Atheists officially outnumber Christians for the 1st time
Discussion
FredClogs said:
Really there isn't a lot of difference between science, religion and a great deal of philosophy, they're different sides of the same coin, they're just expressions of the human condition and a need to explain and control both our perception of the universe around us and our immediate responses to it. The pursuit of knowledge is a primary human instinct as long as the knowledge fits (satisfies the question at the time) then it works, a lot of Abrahamic religious dogma no longer fits for a lot of people.
Nonsense. IMHO.The decline of the various abrahamic religions might well bring with it a much preferable set of morals. Equal treatment of women, the acceptance that homosexuals are doing nothing wrong, the wish to constrain, the belief in a section of the community being the only ones who go to heaven, the rest to permanent torture (really quite repellent); all these have a basis in abrahamic religions.
The idea that atheism is a belief system was invented by theists in order to attack those who were not theists. You can, of course, be atheistic without trusting the scientific method. The two do not go together in the same way as, for instance, abrahamic religions and oppression. To accept the scientific method as the best way of explaining 'things' does not preclude a belief in a deity.
I think the scientific method is a great way to define the universe, from the ever so big to the ever so small, but I know that most, if not all, of the theories I believe today will be replaced/substantially modified in the short/medium term. That's what makes it so strong and exciting. However, it is obviously possible for a better way to interpret the universe to exist. That we don't know of it now, or perhaps yet, doesn't make it impossible. When it comes, then it will be accepted by some immediately but others later. It might, or might not, replace the scientific method. However, one should not stick with the old method just because a supernatural being might be upset.
I am not an atheist in the sense that I'm a member of a club. I just don't believe in any religion because they are palpably man-made. I'd suggest there might be something that could, with a stretch of logic, be called a god, but not one that is bothered about, inter alia, the gender of a person I sleep with. Any one/thing that pathetic is not entitled to be called a god. To me that goes even past farcical.
Believe what you like, I don't care, but don't pervade society with horrible beliefs, such as women being inferior and all the rest. Keep out of my life. And death. And don't bugger alter boys.
The negative effects of religion is what generates my posts. Oh, and the fact that my taxes support them.
I am not a class of person just because I don't believe in superstitious nonsense.
The idea that atheism is a belief system was invented by theists in order to attack those who were not theists. You can, of course, be atheistic without trusting the scientific method. The two do not go together in the same way as, for instance, abrahamic religions and oppression. To accept the scientific method as the best way of explaining 'things' does not preclude a belief in a deity.
I think the scientific method is a great way to define the universe, from the ever so big to the ever so small, but I know that most, if not all, of the theories I believe today will be replaced/substantially modified in the short/medium term. That's what makes it so strong and exciting. However, it is obviously possible for a better way to interpret the universe to exist. That we don't know of it now, or perhaps yet, doesn't make it impossible. When it comes, then it will be accepted by some immediately but others later. It might, or might not, replace the scientific method. However, one should not stick with the old method just because a supernatural being might be upset.
I am not an atheist in the sense that I'm a member of a club. I just don't believe in any religion because they are palpably man-made. I'd suggest there might be something that could, with a stretch of logic, be called a god, but not one that is bothered about, inter alia, the gender of a person I sleep with. Any one/thing that pathetic is not entitled to be called a god. To me that goes even past farcical.
Believe what you like, I don't care, but don't pervade society with horrible beliefs, such as women being inferior and all the rest. Keep out of my life. And death. And don't bugger alter boys.
The negative effects of religion is what generates my posts. Oh, and the fact that my taxes support them.
I am not a class of person just because I don't believe in superstitious nonsense.
Derek Smith said:
The decline of the various abrahamic religions might well bring with it a much preferable set of morals. Equal treatment of women, the acceptance that homosexuals are doing nothing wrong, the wish to constrain, the belief in a section of the community being the only ones who go to heaven, the rest to permanent torture (really quite repellent); all these have a basis in abrahamic religions.
The idea that atheism is a belief system was invented by theists in order to attack those who were not theists. You can, of course, be atheistic without trusting the scientific method. The two do not go together in the same way as, for instance, abrahamic religions and oppression. To accept the scientific method as the best way of explaining 'things' does not preclude a belief in a deity.
I think the scientific method is a great way to define the universe, from the ever so big to the ever so small, but I know that most, if not all, of the theories I believe today will be replaced/substantially modified in the short/medium term. That's what makes it so strong and exciting. However, it is obviously possible for a better way to interpret the universe to exist. That we don't know of it now, or perhaps yet, doesn't make it impossible. When it comes, then it will be accepted by some immediately but others later. It might, or might not, replace the scientific method. However, one should not stick with the old method just because a supernatural being might be upset.
