A study released in June by the Barna Group, a religious polling firm, found that about 5 million adults in the United States call themselves atheists. The number rises to about 20 million -- about one in every 11 Americans -- if people who say they have no religious faith or are agnostic (they doubt the existence of a God or a supreme deity) are included.

They tend to be more educated, more affluent and more likely to be male and unmarried than those with active faith, according to the Barna study. Only 6 percent of people over 60 have no faith in God, and one in four adults ages 18 to 22 describe themselves as having no faith.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402199.html

"Over the last 20 years," said Alan Wolfe of Boston College, "the number of people willing to tell people in surveys that they don't believe in God have pretty much doubled."
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3671172&page=1

Atheism is on the rise.

Religion has lost the ability or the support to continue to suppress free thought. Everytime a Christian in America denies evolution or the age of the Earth and universe, an atheist is born.

Christianity will come around to evolution completely and fully within twentey years. This will be a last ditch effort to grow their shrinking numbers. Other efforts will include, increase in fire an brimstone and fantatical style preaching, and forcing parents to indoctrinate children even more so.

It will all be for naught. The regime of believers is in it's twilight. The violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children, religions of the world are going to join Neptune, Thor, and Ra, in the graveyard of mythology.

Atheism is on the rise.

It's still only 9% though, including agnostics. I think you're being a bit dramatic.

Way things are going, it's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets any better. Everything points to it. If anything, religion is seemingly on the rise.

I definitely agree with OP, we are on the Nietzschean track of religious Europeanization.

Way things are going, it's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets any better. Everything points to it. If anything, religion is seemingly on the rise.

If the most vocal Atheists are any example, they're not going to be of any help in making things better. Godlessness is one thing, and fine in and of itself, but as those that outright deny god's existence are little better than the people who insist there is a god. It's particularly irritating when they start getting evangelical about it and insist that those who don't lock step behind them are fence-sitters and cowards.

Perhaps my source of pessimism is due to the region I live in. Religious fervor is as thick as ever in the dirty South.

:(

Perhaps my source of pessimism is due to the region I live in. Religious fervor is as thick as ever in the dirty South.
that's why it's called the Bible Belt.
intolerance runs amok in this God-fearing part of the country.

see this as well:
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/03/24/67686


As far as the country's faith, I'm interested in seeing of ID tries to keep going or if stuff like Jesus Camp becomes more widespread, etc.
Anyone else think that religion isn't going down without a fight?

Anyone else think that religion isn't going down without a fight?

Anyone else realize that a fight is not the solution to this "problem"? Anyone realize that wanting to "wipe out" religion is contributing to the same problem that makes religious fundamentalists want to "save" everyone?

Some of you speak of intolerance in America, in reference to religions being intolerant (Westboro Church). Just how tolerant is it of you to want to fight and win some apparently epic battle over right and wrong with these fools? They may be assholes, but you don't have to join that rank. Tolerance is about tolerating others, but not accepting them. You don't have to accept the 'Christian way of life' anymore then a member of the Westboro Church has to accept gay people. I agree we should tolerate each other, but you can't force change within others, you can't force others to be tolerant.

Atheism may be on the rise, but I wonder how many people today recognize a God unlimited by the confines of religion? The "God of the New Paradigm" as some people have been calling it. This shift away from religion may go differently then you hope.

If the most vocal Atheists are any example, they're not going to be of any help in making things better. Godlessness is one thing, and fine in and of itself, but as those that outright deny god's existence are little better than the people who insist there is a god. It's particularly irritating when they start getting evangelical about it and insist that those who don't lock step behind them are fence-sitters and cowards.

That’s because most of these outspoken atheists are more than just a few fed up people calling for the separation of church and state. They are the remnants of an ideology.

First, there is the libertarianism. This results in a plethora of poor people and unnecessary imperialistic wars. Then there is a very strange form of “rationalism” that involves inventing mental illnesses for everyone who disagrees with you, which is perfect for removing dissenters. There is also a scientism that believes in a single scientific method, the method that all others are subordinate to, but let’s ignore the fact that no one can successfully demarcate between science and pseudoscience, the fact that there is no single method that applies everywhere, and that if there was, a lot of progressive scientific theories would have been rejected. Finally, there is a humanism that involves taking relative forms of human interaction and a specific culture’s principles and making them universal, even if this results in poverty (we’re back to libertarian ideas of “coercion”) and bloodshed.

The sad thing is that so many people who marvel at Dawkins, and his eighth-grade philosophical arguments that presuppose a heck of a lot, is that they fail to see that this is nothing new, but a simple ideology with a bloody history that dates back some two-hundred years. A lot of them - BrokeProphet, for example - accept and repeat it uncritically and unknowingly. They fail to see, for instance, that it is not that everyone but a small percentage of the population is insane, but that a group with political intentions, intentions against the church, aided in defining what it is to be insane for a reason. Memetics is in most people’s hands a really poor version of this.

I look forward to BrokeProphet responding to this with his usual callousness and venom. No doubt he’ll be repeating the doxa. For instance, that science is so demarcated, it was demarcated by Popper. But I have plenty of historical examples that show otherwise.

"libertarianism"? "rationalism"? "scientism"? "humanism"? Wow, that's a lot of names!

What do we call the group of people that just make sweeping generalizations?

And whose "ideology" is this? Obviously not an Atheist ideology, as there is no such thing.

Anyone else realize that a fight is not the solution to this "problem"? Anyone realize that wanting to "wipe out" religion is contributing to the same problem that makes religious fundamentalists want to "save" everyone?
I think you have misunderstood me.
I'm not hoping for some kind of war between faithful and faithless, I'm just suggesting that those in control of various religious institutions will probably not like to relinquish the power they hold over their followers.

Some of you speak of intolerance in America, in reference to religions being intolerant (Westboro Church). Just how tolerant is it of you to want to fight and win some apparently epic battle over right and wrong with these fools?
It's not, and I don't. I also don't want to be alienated for not sharing the same beliefs as someone else, especially when they themselves don't adhere to their own codes.

They may be assholes, but you don't have to join that rank. Tolerance is about tolerating others, but not accepting them. You don't have to accept the 'Christian way of life' anymore then a member of the Westboro Church has to accept gay people. I agree we should tolerate each other, but you can't force change within others, you can't force others to be tolerant.
I believe that this is one of Jesus's teachings.
While I can't force someone to be tolerant (that would be intolerant of me :)), I always like to try to convince people to be more tolerant.

Atheism may be on the rise, but I wonder how many people today recognize a God unlimited by the confines of religion? The "God of the New Paradigm" as some people have been calling it. This shift away from religion may go differently then you hope.
Actually, people defining God in such a manner would be a very nice change.

NOTE: If this wasn't totally directed at me, then oops! If it is, I have tried to adequately explain myself.

Religious fervor is as thick as ever in the dirty South.

:(

Death throes of the Piscean Age.

BTW, one reason I like lviing in Alaska is that only 46% of the population are church-goers.

I do like to think, however, that spirituality is on the rise, as organized religions go to the dustbin of history. Jihads suck.

If this wasn't totally directed at me, then oops! If it is, I have tried to adequately explain myself.

No prob bob.

The sad thing is that so many people who marvel at Dawkins...They fail to see, for instance, that it is not that everyone but a small percentage of the population is insane...Memetics is in most people’s hands a really poor version of this.

Since you are a moderator, I should not have to scold you by telling you to stay on topic in this thread.

I have posted in ANOTHER thread an argument for why mystics are insane, if you wish to beat your dead horse and failed arguments against Dawkinism (as you dub it) I would suggest going there to do so.

