http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7053157.stm

talks about books, bestsellers, presidents, hitchens etc...

2nd to last paragraph:

The United States may never be as secular as Europe.

Maybe not in my lifetime, but I do think it's possible.

2nd to last paragraph:

The United States may never be as secular as Europe.

Maybe not in my lifetime, but I do think it's possible.

Not for many many years though.
I mean most peop;e still go to church there?

This article is what I call good progress.

I believe the rise in atheist population in 'the West' is due to the loss of the true meaning of God in most organized religions (or the feeling of 'oneness', and feeling love and respect for all others, and all things in reality - same thing).

I believe the loss of this true understanding and feeling is a major contribution to the expansion of the worship of money and materialistic and wasteful philosophies, despite our religious beliefs or lack thereof.

But I also believe the contribution to this negative, materialistic world-view is greater among modern-atheists. Most of the very wasteful, selfish individuals IME don't give a shit about any sort of religious beliefs, lack a belief in God, and would never attempt to understand the true meaning of God.

I believe that this materialistic philosophy is itself a major contribution to the degradation of western culture.

I believe the loss of this true understanding and feeling is a major contribution to the expansion of the worship of money and materialistic and wasteful philosophies, despite our religious beliefs or lack thereof.

You were kind of vague about "materialistic and wasteful philosophies". Could you expound on that some? Especially if you're going to follow it by suggesting that modern-atheists are the "greater" contribution to a negative world view because they believe in said philosophies (see below).

It would be best to define what "wasteful" philosophies you're talking about in order to ascertain the number of atheist adherents it has. In all fairness.

But I also believe the contribution to this negative, materialistic world-view is greater among modern-atheists. Most of the very wasteful, selfish individuals IME don't give a shit about any sort of religious beliefs, lack a belief in God, and would never attempt to understand the true meaning of God.

That's your own paltry experience, then. I know more than a few atheists who aren't wasteful, selfish individuals, and who give a great deal of their time and effort to helping others and furthering humanitarian causes. Yes, they lack a belief in God, but you can't just assume that they never attempted to find true meaning in it. Most of us were raised religious and went through our own soul-searches looking for the omni-figure that so many others rely on. We do give a shit about other people's religious beliefs, because the many in it's stronghold are our dearest family and closest friends. We have no choice but to give a shit about religious beliefs, because a lot of those religious beliefs permeate the very fabric of our international societies and shapes world policies. We'd be fools not to stay on top of it!!

But I also believe the contribution to this negative, materialistic world-view is greater among modern-atheists. Most of the very wasteful, selfish individuals IME don't give a shit about any sort of religious beliefs, lack a belief in God, and would never attempt to understand the true meaning of God.

Wrong. There's a reason why the Vatican is so stinking rich. Religions are excellent tools for extracting huge sums of money over huge periods of time. Materialism and greed have lead to all kinds of corruption and abuses amongst the Catholic clergy for example.

Frankly, it's idiotic to blame a single movement for what is (probably falsely) considered a rise in materialism and greed; it's a human trait that's been with us throughout many social and political movements, and will be with us probably forever.

Obbe may have somewhat of a point, maybe. I remember this psychologist that stated we should not leave ideas of christian morality behind, because he feared there was nothing to replace it with and so people would simply follow consumerism and lead wholly materialistic lifestyles. It seems atleast plausible, but I think there are some philosophies and ideals that can replace the 'love thy neighbor' and 'don't get wrapped up in the world of man (anti-materialism/worship of celebs for example)' philosophy. Plus, most of us would probably agree that the center of materialist lifestyles, bratty rich kids and celebrity-obsessed culture is right here in the US, the most religious of the modern, western countries. Ann Coulter is a good example, she is a hardcore Christian and uses the idea that man is the chosen animal that has dominion over the earth to justify pollution/destruction of the environment b/c, basically, we can do whatever the fuck we want.