I am not an atheist in the sense that I'm a member of a club. I just don't believe in any religion because they are palpably man-made. I'd suggest there might be something that could, with a stretch of logic, be called a god, but not one that is bothered about, inter alia, the gender of a person I sleep with. Any one/thing that pathetic is not entitled to be called a god. To me that goes even past farcical.
Believe what you like, I don't care, but don't pervade society with horrible beliefs, such as women being inferior and all the rest. Keep out of my life. And death. And don't bugger alter boys.
The negative effects of religion is what generates my posts. Oh, and the fact that my taxes support them.
I am not a class of person just because I don't believe in superstitious nonsense.
I concur entirely. I'd go further, 'God' as detailed in the holy books is the most evil creature ever dreamt up.The idea that atheism is a belief system was invented by theists in order to attack those who were not theists. You can, of course, be atheistic without trusting the scientific method. The two do not go together in the same way as, for instance, abrahamic religions and oppression. To accept the scientific method as the best way of explaining 'things' does not preclude a belief in a deity.
I think the scientific method is a great way to define the universe, from the ever so big to the ever so small, but I know that most, if not all, of the theories I believe today will be replaced/substantially modified in the short/medium term. That's what makes it so strong and exciting. However, it is obviously possible for a better way to interpret the universe to exist. That we don't know of it now, or perhaps yet, doesn't make it impossible. When it comes, then it will be accepted by some immediately but others later. It might, or might not, replace the scientific method. However, one should not stick with the old method just because a supernatural being might be upset.
I am not an atheist in the sense that I'm a member of a club. I just don't believe in any religion because they are palpably man-made. I'd suggest there might be something that could, with a stretch of logic, be called a god, but not one that is bothered about, inter alia, the gender of a person I sleep with. Any one/thing that pathetic is not entitled to be called a god. To me that goes even past farcical.
Believe what you like, I don't care, but don't pervade society with horrible beliefs, such as women being inferior and all the rest. Keep out of my life. And death. And don't bugger alter boys.
The negative effects of religion is what generates my posts. Oh, and the fact that my taxes support them.
I am not a class of person just because I don't believe in superstitious nonsense.
Smollet said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
A decline in Christianity in the UK in isolation with no decline in rival nonsense probably won't play out well. A decline in religious belief across the world would play out brilliantly I think.
Amen to that. OopsThe sooner religion is consigned to history the better. Then we can all genuinely get along with each other.
Derek Smith said:
The decline of the various abrahamic religions might well bring with it a much preferable set of morals. Equal treatment of women, the acceptance that homosexuals are doing nothing wrong, the wish to constrain, the belief in a section of the community being the only ones who go to heaven, the rest to permanent torture (really quite repellent); all these have a basis in abrahamic religions.
The idea that atheism is a belief system was invented by theists in order to attack those who were not theists. You can, of course, be atheistic without trusting the scientific method. The two do not go together in the same way as, for instance, abrahamic religions and oppression. To accept the scientific method as the best way of explaining 'things' does not preclude a belief in a deity.
I think the scientific method is a great way to define the universe, from the ever so big to the ever so small, but I know that most, if not all, of the theories I believe today will be replaced/substantially modified in the short/medium term. That's what makes it so strong and exciting. However, it is obviously possible for a better way to interpret the universe to exist. That we don't know of it now, or perhaps yet, doesn't make it impossible. When it comes, then it will be accepted by some immediately but others later. It might, or might not, replace the scientific method. However, one should not stick with the old method just because a supernatural being might be upset.
I am not an atheist in the sense that I'm a member of a club. I just don't believe in any religion because they are palpably man-made. I'd suggest there might be something that could, with a stretch of logic, be called a god, but not one that is bothered about, inter alia, the gender of a person I sleep with. Any one/thing that pathetic is not entitled to be called a god. To me that goes even past farcical.
Believe what you like, I don't care, but don't pervade society with horrible beliefs, such as women being inferior and all the rest. Keep out of my life. And death. And don't bugger alter boys.
The negative effects of religion is what generates my posts. Oh, and the fact that my taxes support them.
I am not a class of person just because I don't believe in superstitious nonsense.
Hear hear.The idea that atheism is a belief system was invented by theists in order to attack those who were not theists. You can, of course, be atheistic without trusting the scientific method. The two do not go together in the same way as, for instance, abrahamic religions and oppression. To accept the scientific method as the best way of explaining 'things' does not preclude a belief in a deity.
I think the scientific method is a great way to define the universe, from the ever so big to the ever so small, but I know that most, if not all, of the theories I believe today will be replaced/substantially modified in the short/medium term. That's what makes it so strong and exciting. However, it is obviously possible for a better way to interpret the universe to exist. That we don't know of it now, or perhaps yet, doesn't make it impossible. When it comes, then it will be accepted by some immediately but others later. It might, or might not, replace the scientific method. However, one should not stick with the old method just because a supernatural being might be upset.
