Here Is Something New – Criticizing Guitar Players Is A Religion
Over at psychologicphilosopher blog we can find this doozy:
Many would attempt to argue that Atheism in and of itself is not a religion. However, those who argue this are either mistaken or not fully comprehending the definition of religion and Atheism. So lets begin by defining both terms. We can start with Atheism. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines Atheism as, “a : a disbelief in the existence of deity,” or, “b : the doctrine that there is no deity.” Often times the word doctrine is used in reference to religion. Now that we have defined Atheism let’s look at the definition of religion. According to Merriam-Webster religion is, “an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods,” as well as, “an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.” So contrary to what many believe religion and Atheism do not conflict. It is very much so the opposite. Atheism is a religion. A religion of the non existence of a deity. However, Atheists do believe in a higher power. They believe in the unchangeable laws that govern us: The Laws of Physics. So thank you all for reading and I hope to have enlightened you to an extent.
The Philosopher
So, game over atheists, it’s a religion… except for one small part. Since atheism is not simply an interest nor a belief it must qualify as an activity according to ‘The Philosopher’
The trouble is that athesim is not an activity. Telling smug and uneducated believers that they are wrong IS an activity. So, ok, you got me. My religion is telling religiots that they are wrong and harmful to society. Our services are held every Tuesday between 2 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. local time. We meet in secret underground caverns of every major city around the globe. Remember, to get into the meeting the pass phrase is “I’m a dumb ass” … see you on Tuesday.
Of course, if we go to another definition of religion it all changes:
noun
This time the ambiguity is gone. It’s no longer a case of simply doing something ‘religiously’ which is itself a conundrum. To do something religiously requires repetitive ritual so even the first MW definition doesn’t fit. It would be doing it religiously if every Sunday I picketed a local church and held signs. I don’t. Everything about my non-belief is ad-hoc. I don’t even blog consistently, never mind religiously.
If you haven’t figured out the title yet… criticizing guitar players is about as religious as criticizing religion. That’s what this blogger thinks. So hating on hip-hop or country music is a religion – don’t forget it.
myatheistlife 
Ahh, but the non belief in a Deity or God is a belief. Thusly is not an activity. I admire your attempt to discredit the truth, however, you have failed, as most atheists do, to realize that you too have a belief system. You believe no deity or deities exist. That is a BELIEF. You hold that important to your FAITH (another religious word). It is funny the impotency you have for your own set of BELIEFS.
I do not have a belief that gravity works. Not playing golf is not a sport. To NOT believe in something is not a belief.
Belief
: a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true
: a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable
: a feeling of trust in the worth or ability of someone
I have a belief system, but it is not based on what I know to be not true. Belief is not a negative based value.
There is no credible evidence for a god’s existence. I do not believe this, it is a fact. It is fact that there is no credible evidence for the existence of a god. This is not a belief just like it is not a belief that you can’t get gumbo at Burger King. Facts are not beliefs.
You believe the non existence of God or gods to be true – a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable
You trust in the worth and ability of top scientists – a feeling of trust in the worth or ability of someone
And gravity is NOT a Law of Physics thus is irrelevant to bring up nor is it a fundamental basic of science.
I can guess you believe that quarks exist – a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true
All these definitions actually help support my argument rather than dismiss it. I do admire your attempts, however feeble they are.
Also it is a belief you cannot get gumbo at Burger King. If I took a gun into Burger King and demanded gumbo or knew a worker and asked them to pick up gumbo for me and I received it at Burger King I just “got gumbo from Burger King”. So it is a belief for if you put enough effort into it you could get gumbo at Burger King.
If you want to redefine words, sure. You can’t get gumbo at Burger King, but you can force them to make you some gumbo at gun point – definitely the same things. So when you call yourself philosopher you really were just redefining the word liar, right?
I didn’t redefine any words just simply manipulated the scenario. To definition of get is a constant. You fail to recognize the manipulation of scenarios is far different than redefining a word.
Are you a poe?
Also lets break down each definition. “1 a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.” Atheism attempts to make reason based on assumptions and (educational) guesses. These can be considered beliefs. If we continue it says religions must or usually have a moral code. Thusly if Atheism is NOT a religion, they cannot have morals, because morals derive from religion.
“2 a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.” All Atheist believe on a fundamental level no deity or deities exist and that science on a fundamental level is true. By this definition Atheism IS a religion. Lets continue though. “3 the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.” Atheist as a body of persons adhere to the belief that science on a fundamental level is true, and no deity or deities exist. “4 the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.” 98% of religions do not require this. “5 the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.” Atheist practice on a daily basis there non belief of deities.
Your logic is complete fail. Golfers must or usually have a glove, thus if you are not a golfer you cannot have a glove. Did you really just use that kind of logic and think it would work? Dude, go look in the mirror and slap that person you see there.
We already went over what belief means. Facts are not beliefs. That a group of people agree on facts does not mean they have a common set of beliefs. Stop confusing facts with beliefs. They are not the same thing.