Obbe may have somewhat of a point, maybe. I remember this psychologist that stated we should not leave ideas of christian morality behind, because he feared there was nothing to replace it with and so people would simply follow consumerism and lead wholly materialistic lifestyles. It seems atleast plausible, but I think there are some philosophies and ideals that can replace the 'love thy neighbor' and 'don't get wrapped up in the world of man (anti-materialism/worship of celebs for example)' philosophy.

That is assuming that people who lack religion lack morality. And that's just not always the case. It's not even the rule of thumb. It's not even that MOST people who lack religion lack morality or good judgement. Only people who lack morality ... lack morality.

Being religious isn't the only precursor to being moral. It doesn't seem at all plausible to assume that one who lacks religion completely lacks morals or good judgment. And it also doesn't seem plausible to assume that without religion, we'd be reduced to being nefarious creatures with no regard for others, left teeming in our own greedy consumption of everything we can possibly get off on.

We'd still have social pressures and the need for social acceptance within our group to help guide along the best, most moral-minded judgment calls we'd be forced to make on a daily basis. Even animals exercise altruism. Why shouldn't humans, with our bigger brains and thus a larger capacity to understand the plight of others in relation to our own struggles be exempt from having a natural tendency towards altruism?

I completely agree on the issue of morality. The psychologist's point was more about living a life of a full-time consumer, completely engulfed in the world of material desires. It was more about people's values getting warped by a strong, capitalist society without religion, than declining morality. I think they can get warped whether or not there is religion, we just have to maintain humanistic and altruistic values (for all sentient beings) at the forefront.

The religious mindset can become very ingrained. In fact, I worry that that is the case for a lot of people. Hence I’m not overly optimistic about them following principles of crude positivism and progress. This is after all what resulted in the guillotine-frenzied French Revolution, the subsequent disappointment which resulted in uncompromising anti-rationalism and book burning, and the dawn of psychiatric institutions. I’m worried Dawkins isn’t aware of all the possible ramifications of his work and is misleading a highly questionable and violent public. But perhaps my lack of optimism is the result of an onset of yet another period of depression I feel occurring.

PS, Obbe, I am in no way a materialistic consumerist. Being an Anarcho-Syndicalist, I'm insulted at the accusation.

Now who's just a follower? :rolleyes:

You atheists are such idiots.

"I'm so original because I don't believe in God and I read books by Richard Dawkins." :rolleyes:


"Obviously, you shouldn't base you life on a book, but the 'God Delusion' isn't just a book."

"Obviously, you shouldn't base you life on a book, but the 'God Delusion' isn't just a book."

The God Delusion is just a book. Basing your life off ANY one book is ridiculous.

The God Delusion is just a book. Basing your life off ANY one book is ridiculous.

I agree, but that's what a lot of atheists are doing.

What's happening is people are buying this book, reading about this little thing called "logic" and figuring out that there might be something to it.

I agree, but that's what a lot of atheists are doing.

pot/kettle situation.

pot/kettle situation.

Not to mention gross generalisation. Atheism isn't at all defined by their reading of Richard Dawkins' work.

Atheism just means people that don't believe in god, it's not a religion or a belief system. The "wave of atheism" is really a wave of critiques against god. It's a shame the religious people don't even bother to answer them--"don't argue with the devil" is their philosophy.

Atheism just means people that don't believe in god, it's not a religion or a belief system. The "wave of atheism" is really a wave of critiques against god. It's a shame the religious people don't even bother to answer them--"don't argue with the devil" is their philosophy.

It's not even critiques against God, the majority of problems with 'God' are problems with Jehovah. And since when does God have to be Jehovah?

When you say religious people, you in fact mean Abrahmic religions, mainly Christianity.

It's not even critiques against God, the majority of problems with 'God' are problems with Jehovah. And since when does God have to be Jehovah?

When you say religious people, you in fact mean Abrahmic religions, mainly Christianity.

ALL religions share this in common. This is the one unifying factor in every religion. You ready:

ZERO EVIDENCE FOR A DIVINE PRESENCE. ZERO EVIDENCE.