I am not an atheist in the sense that I'm a member of a club. I just don't believe in any religion because they are palpably man-made. I'd suggest there might be something that could, with a stretch of logic, be called a god, but not one that is bothered about, inter alia, the gender of a person I sleep with. Any one/thing that pathetic is not entitled to be called a god. To me that goes even past farcical.
Believe what you like, I don't care, but don't pervade society with horrible beliefs, such as women being inferior and all the rest. Keep out of my life. And death. And don't bugger alter boys.
The negative effects of religion is what generates my posts. Oh, and the fact that my taxes support them.
I am not a class of person just because I don't believe in superstitious nonsense.
This whole "atheism/science is a religion" comes from people who presumably think not collecting stamps is a hobby, off is a tv channel, bald is a hair style and celibacy is a sexual activity.
Robertj21a said:
Efbe said:
generally speaking, for 99% of the population, people need to have a belief.
The move from christianity to atheism is not just a removal of this need for a belief, the belief has changed to science.
Most people that say religion is nonsense will put their faith in scientific laws and theories of which they have no concept, and are just as alien to them as the idea of a divine ruler.
Therefore science has just become another religion. people need to believe in something. The only problem is that science does not inherently come with a nice moral rulebook, of which the major religions did come with, no matter how badly they were interpreted/implemented.
The point being... I do not think for the vast majority of people you can remove religion. It needs to be replaced with something else. Another religion.
In attempting to remove it, you will bolster the arguement and push towards something else.
It's rare for me to say it but I couldn't agree with you less. Totally ridiculous comments.The move from christianity to atheism is not just a removal of this need for a belief, the belief has changed to science.
Most people that say religion is nonsense will put their faith in scientific laws and theories of which they have no concept, and are just as alien to them as the idea of a divine ruler.
Therefore science has just become another religion. people need to believe in something. The only problem is that science does not inherently come with a nice moral rulebook, of which the major religions did come with, no matter how badly they were interpreted/implemented.
The point being... I do not think for the vast majority of people you can remove religion. It needs to be replaced with something else. Another religion.
In attempting to remove it, you will bolster the arguement and push towards something else.
There is continual denial that belief in scientific theory and practice does involve an element of dogma and faith.
I've always argued that science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Hear hear.
This whole "atheism/science is a religion" comes from people who presumably think not collecting stamps is a hobby, off is a tv channel, bald is a hair style and celibacy is a sexual activity.
No one is saying science is a religion.This whole "atheism/science is a religion" comes from people who presumably think not collecting stamps is a hobby, off is a tv channel, bald is a hair style and celibacy is a sexual activity.
Some of us are pointing out that there are a fair number of misguided people who have a naive understanding of science that looks more like religious belief than science.
Robertj21a said:
Efbe said:
generally speaking, for 99% of the population, people need to have a belief.
The move from christianity to atheism is not just a removal of this need for a belief, the belief has changed to science.
Most people that say religion is nonsense will put their faith in scientific laws and theories of which they have no concept, and are just as alien to them as the idea of a divine ruler.
Therefore science has just become another religion. people need to believe in something. The only problem is that science does not inherently come with a nice moral rulebook, of which the major religions did come with, no matter how badly they were interpreted/implemented.
The point being... I do not think for the vast majority of people you can remove religion. It needs to be replaced with something else. Another religion.
In attempting to remove it, you will bolster the arguement and push towards something else.
It's rare for me to say it but I couldn't agree with you less. Totally ridiculous comments.The move from christianity to atheism is not just a removal of this need for a belief, the belief has changed to science.
Most people that say religion is nonsense will put their faith in scientific laws and theories of which they have no concept, and are just as alien to them as the idea of a divine ruler.
Therefore science has just become another religion. people need to believe in something. The only problem is that science does not inherently come with a nice moral rulebook, of which the major religions did come with, no matter how badly they were interpreted/implemented.
The point being... I do not think for the vast majority of people you can remove religion. It needs to be replaced with something else. Another religion.
In attempting to remove it, you will bolster the arguement and push towards something else.
I don't need to replace my lack of religion any more than I need to replace my lack belief in mermaids.