Again you are a moderator so I should not have to wag my finger at you, bop you on the nose and say in a firm voice 'NO'!

-----------

To those of you who have stayed on topic or even remotely close:

I am not speaking so much of a war against religion or religious ideals instigatited by the secular. I am just stating facts that Atheism is on the rise, evolution's ideals are constantly tested and proven, and the seperation of church and state continues to hold back the tide of mystical teachings.

I am saying there is no need for a war of ideals, one is clearly gaining momentum. The other is just beginning it's throes of death.

The primary method of church's the world over used to stay in power is suppression of knowledge. Now people can communicate and educate themselves at the speed of light across any distance on Earth.

Atheism is on the rise.........if Jesus is 'acomin back, he better hurry.

Enjoy God while you can, because before my time on earth is done, I believe I will bear witness to the fact that even a God can die.

To those of you who have stayed on topic or even remotely close:

The primary method of church's the world over used to stay in power is suppression of knowledge. Now people can communicate and educate themselves at the speed of light across any distance on Earth.

This is the source of my optimism, right here ^ It'll take awhile to filter into some of these backwoods communities who have yet to take full advantage of the sieve of knowledge at their fingertips, but I'm sure it'll trickle down eventually.

... right about the time they stop hating gays and no longer wish that lynching black people was still acceptable.

:/

This readily available information can be a double-edged sword, too - evangelical religions are able to promote their propaganda in methods they've never had access to in times past. Knocking on doors and putting those little pamphlets on windshields and mailboxes is getting to be rare. Big flashy websites, chain e-mails and super-funded televised megachurches are plentiful.

What do we call the group of people that just make sweeping generalizations?

We don't call them anything. We let them formulate their sweeping generalizations and steep in their own self-important intellect while label-slapping to their heart's content. ;)

The OP is no more than a bunch of hearsay. What are we to compare those figures with? For sure more people are willing to admit it now, does that change the objective numbers of atheists? Or does it prove nothing except more people are willing to admit it? And of course the young, by and large, live in the illusion they are immortal, and it's only natural the aged will think more upon questions of life, existence, death, god! This post proves nothing beyond the OP's bias!

Cheers:D

The OP is no more than a bunch of hearsay. What are we to compare those figures with? For sure more people are willing to admit it now, does that change the objective numbers of atheists? Or does it prove nothing except more people are willing to admit it? And of course the young, by and large, live in the illusion they are immortal, and it's only natural the aged will think more upon questions of life, existence, death, god! This post proves nothing beyond the OP's bias!

Cheers:D


What are we to compare those figures with? Well... how about past figures, which we have?

Sure, we can say that this increase is due in part by more people willing to admit that they are atheists, but to suggest that this entire increase is due to that is ridiculous. It's pretty reasonable to say that this increase has to do with more people becoming atheists each year.

Not to mention that more people admitting that they atheists is still a victory for the side of atheism.

For sure more people are willing to admit it now, does that change the objective numbers of atheists? Or does it prove nothing except more people are willing to admit it?

It PROVES the climate of religious oppression and dogma is changing rapidly and readily.

^------That leads one to ask the questions of how and why, and where does it go from here to which I have presented an answer.

This should be obvious. Thanks for attempting to dismiss my OP, but you fail.

Cheers :)

P.S. I wish a middle finger could easily and quickly be rendered rather than a smiley face.

It PROVES the climate of religious oppression and dogma is changing rapidly and readily.

^------That leads one to ask the questions of how and why, and where does it go from here to which I have presented an answer.

This should be obvious. Thanks for attempting to dismiss my OP, but you fail.

Cheers :)

P.S. I wish a middle finger could easily and quickly be rendered rather than a smiley face.

LOL:D .I..

Cheers for this:
It PROVES the climate of religious oppression and dogma is changing rapidly and readily.

There's hope that works both ways, but a rude and aggressive tone generally "PROVES the climate of religious oppression and dogma is changing rapidly and readily" from fundie prophets to BrokeProphets;)

What are we to compare those figures with? Well... how about past figures, which we have?

Sure, we can say that this increase is due in part by more people willing to admit that they are atheists, but to suggest that this entire increase is due to that is ridiculous. It's pretty reasonable to say that this increase has to do with more people becoming atheists each year.

Not to mention that more people admitting that they atheists is still a victory for the side of atheism.

As usual you are correct!:) Where are those "past figures"? Not in the OP! I do not "suggest that this increase" is due to any one thing, just pointed out without the past details being available, what do raw numbers mean? Being empathetic with atheist reasoning brings understanding of feelings of victory, however my interest is in what is the significance? What does it mean? How does comparing past vs present project to the future? How is it a victory? Why is that important?

As usual you are correct!:) Where are those "past figures"? Not in the OP!

Quoted in the OP: "Over the last 20 years," said Alan Wolfe of Boston College, "the number of people willing to tell people in surveys that they don't believe in God have pretty much doubled."

Sure, technically that isn't a figure but the fact is that there is information about the past we can use to give context to the new figures.


What does it mean? How does comparing past vs present project to the future? How is it a victory? Why is that important?

They project to the future because it suggests a trend. That, coupled with the rise in popularity of many atheist authors (e.g. Dawkins, Sam Harris, Hitchens) and atheist blogs (e.g. Pharyngula) suggests that the number of atheists will continue to increase.

Why is it a victory? It's a victory for atheists because they dislike living in a country dominated by incredible, unsubstantiated superstitious beliefs - beliefs that affect them in every day life, like the education of their children.

Quoted in the OP: "Over the last 20 years," said Alan Wolfe of Boston College, "the number of people willing to tell people in surveys that they don't believe in God have pretty much doubled."

Sure, technically that isn't a figure but the fact is that there is information about the past we can use to give context to the new figures.

Yeah I see your point however it still does not give a satisfactory valid distinction between past and present like maybe a percentage figure would. It's hard to see it's relevance.


They project to the future because it suggests a trend. That, coupled with the rise in popularity of many atheist authors (e.g. Dawkins, Sam Harris, Hitchens) and atheist blogs (e.g. Pharyngula) suggests that the number of atheists will continue to increase.

Why is it a victory? It's a victory for atheists because they dislike living in a country dominated by incredible, unsubstantiated superstitious beliefs - beliefs that affect them in every day life, like the education of their children.

So you wish to change your world! Good for you, but that, if it is true(that the domination of delusion is at an end), will be a victory for all not just those who have affixed a label to ego. Why label oneself? Is it to verify your thoughts by identification with a larger group?

I was riding a ski lift last winter and happened to sit next to a good looking girl, so I asked her how her day was going. We talked and I found out she was a foreign exchange student from Sweden. We talked about the differences of US and Sweden and she said one major difference is that hardly anyone in her country practices religion. They dont believe in God. She said there are some christians, but very few.
She said it is very strange to go and sit in church every sunday here in america. That leads me to believe our country is somehow being dumbed up. Maybe its the water?

I was riding a ski lift last winter and happened to sit next to a good looking girl, so I asked her how her day was going. We talked and I found out she was a foreign exchange student from Sweden. We talked about the differences of US and Sweden and she said one major difference is that hardly anyone in her country practices religion. They dont believe in God. She said there are some christians, but very few.
She said it is very strange to go and sit in church every sunday here in america. That leads me to believe our country is somehow being dumbed up. Maybe its the water?

Same thing in Norway, and I would imagine in Denmark.

It's only a matter of time before religion completely dies out. Although I don't see it happening in this lifetime, unfortunately.