This is my problem with ALL religions. This is what makes people from all parts of the world athiests. If there were one shred of evidence more for one religion than another everyone would quickly convert. There is not.

I admit I have a special dislike for Christians but that should not suggest that I do not think every thiest a complete waste of grey brain matter. I do. It is just that Christians impact my life with there folk tales and that is upsetting.

Truth be told if a religion does not affect me I don't care what they want to believe in. I will still in the back of mind think them a cotal tunt but would not vocalize this to them and respect their irrational and illogical belief structure in this way.

My, so many defensive responses to my statements ... so many assumptions.

I mean no offense. I am not condemning all atheists as selfish and materialistic, and I'm not praising all theists as compassionate brother-lovers either. I even tried to make that clear where I typed 'despite our religious beliefs or lack thereof' ... that most modern theists do not truly understand God nor the 'oneness' of all, and I believe thats a great contribution to selfish, consumerist characteristics of individuals. Yes, socratic, the Vatican's actions is an excellent example of selfishness within religion. But thats Christianity for ya.

What I was talking about is common selfishness, on an individual scale, not the selfishness of an elite within a massive organization. In my expereince, all the bratty, self-centered, consumption-obsessed, mindless slaves to material who lack any compassion towards others, that I have come across so far at least, also lacked a belief in God, nor had the slightest hint about what God actually means.

Am I saying that believers of a God, the religious, cannot be like that? No. Am I saying that atheists cannot be compassionate? No.

But I am saying, that at least in my expereince, these leeches within society are more often atheists, that these character traits harm cultures, and that increasing popularity of atheism and misunderstandings of God correlate with increases in consumerism and selfishness.

ZERO EVIDENCE FOR A DIVINE PRESENCE. ZERO EVIDENCE.

Unless we count the observers presence, his own existence ... which is the only thing he'll ever know he has 'evidence' of anyways.

Unless we count the observers presence, his own existence ... which is the only thing he'll ever know he has 'evidence' of anyways.

saying that is fucking stupid and you know it
if that's true why don't you just curl up in a corner, and wait till your heart stops. it'll save you from bothering to make stupid fucking assertions that you know aren't true.

Nothing that Obbe ever says has actual baring on reality, so it's best just to ignore his meaningless ramblings.

Unless we count the observers presence, his own existence ... which is the only thing he'll ever know he has 'evidence' of anyways.

Apparently you don't even know the definition of evidence. Evidence does not mean absolute certainty, go look it up.

Apparently you don't even know the definition of evidence. Evidence does not mean absolute certainty, go look it up.

Alright. How about this?

Evidence doesn't allow you to know anymore then you already do know.

All you can know to be true is your presence.

Alright. How about this?

Evidence doesn't allow you to know anymore then you already do know.

All you can know to be true is your presence.

Only if you limit the definition of knowing to absolute certainty. I am will to say I know something if I am 99.9% sure.

Only if you limit the definition of knowing to absolute certainty.

Yep.

I am will to say I know something if I am 99.9% sure.

Then do so.

Although I personally disagree. I do not think that is truly knowing, and do not agree that anything I'm really sure is the truth, is actually absolute truth.

As such, I find only 'being' to be absolute truth. Aham Brahmasmi, in other words.

Also, personally, I would only call a 99.9% certainty a strong belief.

so if someone said they could cure your cancer but it only has a 99 % chance of working, you would say no don't bother, it won't cure me.

so if someone said they could cure your cancer but it only has a 99 % chance of working, you would say no don't bother, it won't cure me.

It would depend on how much I wanted to live.

You're an idiot for thinking thats a good analogy. No, taking a medicine with 99% success rate is not the same as knowing you will be cured. And of course anyone who wanted to live would take the medicine ... what have they got to loose?

But its not knowing you'll be cured, because theres still the 1% chance it just wont work.

Strongly believing that experiences are true, does not mean you know they are. You just know you are.