Science is not a faith system. Its a system of empirical testing and collecting of evidence. Everything thats theory or law has evidence and can be repeated. Religion of course it totally opposite.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
They aren't, so long as the believer is prepared to water down their holy book, which they often are, saying, for example, certain stories are metaphors and not to be taken literally.But if you actually believe the bilbe/koran/torah to be the word of god, then they certainly are mutually exclusive.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Can you show me an example of that please? I've been here a while and not seen any instances of it. This argument is one thats always rolled out to discredit Atheism and now that you've said it I'd like to see your 'evidence'. Nobody is worshipping at any altars of science from what I can see. Science is science and religion is not. One doesn't supplant the other, evidence based truth does however replace ignorance and superstition.gadgetmac said:
Can you show me an example of that please? I've been here a while and not seen any instances of it. This argument is one thats always rolled out to discredit Atheism and now that you've said it I'd like to see your 'evidence'. Nobody is worshipping at any altars of science from what I can see. Science is science and religion is not. One doesn't supplant the other, evidence based truth does however replace ignorance and superstition.
I'll explain again.......... I am not trying to discredit atheism, I'm not sure anybody here is, and nobody is trying to discredit science. All a few of us have highlighted is that some non-theists seem to have latched on to science as their cause and their justification in a way that is no different to the way that some religious people go about their business. That means without full understanding of what they support, dogmatically and without question.You use the term 'evidence based truth', that's evidence of my point.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think the Catholic Church was quite keen on getting everyone to convert to catholicism.A lot of aid given by the Catholic Church is accompanied by some bloke and a bible and lessons in the good book.
(So... yup.... they are still out there trying to get conversions )
At least those nice Doctors Without Borders type give help because it is the right thing to do - and not have it on condition of letting some guy run around spreading Woo Woo.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Hear hear.
This whole "atheism/science is a religion" comes from people who presumably think not collecting stamps is a hobby, off is a tv channel, bald is a hair style and celibacy is a sexual activity.
Excellent analogies. I hope you don't mind if I use them unattributed in the future.This whole "atheism/science is a religion" comes from people who presumably think not collecting stamps is a hobby, off is a tv channel, bald is a hair style and celibacy is a sexual activity.
Derek Smith said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Hear hear.
This whole "atheism/science is a religion" comes from people who presumably think not collecting stamps is a hobby, off is a tv channel, bald is a hair style and celibacy is a sexual activity.
Excellent analogies. I hope you don't mind if I use them unattributed in the future.This whole "atheism/science is a religion" comes from people who presumably think not collecting stamps is a hobby, off is a tv channel, bald is a hair style and celibacy is a sexual activity.
98elise said:
Robertj21a said:
Efbe said:
generally speaking, for 99% of the population, people need to have a belief.
The move from christianity to atheism is not just a removal of this need for a belief, the belief has changed to science.
Most people that say religion is nonsense will put their faith in scientific laws and theories of which they have no concept, and are just as alien to them as the idea of a divine ruler.
Therefore science has just become another religion. people need to believe in something. The only problem is that science does not inherently come with a nice moral rulebook, of which the major religions did come with, no matter how badly they were interpreted/implemented.
The point being... I do not think for the vast majority of people you can remove religion. It needs to be replaced with something else. Another religion.
In attempting to remove it, you will bolster the arguement and push towards something else.
It's rare for me to say it but I couldn't agree with you less. Totally ridiculous comments.The move from christianity to atheism is not just a removal of this need for a belief, the belief has changed to science.
Most people that say religion is nonsense will put their faith in scientific laws and theories of which they have no concept, and are just as alien to them as the idea of a divine ruler.
Therefore science has just become another religion. people need to believe in something. The only problem is that science does not inherently come with a nice moral rulebook, of which the major religions did come with, no matter how badly they were interpreted/implemented.
The point being... I do not think for the vast majority of people you can remove religion. It needs to be replaced with something else. Another religion.
In attempting to remove it, you will bolster the arguement and push towards something else.
I don't need to replace my lack of religion any more than I need to replace my lack belief in mermaids.
Science is not a faith system. Its a system of empirical testing and collecting of evidence. Everything thats theory or law has evidence and can be repeated. Religion of course it totally opposite.
It is not that science is a religion. obviously it is not.
But people use science as a religion. Very different.
Can we agree if that is possible, and potentially happens?
Efbe said:
ok guys, I think you may not be getting quite what I am saying...
It is not that science is a religion. obviously it is not.
But people use science as a religion. Very different.
Can we agree if that is possible, and potentially happens?
Some people have always followed/believed what they've been told without too much question so I agree with you to a point, however with science what they are being told can be verified by others and is the truth to the best of our human minds knowledge at the time. Science is always open to new ideas it's progressive. The effect science has had on our everyday lives over the last 150 years compared to religion is huge, people of whatever intellect can see and touch its effects, they go on holiday cheaply because of it, they can communicate with their families when they are there because of it, it's tangible. It is not that science is a religion. obviously it is not.
But people use science as a religion. Very different.
Can we agree if that is possible, and potentially happens?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff