquakes, illness, the weather or the seasons. Volcanoes, tornadoes, thunder and lightning, the sun and the rain, fertility, we knew nothing. We subscribed supernatural causes and various gods to explain all of these things.

Whilst there is still much we don't know, we have found the answers to millions, or maybe billions of things in the last 10k years. And not a single one of those answers has a supernatural element. Not one. Nothing, ziltch, nada.

If I were a bookie I'd call that form. I'd take that as a virtual certainty that if none of the billions of things we understand today that we didn't understand previously has a supernatural cause, then nothing we discover in the future will have either.

It's a sure fire bet. If I were religious, this alone would give me serious cause for concern, that I was in all likelihood barking up the wrong tree.

[otolith]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

How does Derek holding and expressing his views affect you? Either you agree with his reasoning or you don't. You've yet to make a theist argument which troubles me, is that my problem or yours?

[///ajd]

otolith said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

How does Derek holding and expressing his views affect you? Either you agree with his reasoning or you don't. You've yet to make a theist argument which troubles me, is that my problem or yours?

Indeed.

If Derek was lecturing your kids 3 times a week with his ideas and there was little (short of moving their school) you could do to stop it, then you might have a point. But he's not, is he?

On the other hand, do you think its OK to push your ideas on everyones kids every week at school? Because that is happening now.