It's like humanity is currently in the pre-teen years, where there are still some who fully believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, etc... Some that have already discovered the truth... And some that are still iffy about the whole thing because it's still fresh in their minds.

As society progresses, we will evolve and become more intelligent and "grow up" in a sense.

Public religion is dieing, and I think that is a good thing.
But many people are now full blown materialist because of their unpleasent taste of exoteric mainstream religion.
And this my friends, is a bad thing.
When they believe that this infintesmal section on this uncomprehenisibaly expansive wave of existence is all there is to it, we only search outwards for objective truth, and ridicule those who search inward to find objective truth.
When we only search outwards for ultimate truth, it like a bird trying to understand the designer of the birdhouse through examining the wood, and nails.

You see, material science and mysticism are cards from the same deck, they both seek ultimate truth. Material scientists use measuring devises as their tools to discover what lies on the surface, while spiritual scientists use consciousness to find the essence of what all this content of the mind lies upon. The former studies the circle, while the latter studies the paper which that circle is drawn on. Both seek ultimate truth (God), it is their methods that differ.

We must not segregate because of our differences, but instead we should unify.
Mysticism, the private exploration of consciousness in search for ultimate truth, beyond symbols and language.
And material science, the public exploration of mater and its applications in the physical, to hopefully in time (once all measurements have been taken) describe ultimate truth in the language of mathematics. To segregate the students of these schools is foolish, one without the other can never know ultimate truth.

Yeah I see your point however it still does not give a satisfactory valid distinction between past and present like maybe a percentage figure would. It's hard to see it's relevance.

Well... if it has doubled in 20 years... guess how much that figure was in 1988....

I don't see any significant difference between explicitly giving you the figure for 1988 and just giving you the figure in another way - by saying it was half what it is now.




..if it is true(that the domination of delusion is at an end), will be a victory for all not just those who have affixed a label to ego. Why label oneself? Is it to verify your thoughts by identification with a larger group?

You're changing the topic completely. From the statistical significance of these figures to now a discussion about "labels" that I have no interest in. Sorry.

Why do I label myself an atheist? Because it explains my position quite well. I can say I'm an atheist and someone will immediately have a rough understanding of what I believe (or don't believe) in. It's that easy. It has nothing to do with a need "to verify my thoughts".

while spiritual scientists use consciousness to find the essence of what all this content of the mind lies upon.


No, you mean what it lies upon. What they claim to find.

"Material scientists" (aka just good old Scientists) provide answers and evidence. They provide results.

Please, provide any evidence of the spiritual that is as comprehensive as the evidence for evolution, or gravity, or germ theory.

No, you mean what it lies upon. What they claim to find.

"Material scientists" (aka just good old Scientists) provide answers and evidence. They provide results.

Please, provide any evidence of the spiritual that is as comprehensive as the evidence for evolution, or gravity, or germ theory.

Don't start that. I speak from experience.

I really liked what the black metallers were doing in Norway in the 90's. They recognized Christianity as an imperialist occupier and were forcing it out. Its a shame they were so disorganized or maybe they would have done something.

In the US, though, we have a long time to go before we can pull that off, and the government will probably just shoot us all.

The American Statesman, scientist, philosopher and author Benjamin Franklin, was not just those things, he was a metascientist as well. At the age of 21 he organized the “Junto” club which became the American Philosophical Society, later he invented a heating stove, was instrumental in improving the lighting of city streets, became interested in electricity, and tried the famous kite experiments. He was one of the signers of the declaration of independence. Also, we must not forget, he was a freemason.
http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/masonicmuseum/benjamin_franklin_fdc.htm

These types of achievements do not come through being a material extremist, but through balance of the meta and the physical. They must first be created in the realm of Idea before manifestation in the physical can occur. You come to these breakthroughs not from only exploring the external physical world, but through deep exploration Ætheric realms of existence.

Many molders of our past were masons, and after reading “What are the Masons?” on the World’s Oldest Masonic Website (http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/www/Masonry/Essays/msa-wya.html) it would seem that in fact they do practice a form of mysticism.

There are really so few "secrets" which a Mason is required to keep, and so much that he should be proud to proclaim to others, that his principal concern in answering questions is probably the doubt that he can give an adequate Masonic reply.

The esoteric parts of the ritual work, the grips and pass-words of the three degrees, these are really the only "secrets" which should be kept inviolate. Because it is impossible to communicate to the uninitiated the joys and satisfactions of brotherhood experienced in "the labors of the lodge," this too becomes a secret because it is inexpressible.
What they experience is beyond symbols and the only people who could possibly understand are fellow masons who have been initiated into the secret teaching of pure thought. Let’s read on shall we.


..
.
A Masonic lodge, if it is working seriously, teaches its members the principles involved in attaining a universal Brotherhood of Man under the Fatherhood of God. This too is a form of mystical thought that echoes throughout the vastness of space/time.

When all neurons of the Global Mind are working together, herculean realms of new possibility will become.



As a child, Einstein asked himself the simple question: What would a light beam look like if you could catch up with one? Would you see a stationary wave, frozen in time? This question sent him on a 50 year journey through space and time.

Through contemplation, at the age of 16, he found the flaw in this argument:

"How, then, could such a universal principle be found? After ten years of reflection such a principle resulted from a paradox upon which I had already hit at the age of sixteen: If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as a spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field at rest. However, there seems to be no such thing, whether on the basis of experience or according to Maxwell's equations. From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how, otherwise, should the first observer know, i.e., be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion?"
"One sees that in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained..."

This conclusion wasn’t the result of public experimentation, but rather, Ætheric exploration. It was later shown that this does indeed seem to be the case through public experimentation, however, still has never been absolutely proven. But it could never have happened without contemplation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb5BYMJG-_U


But the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.


Earth, water, air, and fire, but underlying and unifying these four elements is that of quintessence. Plato and Aristotle referred to it as “idea” or Æther, that which exists outside of the material world. This is the element of which the cosmos is made, it contains no qualities, but if I must give it some material quality to help link it with our material bodies, it would be given that of a fluid light that permeates All and is the true essence of All.

Sir Isaac Newton, mathematician and metaphysician among many other things he is the author of the three-volume masterpiece Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica#W riting_and_publication) (natural philosophy of mathematical principles) laying the ground works for classical mechanics.

I highly doubt that many of his valuable contributions would have been had he not seeked knowledge in both the esoteric and the exoteric, metaphysical as well as the physical.


Extremism of either type is not a healthy ideal to hold. Sure, material extremist as well as meta extremist can be useful, but those who choose to balance the two schools of thought are of much greater potential.
[qutote= http://www.rickross.com/reference/kabbalah/kabbalah70.html] (http://www.rickross.com/reference/kabbalah/kabbalah70.html%5D)
Sir Isaac Newton wrote more about Kabbalah than physics, he wrote over 80 books on Kabbalah and he was Christian. (probably not the kind of Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Newton.27s_effect_on_religious_though t) your thinking of.) Plato for instance studied Kabbalah and then gave the world great gifts.
[/quote]
The wisdom of Kabbalah teaches techniques to attain the upper worlds and source.
Kabbalah is of invaluable worth to those with the proper vehicles to observe it with.


He was also rumored to be Rosicrucian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosicrucianism), an esoteric hermetic order, being part of the royal society (freemason) and all.


Erwin Schrödinger, yep, he too was a mystic.

“This life of yours which you are living is not merely apiece of this entire existence, but in a certain sense the whole; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear; tat tvam asi, this is you. Or, again, in such words as “I am in the east and the west, I am above and below, I am this entire world.”

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/quotes21_40.htm#Q31
“He became a Vedantist, a Hindu, as a result of his studies in search for truth. Schrodinger kept a copy of the Hindu scriptures at his bedside. He read books on Vedas, yoga and Sankhya philosophy and he reworked them into his own words, and ultimately came to believe them. The Upanishads and the Bhagavad gita, were his favorite scriptures.”
And he goes on and on.

Indian Influence in the Development of Quantum Mechanics (http://www.photonics.cusat.edu/article2.html)

Check out his wikiquotes (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger)

Nicola Tesla (the next one down) - He used ancient Sanskrit terminology in his descriptions of natural phenomena.

And the list goes on and on of entities who have endowed invaluable contributions upon the world, because they understood the importance of the balance between the physical and metaphysical.



Please, provide any evidence of the spiritual that is as comprehensive as the evidence for evolution, or gravity, or germ theory.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/

So that's a big fat "No" then?

lolololol
One cannot understand evolution without first studying the language of biology.
A science must be studied before one can comprehended.

I couldn't agree more. My request still stands.

And... "lolololol"? I mean, really?

Git to studyin then.
Oh, and FYI I'm not trying to prove to you the importance of balance, only you can do that.
I hope someday you break away from these shackles of material extremism, and find a balance between the two poles, only then can you reach your true potential.
Good day sir.

What's the to study? You provided a link to some sacred texts of Hinduism. That doesn't substantiate a single thing you said, nor does it fulfill my request.

Also, that commentary is pretty silly. It's fluff that any idiot can say to support their position. Here:

I hope someday you break away from these shackles of woo and total nonsense, and find a balance between the two poles, only then can you reach your true potential.

What's the to study? You provided a link to some sacred texts of Hinduism. That doesn't substantiate a single thing you said, nor does it fulfill my request.

Also, that commentary is pretty silly. It's fluff that any idiot can say to support their position. Here:

I hope someday you break away from these shackles of woo and total nonsense, and find a balance between the two poles, only then can you reach your true potential.

I told you not to bother.

Hi, I'm Rust. We haven't met before, it seems.

It will all be for naught. The regime of believers is in it's twilight. The violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children, religions of the world are going to join Neptune, Thor, and Ra, in the graveyard of mythology.

Atheism is on the rise.

The thing is, many of the atheists I see around me in my country show the all the traits that you have described above.

My problems is this: You seem to be portraying Atheism as some kind of end to all the negative traits of mankind, you seem to be saying that religion is responsible for the problems you have mentioned above; whereas I don't think that this position can be supported when one observes that those traits exist independantly of religion, and are present in people who are atheists.

Now, what I want to know is: is the rise in atheism a good thing, a bad thing, or a largely neutral thing. Is the rise of atheism going to deal with the problems that you have highlighted above? And if not, why should I value the rise of atheism?

It's only a matter of time before religion completely dies out. Although I don't see it happening in this lifetime, unfortunately.

It's like humanity is currently in the pre-teen years, where there are still some who fully believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, etc... Some that have already discovered the truth... And some that are still iffy about the whole thing because it's still fresh in their minds.

As society progresses, we will evolve and become more intelligent and "grow up" in a sense.

Did I miss the memo that stated you cant be both intelligent and religious? Maybe I am wrong, but I thought that a mark of the intelligent was willingness to keep an open mind. And yet a lot of these so called 'intellectuals' cant wrap there minds around the idea that there may be more then whats readily available to see.

Yes, there are stupid religious fanatics that deny science and reason as heretic blasphemy. But there are stupid atheistic fanatics that deny faith in a higher power as childish idiocy. Don't assume.

Did I miss the memo that stated you cant be both intelligent and religious? Maybe I am wrong, but I thought that a mark of the intelligent was willingness to keep an open mind.

Please don't even start on the "open mind" thing.

Try getting a Christian, Jew, or Muslim to admit that they could be wrong. Not a single one of them will be willing to admit to it.

Ask any atheist to admit that they could be wrong, and nearly every single one of them will admit to it.

Undying faith in any one belief is the very definition of a CLOSED mind.

My problems is this: You seem to be portraying Atheism as some kind of end to all the negative traits of mankind, you seem to be saying that religion is responsible for the problems you have mentioned above; whereas I don't think that this position can be supported when one observes that those traits exist independantly of religion, and are present in people who are atheists.

Right the fuck on.

The problem isn't religion, its the lack of indifference so many people have towards the beliefs of others. People are so goddamn concerned with how 'right' their own beliefs are, and how 'wrong' others beliefs are, and what everybody thinks about the whole situation. The problem is trying to control others.

Please don't even start on the "open mind" thing.

Try getting a Christian, Jew, or Muslim to admit that they could be wrong. Not a single one of them will be willing to admit to it.

Ask any atheist to admit that they could be wrong, and nearly every single one of them will admit to it.

Undying faith in any one belief is the very definition of a CLOSED mind.

Again with assuming. I am a faithful Christian, have been for many many years and entirely know that there is a good chance I am completely wrong. I'm very sorry that the religious people that you have talked to are all fanatical, but they don't speak for all peoples of a given faith.

Assuming you are one of these atheists. Could I not ask you if you could be wrong in your opinion about those with faith in god? Maybe a few of us can think for ourselves and have a faith in god based in logic and understanding.

Undying faith in any one belief is the very definition of a CLOSED mind.

Not all theists are under the impression that they "know the truth".

The thing is, many of the atheists I see around me in my country show the all the traits that you have described above.

My problems is this: You seem to be portraying Atheism as some kind of end to all the negative traits of mankind, you seem to be saying that religion is responsible for the problems you have mentioned above......

Atheism is simply to be without theism. I personally would not give a fuck who wanted to believe in what fantasy IF it did not affect me, but.....

When the religous right supports and elects an abstinence only president, and someone who is against furthering medical science, and a man who believes God told him to bomb another country.......

You will then hear the atheists scream in protest at the fucked up backwards beliefs and take active steps to try and prevent these fucktards from indoctrinating our children, engagin in religious warfare, or in stopping the progression of potential life saving science.

If this requires the undermining of the whole belief structure, so be it.

------

I have not presented such a foolish concept that atheism will end all negative traits of mankind, nor that religion is responsible for the woes of man, so I will not argue or entertain this fledgling strawman.

I personally do think it is better to believe in what you can "see", rather than live in fear of, and exist in irrationality, of what you cannot, indeed of something that may not even exist.

But does it really require the undermining of the whole belief structure?

I will be the first to admit that some of the decisions and practices of the theistic range from the annoying to the terrible. But this can also be said the for the atheistic.

Maybe we should focus on the individual idiots and not what membership cards are in there wallet.

Atheism is simply to be without theism. I personally would not give a fuck who wanted to believe in what fantasy IF it did not affect me, but.....

When the religous right supports and elects an abstinence only president, and someone who is against furthering medical science, and a man who believes God told him to bomb another country.......

You will then hear the atheists scream in protest at the fucked up backwards beliefs and take active steps to try and prevent these fucktards from indoctrinating our children, engagin in religious warfare, or in stopping the progression of potential life saving science.

If this requires the undermining of the whole belief structure, so be it.

------

I have not presented such a foolish concept that atheism will end all negative traits of mankind, nor that religion is responsible for the woes of man, so I will not argue or entertain this fledgling strawman.

I personally do think it is better to believe in what you can "see", rather than live in fear of, and exist in irrationality, of what you cannot, indeed of something that may not even exist.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood, it was just that your post seemed to make the suggestion to me that with the decline of religion, the decline of those negative points which you associated with religion would be noticed. My apologies.

So, then, why is atheism to be desired? If atheism is merely a term to denote that people are without theism, why would the rise of a group of otherwise unconnected people be important?

If atheism will not end all negative traits in mankind, and religion is not responsible for them, why is one (namely atheism), in your opinion, greater than the other? What is the true difference

I'm sure that there's more I need to add, but my mind's gone blank.

Maybe we should focus on the individual idiots and not what membership cards are in there wallet.

Except all idiots are not equal.

I see story after story of a specific subset of "iditios"... burning witches to death (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/africa/7413268.stm), traumatizing children by letting corpses rot in their homes (http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad/breaking_news/285609) and deliberately denying their children proper medical care (http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2008/03/27/grace.girl.pray.cnn)because of their religious beliefs.

Find me these "idiot atheists", burning witches in the name of atheism, traumatizing children by letting them live with a rotting corpse for months, and/or denying proper medical care to their children, and maybe you'll have a point.

But does it really require the undermining of the whole belief structure?

I will be the first to admit that some of the decisions and practices of the theistic range from the annoying to the terrible. But this can also be said the for the atheistic.

Maybe we should focus on the individual idiots and not what membership cards are in there wallet.

I agree....

You agree? Could you please find an example of the "terrible actions" atheists have committed because of their atheism?

Find me these "idiot atheists", burning witches in the name of atheism, traumatizing children by letting them live with a rotting corpse for months, and/or denying proper medical care to their children, and maybe you'll have a point.


You have a good point. But there are problems with that argument. People do terrible things for religion, but sometimes people just do terrible things. No, Im not going to find someone that bombed a bus in the name of atheism. But I can find stories of people simple setting off bombs for no reason or mention of religion.

My point is just because someone is who does something terrible does it for religion, doesn't mean that all people that are religious are bad. Or that anyone who ISN'T religious cant do terrible things.

But I can find stories of people simple setting off bombs for no reason or mention of religion.

Correct. Yet humans are required for our continued existence. We can't continue to exist without humans. We can, however, continue to exist without religion.

Will this stop all terrible things? No. It will hopefully stop terrible things done in the name of religious superstition.


My point is just because someone is who does something terrible does it for religion, doesn't mean that all people that are religious are bad. Or that anyone who ISN'T religious cant do terrible things.

I don't think anyone here has claimed that. I certainly haven't.

I'm arguing against the notion that a religious person doing something terrible because of their religion is equal to an atheist.

My problem with religion comes when it does something that negatively affects my life. Sadly, almost all of them do. Whether it be by spreading misinformation (e.g. in evolution, the age of the universe, Medicine, etc.) or actually doing such terrible crimes as in those extreme cases I provided examples of.

If you know of a religion that doesn't affect me in any of those two ways... then awesome. I have no real problem with that religion then.

Correct. Yet humans are required for our continued existence. We can't continue to exist without humans. We can, however, continue to exist without religion.

Will this stop all terrible things? No. It will hopefully stop terrible things done in the name of religious superstition.



I don't think anyone here has claimed that. I certainly haven't.

I'm arguing against the notion that a religious person doing something terrible because of their religion is equal to an atheist.

My problem with religion comes when it does something that negatively affects my life. Sadly, almost all of them do. Whether it be by spreading misinformation (e.g. in evolution, the age of the universe, Medicine, etc.) or actually doing such terrible crimes as in those extreme cases I provided examples of.

If you know of a religion that doesn't affect me in any of those two ways... then awesome. I have no real problem with that religion then.

Ok, I see what your saying,

Correct me if your wrong, but your argument is, why have religion when it has no benefit to humanity.

For that, I would agree. If religion breeds only violence and hate then it isn't something I want. But this is perhaps where the discussion naturally turns to the base question.

Is there a god. If yes, then we better fucking pay attention, thus religion. If no, then religion serves no purpose except to slow scientific process and create war, eradicate it.

But since we cant possible prove or disprove the existence of god. And thus prove or disprove if we need religion, then shouldn't we focus on the crimes of the individuals.

If in 1000 years, religion no longer exists, as is the way things seem to be going, then I guess it wont matter anymore.

You agree? Could you please find an example of the "terrible actions" atheists have committed because of their atheism?

I agree in apparently a differant way to which you saw the post. I was focusing more on the ,'does it really require the undermining of the whole belief structure?' because I do not believe that the structure of the religion has to be undermined in the sense that it must be destroyed. I am against the destruction of religion.

And also, 'Maybe we should focus on the individual idiots and not what membership cards are in there wallet.' I agree with this because I do not believe that the problem can be tackled by dealing with 'Christians', but by dealing with the beliefs of individual people.

But, yeah, It would be stupid of me to try and find the "terrible actions" atheists have committed because of their atheism. I think it would be stupid because atheism indicates no fellow beliefs or feelings, it is to me the same as using the term, 'White', there are lots of people who are right but they are not all the same. Or seomthing like that.

I am against the destruction of religion.


Do you have a non-personal reason for this? I cant think of one off the top of my head.

Ok, I see what your saying,

Correct me if your wrong, but your argument is, why have religion when it has no benefit to humanity.


No, my argument is: Why have religions that spread misinformation and/or lead to people commit terrible things when there is no need to.

If you claim that we should have religion if a god exists, then the burden is on you to prove a god exists before we should allow religion to take hold.

If I say, hey an invisible monkey will rape you if you don't give me five dollars, is the burden on humanity to give money until it can prove that no such monkey exists, or is the burden on me to prove that a monkey exists before you start paying me?

No, my argument is: Why have religions that spread misinformation and/or lead to people commit terrible things when there is no need to.

If you claim that we should have religion if a god exists, then the burden is on you to prove a god exists before we should allow religion to take hold.

If I say, hey an invisible monkey will rape you if you don't give me five dollars, is the burden on humanity to give money until it can prove that no such monkey exists, or is the burden on me to prove that a monkey exists before you start paying me?

Ok, I think we are at least on the same page then. But what is it you mean by "take hold". Not allow church to govern? Not allow church in schools? Not allow religion at all?

If atheism is merely a term to denote that people are without theism, why would the rise of a group of otherwise unconnected people be important?

Why it is important differs depending upon who you ask.

For me, it is important b/c it may herald a new age of enlightenment in which social, and scientific policies can go ahead unfettered by vestiges of an ancient barbaric tribal belief structure.

For a theist, it is important b/c it heralds a changing of the tide, an out with the old in with new. It threatens their belief structure, as religion MUST BE taught and the meme passed from one to another. As the numbers dwindle, modern religion faces the very real threat of becoming mythology.

Ask another or an agnostic, and it is not so important as it would be to the first two.

There are many reasons why athiesm on the rise is important, the question ceases to be IS it important and the question becomes who is it important to and why.

I'm strangely comfortable with the idea of a completely atheistic world. I would pretty much put the ball back in gods court, assuming he exists and cares.

But what is it you mean by "take hold". Not allow church to govern? Not allow church in schools? Not allow religion at all?

Sorry, by "take hold" I meant "consider religion as necessary". You said "...And thus prove or disprove if we need religion...". I then replied by saying that those claiming a god exists should have the burden of proving that he does before we claim religion is necessary, not the other way around.

Sorry, by "take hold" I meant "consider religion as necessary". You said "...And thus prove or disprove if we need religion...". I then replied by saying that those claiming a god exists should have the burden of proving that he does before we claim religion is necessary, not the other way around.

Ok, I can completely agree with that. I shouldn't try and tell you that you need to belief as I do if I cant prove what I belief.

but let me try and bring this full circle.

The undermining of the entire religious system would solve several problems. and as I cant prove to you my faith, I will assume for the sake of argument that it is unnecessary. Maybe we will eventually become a world of atheists, while still not perfect, perhaps more cohesive and forward thinking. My original argument is that we can have a world that is cohesive and forward thinking WITH religion. I know that the greater degree of the faithful contradict this kind of world. but not all. I hope to be an example of that.

While religion may be unnecessary, achieving that world may not require its removal.

My original argument is that we can have a world that is cohesive and forward thinking WITH religion.

We could also have a world without murder or child molestation if only everyone would agree to it, while we are dreaming.

History is not your friend when it comes to your suggestion of having a world that is cohesive and foward thinking WITH religion.

We could also have a world without murder or child molestation if only everyone would agree to it, while we are dreaming.

History is not your friend when it comes to your suggestion of having a world that is cohesive and foward thinking WITH religion.

Too true, history is against me on this one. But as we are progressing into an age of logical thinking. As evident by the ever increasing Atheistic population. If my god truly exists then there is surely a place for him in this day and age. And if my god doesn't exist, I have no hard feelings over the slow and steady eradication of religion.

First, there is the libertarianism. This results in a plethora of poor people and unnecessary imperialistic wars. Then there is a very strange form of “rationalism” that involves inventing mental illnesses for everyone who disagrees with you, which is perfect for removing dissenters. There is also a scientism that believes in a single scientific method, the method that all others are subordinate to, but let’s ignore the fact that no one can successfully demarcate between science and pseudoscience, the fact that there is no single method that applies everywhere, and that if there was, a lot of progressive scientific theories would have been rejected. Finally, there is a humanism that involves taking relative forms of human interaction and a specific culture’s principles and making them universal, even if this results in poverty (we’re back to libertarian ideas of “coercion”) and bloodshed.


I don't know what dictionary you're reading, but you have no idea what libertarianism is.

But as we are progressing into an age of logical thinking. As evident by the ever increasing Atheistic population.

Reasonable conclusions can be reached by unreasonable means. For example, I have seen people in this very forum say that there is no God because there is no evidence that God exists, but this ignores the fact that it is possible that God exists and we simply have not found the evidence that he does. So it seems to me that a rise in atheism is not evidence that we are entering an age of logical thinking.

Reasonable conclusions can be reached by unreasonable means. For example, I have seen people in this very forum say that there is no God because there is no evidence that God exists, but this ignores the fact that it is possible that God exists and we simply have not found the evidence that he does. So it seems to me that a rise in atheism is not evidence that we are entering an age of logical thinking.

How is this outside of logical thinking?

Its how science works.

Theory: God existsi

Proof: none

Conclusion: There is no proof to support this theory, thus god does not exist.

It doesnt mean there is no chance, but until we can put something into the 'proof' section, its logical to assume for sake of argument that there is no god.

While religion may be unnecessary, achieving that world may not require its removal.

I'd agree except I don't see the religions that don't spread misinformation or carry out these terrible actions we've mentioned, making any strides.

While your goal is noble, it's doesn't seem to be working in reality. Until it does, it seems atheism is the best answer.

How is this outside of logical thinking?

Its how science works.

Theory: God exists

Proof: none

Conclusion: There is no proof to support this theory, thus god does not exist.

It doesnt mean there is no chance, but until we can put something into the 'proof' section, its logical to assume for sake of argument that there is no god.

I think you're talking about forum arguments, not science. Science is my weak point, but I'm pretty sure that if the existence of God were something that a scientist were to explore, they would NOT start from the theory that "God exists".

They would start with a question, the phenomena they want to investigate: Is there or is there not a God? There are multiple hypothesis that one can start this on. Two instantly come to mind:
1. There is a God.
2. There is not a God.

So the scientist picks #1.

There is no proof, therefore the scientist cannot determine that there is indeed a God.

So the scientist tries #2.
There is no proof, therefore the scientist cannot determine there is not a God.

Conclusion: No proof exists to which someone can logically determine that there is or is not a God. Therefore, any claims for or against the existence of a God are illogical.

The reason your logic fails is because you assume that since a God cannot be proven to exist, that this proves that he/she/it does not exist.

How is this outside of logical thinking?

Because it's a logical fallacy. It's the argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance).

Just because there is no evidence that God exists, doesn't mean that no God exists.

You could say that you yourself require evidence in order to believe in god, and that because no evidence has been provided you lack a belief in gods until someone provides evidence/proof, which is pretty much what Science would do (though arguably it doesn't deal with the supernatural, so it wouldn't really test the hypothesis of God).

I think you're talking about forum arguments, not science. Science is my weak point, but I'm pretty sure that if the existence of God were something that a scientist were to explore, they would NOT start from the theory that "God exists".

They would start with a question, the phenomena they want to investigate: Is there or is there not a God? There are multiple hypothesis that one can start this on. Two instantly come to mind:
1. There is a God.
2. There is not a God.

So the scientist picks #1.

There is no proof, therefore the scientist cannot determine that there is indeed a God.

So the scientist tries #2.
There is no proof, therefore the scientist cannot determine there is not a God.

Conclusion: No proof exists to which someone can logically determine that there is or is not a God. Therefore, any claims for or against the existence of a God are illogical.

The reason your logic fails is because you assume that since a God cannot be proven to exist, that this proves that he/she/it does not exist.

Yup yup, I see that. Your right. I was only looking at it from one side.

I'd agree except I don't see the religions that don't spread misinformation or carry out these terrible actions we've mentioned, making any strides.

While your goal is noble, it's doesn't seem to be working in reality. Until it does, it seems atheism is the best answer.

Its true that there have been several terrible actions committed under the banner of religion. The unfortunate double edged sword is that any man can claim that any action is for his 'god'. Yes, some religions have in teachings that whatever that man did is ok, but not all religions. Some teach against the acts that some men commit under the flag of that religion. So should the religion as a whole be held accountable?

If I went into a store and bombed it. Yelling 'for totse!" then should this website be brought down?

Quick Q: Explain what you mean by 'misinformation' Do you mean the foundations of the religion, such as "God exists" or do you mean something directly defying scientific proof/theory "evolution doesn't exist' Or both. I strongly suspect the second, but I want to be sure.

I
If I went into a store and bombed it. Yelling 'for totse!" then should this website be brought down?

If the site was actively promoting that and planning it, yes. Some of the terrible things religious people committing are done alone, sure, but not all them. The Salem which trials for example, wasn't just some lone Witch Hunter, it was a specific brand of Christianity that existed around that time.



Quick Q: Explain what you mean by 'misinformation' Do you mean the foundations of the religion, such as "God exists" or do you mean something directly defying scientific proof/theory "evolution doesn't exist' Or both. I strongly suspect the second, but I want to be sure.

It's the second one more than anything, but even the first can begin to approach or cross the line of misinformation. It's one thing to say you believe a god exists, it's quite another to assert that one does. One is your own personal position, the other is a claim that should carry with it a burden of proof.

If the site was actively promoting that and planning it, yes. Some of the terrible things religious people committing are done alone, sure, but not all them. The Salem which trials for example, wasn't just some lone Witch Hunter, it was a specific brand of Christianity that existed around that time.




It's the second one more than anything, but even the first can begin to approach or cross the line of misinformation. It's one thing to say you believe a god exists, it's quite another to assert that one does. One is your own personal position, the other is a claim that should carry with it a burden of proof.

Ok, well let me be clear in that I am completely against any organization that actively promotes death and destruction. I also agree that my theory of gods existence is my own shit, and anything crossing into hinderence for the sake of evangelism is wrong. I would like the options be made available to those that are curious. But not enforced.

So there goes 98% of all theists.... heh..

Generalizing religion and undermining all of it is NOT something that should be allowed though, because to do that would be no better then many of the practitioners of those religions. If we are looking to make this an age of logic and reason, then we can not reasonable assume that everyone who follows a faith is going to picket abortion clinics or kill in the name of their god.

Do you have a non-personal reason for this? I cant think of one off the top of my head.

Just to clarify, I have no religion, and I can't say I believe in God.

It's hard to say why I think this, but I'll give it a try.

I'll agree that the state that most religions are in today, that religion is not quite a noble thing; however I don't think that religion has any inherently bad element to it, and can have several positive influences.

I suppose I think that religion plays a similar (perhaps indistinguishable) role as society/culture does, in that it enables people to identify themselves with something, which I believe is important in setting up a community. We can see from religious groups that their members are often supportive of each other, and live For each other. I believe that this community of people, a community rather than people merely living in close proximity, is neccesary for all true progress. I think that religion can have a large role in maintaining the identity of a community. If religion were re-thought, and re-presented in the right fashion I believe that it would have a far greater effect on the progress of mankind than an increase of atheism would.

Really I suppose I see religion as the means to an end, the end being a new world where everyone see's worth in each other, and, no, I'm not saying that religion is the only means to this, but reather the most apprently effective means. To me it appears that religion is currently working on far too small a level, it unifies only small groups of people; which may have worked in the past when makinds horizons were small, but now that we are a global community, I feel that religion must act to unify us all.

That and I disagree with the destruction of religion on principle. Religion has played a key role in who we are, and so we just destroy it? No, I think that to get the right to destroy something, we must understand it, and I don't think that religion is understood enough for anyone to have the right to destroy it.

But, really, I've just been reading far too much Stapledon...

If my god truly exists then there is surely a place for him in this day and age. And if my god doesn't exist, I have no hard feelings over the slow and steady eradication of religion.

Your God has always existed in the gaps of knowledge.

When nobody knew the world was round, your God gave an answer. He existed to tell us in his book that it was flat.

When nobody knew what caused disease, famine, hurricanes, earthquakes, your God existed to tell us.

Before we knew what caused lightning, many thought it was the hammer of Thor.

The more knowledge we gain the smaller the gaps in knowledge get. Face it, your God is shrinking, and he must in order to fit into the gaps. That is why evolution WILL BE embraced by mainstream religion in just a few more decades.

You worship a God of the Gaps as that is all human knowledge has left for the big guy to lord over.

Your God is dying.

Your God has always existed in the gaps of knowledge.

When nobody knew the world was round, your God gave an answer. He existed to tell us in his book that it was flat.

When nobody knew what caused disease, famine, hurricanes, earthquakes, your God existed to tell us.

Before we knew what caused lightning, many thought it was the hammer of Thor.

The more knowledge we gain the smaller the gaps in knowledge get. Face it, your God is shrinking, and he must in order to fit into the gaps. That is why evolution WILL BE embraced by mainstream religion in just a few more decades.

You worship a God of the Gaps as that is all human knowledge has left for the big guy to lord over.

Your God is dying.

We are not talking about the same god.

If my god is a perfect god, and the universe is his creation, then the universe is perfect.

or maybe another way of looking at it.

If My god is all powerful then he cannot contradict himself. (the whole 'can god create a rock so big.." catch22) And thus his creation, the universe, cannot contradict itself either.

Thus, all things can be scientifically explained. If something cannot be explained scientifically then it would be a flaw, and thus not of a perfect god's design. I don't believe a miracle is something that cannot be explained. The miracle may only be in the timing of a scientifically explainable event.

In a funny way, the fact that all things can be explained and work perfectly in mathematic harmony is evidence of a perfect design. And thus a perfect creator.

The more knowledge we gain the smaller the gaps in knowledge get. Face it, your God is shrinking, and he must in order to fit into the gaps. That is why evolution WILL BE embraced by mainstream religion in just a few more decades.

You worship a God of the Gaps as that is all human knowledge has left for the big guy to lord over.

Your God is dying.

First of all, how do you know that leuda's god is the God of Gaps?

Secondly, while the God of Gaps is shrinking, it does nothing to diminsh God. Let's face it, the God of Gaps that you present is hardly God, so much as a fallacy.

In a funny way, the fact that all things can be explained and work perfectly in mathematic harmony is evidence of a perfect design. And thus a perfect creator.

No, it is not evidence of perfect design. It is evidence for mathematical principles. It is most certainly not any kind of evidence for God or a creator.

It is you grasping at straws to save a dying God. I expect to see more and more of this attempt to intermingle theism with science, before the death throes stop.

First of all, how do you know that leuda's god is the God of Gaps?

Secondly, while the God of Gaps is shrinking, it does nothing to diminsh God. Let's face it, the God of Gaps that you present is hardly God, so much as a fallacy.

How is God of the Gaps a fallacy?

I was clearly talking about the Christian God, so Leuda's God doesn't concern me unless it interferes with secular society as much as Jesus's Daddy does.

No, it is not evidence of perfect design. It is evidence for mathematical principles. It is most certainly not any kind of evidence for God or a creator.

It is you grasping at straws to save a dying God. I expect to see more and more of this attempt to intermingle theism with science, before the death throes stop.


No, your right, thats not any kind of logical thinking.

But other then the last statement.

Is it illogical to think that a perfect creator would create something that didn't contradict itself thus all things within the creation would follow its own laws.

its like an super complex computer program. If the coder is perfect, then his program will have no errors, and be completely sound.

How is God of the Gaps a fallacy?

I was clearly talking about the Christian God, so Leuda's God doesn't concern me unless it interferes with secular society as much as Jesus's Daddy does.

The second part first: You clearly responded to leuda with the term, 'Your', indicating that you were talking specifically about leuda's God. If I was mistaken, my apologies.

And a fallacy? Well, I may have used the wrong word.

I believe that the God of Gaps argument is utterly meaningless, just because I can explain something in a scientific fashion does not mean that God/Gods are not behind the process, only that it can be explained. Likewise it does not prove God if I cannot explain something, only that I cannot explain something.

If one were to discard the God of Gaps, one could still say that God/Gods do everything, Thunder can still be said to come from God, only that God acts through various atmospheric disturbances.

I'm probaly not getting what I think across very well.

But simply, I find it redundant and pointless.

The second part first: You clearly responded to leuda with the term, 'Your', indicating that you were talking specifically about leuda's God. If I was mistaken, my apologies.

And a fallacy? Well, I may have used the wrong word.

I believe that the God of Gaps argument is utterly meaningless, just because I can explain something in a scientific fashion does not mean that God/Gods are not behind the process, only that it can be explained. Likewise it does not prove God if I cannot explain something, only that I cannot explain something.

If one were to discard the God of Gaps, one could still say that God/Gods do everything, Thunder can still be said to come from God, only that God acts through various atmospheric disturbances.

I'm probaly not getting what I think across very well.

But simply, I find it redundant and pointless.

Prophet is saying that religion was created becuase of lack of good science, and as science improves, religion is no longer needed to 'fill in the gaps' for a logical thinker.

It always boils down to the question of if there is a god or not.

Naturally, if there is no god. Then Prophet is correct, or at least its a very good/close theory.

And if god does exist then as science improves god will not go away.

But since it boils down to a question that can not be proven or disprove then whats pointless is arguing about the validity of his claim.

of course now that I think about it, thats where I think this where the discussion is at.

If there is a god, my theory's are valid and perhaps correct. And if there is no god, prophet sits in that seat.

And if god does exist then as science improves god will not go away.

The statistics in post suggest a trend of disbelief, and in the end, all God has here on Earth is the belief of the faithful that he exists.

That is ending, so to will God, unless he wakes from his nap, comes out from behind the curtain and interacts with humanity in an awesome way agian (to which I think even you, and most theists doubt, else why keep the meme so alive?)

I believe that the God of Gaps argument is utterly meaningless, just because I can explain something in a scientific fashion does not mean that God/Gods are not behind the process, only that it can be explained. Likewise it does not prove God if I cannot explain something, only that I cannot explain something.

Yes, an all powerful being (if one were to exist) could certainly use natural tools to produce his desires. Scientific principles governing thunderstorms could be a God's tool.

Ultimately any all powerful fantasy creature can do anything you can imagine. Imagine being the key word here. For example: My invisible pet poke'mon created all life using your God as a tool, who in turn used science as a tool.

Talk about meaningless.

The God of the Gaps argument is not meaningless as I used it merely to show a pattern. A pattern of foolishly explaining natural events not fully understood, to an all powerful imaginary friend. This pattern exists today, but is getting smaller and smaller, and ultimately will confine God into the only place he has a right to exist...one's imagination.

Evolution will be accepted just as a round earth and a heliocentric solar sytem was. Evolution like these things will be a hard pill for the faithful to swallow, but swallow it you will.

How is this outside of logical thinking?

Its how science works.

Theory: God existsi

Proof: none

Conclusion: There is no proof to support this theory, thus god does not exist.

It doesnt mean there is no chance, but until we can put something into the 'proof' section, its logical to assume for sake of argument that there is no god.

There is no need for me to respond to this, because Rust has pretty much given you the answer I would have given you.

Yes, an all powerful being (if one were to exist) could certainly use natural tools to produce his desires. Scientific principles governing thunderstorms could be a God's tool.

Ultimately any all powerful fantasy creature can do anything you can imagine. Imagine being the key word here. For example: My invisible pet poke'mon created all life using your God as a tool, who in turn used science as a tool.

Talk about meaningless.

Fair enough.


The God of the Gaps argument is not meaningless as I used it merely to show a pattern. A pattern of foolishly explaining natural events not fully understood, to an all powerful imaginary friend. This pattern exists today, but is getting smaller and smaller, and ultimately will confine God into the only place he has a right to exist...one's imagination.

Evolution will be accepted just as a round earth and a heliocentric solar sytem was. Evolution like these things will be a hard pill for the faithful to swallow, but swallow it you will.

Sorry it's just that the way that you seem to be using it is what I would consider wrong. To me it seemed like you were using it in a way that suggested that God would simply cease to be an issue because we can understand natural processes, which doesn't sound quite right to me.

But if you're merely pointing the absurdity of the God of Gaps argument, then I agree.

If we are looking to make this an age of logic and reason, then we can not reasonable assume that everyone who follows a faith is going to picket abortion clinics or kill in the name of their god.

Who assumed that? You're arguing strawmans. I readily admit not all religious people would do that. I'd say most of the would. Apparently you agree...

Who assumed that? You're arguing strawmans. I readily admit not all religious people would do that. I'd say most of the would. Apparently you agree...

The main problem is that most of them wouldn't. The few Christians who actually believe in or follow the bible are diminishing and are in no way the majority.

Hence, the real problem is the fact that these people that basically only believe in a god for the fun of it, lacking any actual religion and picking and choosing whatever they do have, won't accept the logical stance and admit to being atheist.

I talked to a christian child that was getting confirmed a few weeks ago, and she asked me what a certain symbol (presumably a lutheran christian one) meant. I said, "That's the symbol of the Sun God. <more bullshit>". She just nodded and tried to remember it, and didn't notice anything was wrong until days later when someone told her she was wrong.

This is sort of an example. The "Christian" that's going to get inducted into whatever upper level of that cult there is doesn't even know that her religion doesn't have a sun god. Obviously her "religion" is about as important as what's on TV on saturday, but she still won't give it up.

Its this sort of thing that makes being an atheist so hard in America, because there's this apparently prevailing view that everyone is a Christian. If there's any reason to be vocal about your atheism, its that.

The main problem is that most of them wouldn't. The few Christians who actually believe in or follow the bible are diminishing and are in no way the majority.

Most of them wouldn't what? Spread misinformation and/or do terrible things as I've defined them in my discussion with leuda? Well I'd say you're wrong:

For example, taking misinformation alone and taking within that the topic of evolution alone (an important but small subset), you have 48% of the U.S. population believing in creationism, and 30% believing in some form of Intelligent Design. (http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124&ct=1)


http://biology.plosjournals.org/archive/1545-7885/6/5/figure/10.1371_journal.pbio.0060124.g002-M.jpg


That most of them wouldn't be burning witches in the streets? Sure. I admitted that much in this thread. But I would say most of them indeed spread some sort of misinformation, be it about the origins of life, origins of the universe or the origins of the diversity of life we see today. They spread bullshit.


Hence, the real problem is the fact that these people that basically only believe in a god for the fun of it, lacking any actual religion and picking and choosing whatever they do have, won't accept the logical stance and admit to being atheist.I doubt that a lot. I would say, and this is based only on my experiences just like you are basing it on yours, that most of them indeed do believe in a god, and that belief is pretty set in stone. It's very important to them and their worldview. It's how they make sense of the world. Tragedies are "god working in mysterious ways" or "god's will" and good things are "miracles".

It's when you start getting farther away from that fundamental belief that they starting feeling unsure, ambivalent and/or feeling it's not important, and so they pick and choose whatever they like, or whatever their friends and family believe.

Most of them wouldn't what? Spread misinformation and/or do terrible things as I've defined them in my discussion with leuda? Well I'd say you're wrong:

For example, taking misinformation alone and taking within that the topic of evolution alone (an important but small subset), you have 48% of the U.S. population believing in creationism, and 30% believing in some form of Intelligent Design. (http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124&ct=1)


http://biology.plosjournals.org/archive/1545-7885/6/5/figure/10.1371_journal.pbio.0060124.g002-M.jpg


That most of them wouldn't be burning witches in the streets? Sure. I admitted that much in this thread. But I would say most of them indeed spread some sort of misinformation, be it about the origins of life, origins of the universe or the origins of the diversity of life we see today. They spread bullshit.

I doubt that a lot. I would say, and this is based only on my experiences just like you are basing it on yours, that most of them indeed do believe in a god, and that belief is pretty set in stone. It's very important to them and their worldview. It's how they make sense of the world. Tragedies are "god working in mysterious ways" or "god's will" and good things are "miracles".

It's when you start getting farther away from that fundamental belief that they starting feeling unsure, ambivalent and/or feeling it's not important, and so they pick and choose whatever they like, or whatever their friends and family believe.

Yeah, you're definitely right. I totally forgot about the whole ID area.

Like you said, this is based off of my experiences, and I guess I forget how isolated that can get on occasion.

Let's hope the statistics in the OP keep going the way they are. It's still like a slap in the face to me to hear that so many in this country don't trust science in such a basic way.