Atheists also daily affirm that gravity works. We all affirm everyday the facts of our lives. This has nothing to do with beliefs. Facts and beliefs are NOT the same thing.
I used the logic of you. I was using the logic YOU used in order to show you the absurdity of your argument. However, in a fundamental sense it is true that morals do not exist without religion. The morals of secular humans come from the morals set forth by religions. Secular humans take multiple religious moral codes and pick and choose and then compile their own. So technically it is not a flawed logic, but a true one. Secular humans only have morals because of religion. And gravity is still a theory, if it was a FACT it would be a LAW rather than a THEORY. Gravity itself is NOT a fact, it does however have facts supporting it. But, so do deities. Quantum Physics alone has put forth a substantial evidence for deities.
Clearly you have no clue about science. Quite frankly I’m starting to wonder how you get dressed in the mornings. Well, you probably call it something else. Your arguments have become juvenile. Are you old enough to drive legally?
I clearly don’t? You sophomoric fool keep believing the fictitious values you hold as truth.
pp, you show the scope of your scientific illiteracy with And gravity is still a theory, if it was a FACT it would be a LAW rather than a THEORY.
A scientific theory is as high on the probability scale as anything can be. It is the pinnacle of a scientific achievement. Because you don;t understand this order, you assume the non-scientific meaning of theory and apply it in a scientific setting not appreciating the scope of your error due to illiteracy.
You extend this illiteracy into making statements about morality that are disconnected from the reality they are trying to describe. Morality precedes religious belief. This is one of those brutish facts that you simply wave away without appreciating just how damning this compelling evidence really is to your thesis and you carry on as if it doesn;t matter. Well, it doesn’t matter if you’re unconcerned with what’s true but matters a very great deal if you are. You are supplying evidence by your dismissal of these facts that you really don’t care about what’s true.
For example, you assign morality to consciousness and then present a fascinating philosophical argument about whether or not these animals posses consciousness versus those. As is made clear in the article, we don;t really know because the terminology is so nebulous. But i can assure you that your mirror neurons fire in response to visual stimuli in exactly the same way the mirror neurons of a monkey fire in response to the same visual stimuli, activating the same brain regions reported verbally by humans to evoking feelings of sympathy and empathy and learning. To then try to ‘explain’ what’s going on here in terms of religious training is… well, ridiculous. It’s the wrong language. The right language is biology. If we wish to find out about this property we call ‘morality’ then we need to explore it in such a way so as to produce knowledge. Religion doesn’t do this; it just lays claim to whatever its followers decide is a pious concern, allows the most ignorant of its adherent to make claims equivalent to experts by way of revelation, and expects to be considered an authority in all things by divine fiat. The real world simply doesn’t open itself to us this way. And that’s why the methodology of your religious belief has fooled you into thinking your ignorance is a different kind of equivalent knowledge, but one that obviously has no connection whatsoever to reality and what’s true about it! Your religious belief in the matter of understanding the source of what we call morality has fooled you into believing without merit that you have some insight into it. You don’t because you are illiterate in the ways and means of producing explanatory knowledge that works reliably and consistently well for everyone everywhere all the time. This is the domain of science and its adjudicator is reality. You should learn more about both.
This was funny. Hahaha.
Very nicely put! Thank you
“Thusly if Atheism is NOT a religion, they cannot have morals, because morals derive from religion.”
Wow. A “philosopher” who fail in basic logic.
Ahhh, but I was using HIS logic against him. If you could read and comprehend things you could see he said that only religions have moral codes. This means that morals derive from religion. Also if you were to look at today morals still derive from religion. Secular humans have taken the moral codes of all religions and combined them. So technically on a fundamental level it is true that morals only exist if religion does. So my basic logic is not lacking. If you were to think on a deeper level you might be able to comprehend this concept.
When you read your holy text and decide what is good or bad in it, what morals are you using to do so?
You’re not very bright.
You are not “using” morals. You are “choosing” them. The Holy Texts tell you what is moral and what is not. Not a single secular moral is not found in a religious text.
you are a poe, aren’t you?
No, you weren’t. You were talking nonsense.
Please tell me how that logically makes sense. Unless you are telepathic you are making assumptions that are false.
“We meet in secret underground caverns of every major city around the globe”
The first rule of the Atheist Club: You do no talk about atheist club. (Oh, wouldn’t the religious just love that!)
Note the long list of similar complaints under the M-W definition. (Much better is Oxford’s definition: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.)
Look, psychologicphilosopher, if you’re going to define non belief as a belief, then you’re going to have to apply all the same criticisms you direct towards atheists towards yourself multiplied by the number of non belief positions you hold regarding every religion you don;t believe in.
This is a gigantic fail. (Early christians in Rome were vilified as atheists because they believed in far too few gods compared to the much more moral and ethical pantheists. The argument was silly then, and it remains silly today.) If you’re going to slot non belief as another kind of belief, then you’re going to have to alter the language where a non car is a different kind of car, a non woman is another kind of woman, a non believer is another kind of believer. You see the problem? You are another kind of everything you are not. This is religious reasoning in a nutshell: relativistic word games and poor premises in logical form to act as the best ‘evidence’ at your disposal. What’s true in reality (as arbitrated by it) ranks a very poor second in such a mind. And if someone doesn’t really care about what’s true in reality and cares only about what they wish to impose on it, then why on earth should anybody pay any attention to them?
Ahhh, but the disbelief is the belief of non existence. You cannot tell me that for 100% sure no deity or deities exist thus your “lack of belief” is actually a belief in the lack of existence. So in the entirety both definitions can be considered wrong and argued until “time” stops. The fact of the matter is that Atheism is a religion. They have their own fundamental set of beliefs. Yes they do have fundamental beliefs shared by the entire group of people not just “lack of belief”. You saying that is like saying pink isn’t a shade of red. Lack of belief in a deity is just another shade of the belief in the lack of a deity. Also that definition more leans towards a deistic view. People with deistic views do not believe in a deity, however, the accept and acknowledge the possibility, of an infinite percent, that one or more MAY exist. This part is what separates them from being Atheists. While they may not believe in a God or gods they admit they really just do not know, whereas Atheist believe the lack of a deity or deities is a self-evident truth.
PP, you are not very clever. You can’t prove 100% certain that your religion is right and all the others are wrong. Anything you say after your 100% statement is complete bullshit. The simple fact is that more than 70% of the world population thinks you are wrong, most of them think you’re going to hell. If you can’t prove your beliefs to someone that wants to believe, why would I listen to you?
Ah, but do they? Do you know my view on religion and life? You do not so stating that 70% of the world is against me is as much, how did you phrase it, “bull shit” as saying something is 100% true. I haven’t even attempted to push my beliefs yet, so your entire last sentence is irrelevant.
You should read more. No religion has more than 33% of the world’s population as adherents, ergo 70%+ is always against you and most of them think you are going to hell. I don’t think math is your strong suit.
Christians – 33.39%
Muslims – 27.74%
Hindus – 13.8%
Buddhists – 6.77%
Sikhs – 0.35%
Jews – 0.22%
Baha’is – 0.11%
Other – 10.95%
Non-Religious – 9.66% of which only 2.01% is Atheist.
Get facts next time
myatheistlife forgot the decimal after the 33%. His point still stands that 66.61% of the world is a person that denies the truth of Christianity. 72.26% deny Islam, etc. More than half the world disbelieves then.
Ahhh, but Jews do not condemn Christians, nor to Buddhists condemn anyone. So you again are quite wrong. And his point was NOT that they are against you but believe you are going to hell. And Jews are not entirely against Christianity. Also Buddhism doesn’t go against any religion.
Also if we look at Christianity and those that do bit completely disagree with it the percentage then becomes around 50%
You are arguing the losing side of a discussion. There are so many Christian sects exactly because they think you’re worshipping god wrong and many of them think you’re going to hell. The Jews know Christians are worshipping a false god. Muslims? Ha.
Since the Christian belief is that you go either to heaven or to hell, and all those people do not think you’re going to heaven, you are hellbound by more than 50% of the world’s opinion. Most is a funny word. I could have said ‘the majority’ or ‘lots of them’ but most was convenient. All your arguing doesn’t change the point. Only a small group of people think you might be going to heaven. Or I could say that not very many people agree with your theological point of view. Or your beliefs are not well supported.
The fact remains that you can’t convince people that _do_ want to believe in a god that your theology is correct. Yes, it is true – how many Jews/Muslims/Buddhists have you converted to your sect of Christianity? See, it’s not just atheists that know you are wrong.
Ahh, but nobody “Knows”. One can only speculate. And you make assumptions that I am Christian. And while less than 50% support Christians going to heaven, about 50% do not damn them to hell. Buddhist damn no one. Jews do not damn Christians. Agnostics don’t take any opinion. Deists believe in a God however do not damn anyone. Atheists do not damn anyone. You have gotten your definitions if believing in a fallacy and damnation confused. However, the mere fact you said that people “KNOW” Christians are completely wrong shows your ignorance. Nobody has the KNOWLEDGE to say if anyone is right. Unless you were there since the creation of this Universe, the KNOWLEDGE is non existent. You might want to reword this because the wording of it makes this entire post inaccurate. You cannot “KNOW” Christians are wrong, or Buddhists, etc. You can speculate such claims but not “KNOW” them. For the KNOWLEDGE of these subjects do not exist within our minds. Humans were not here when time began thus we cannot KNOW of that time. We can merely speculate. However, we can use clues and past events to help our speculations become more accurate to the reality. You also are very ignorant on the beliefs of World Religions. Buddhists in fact do not say Christians are wrong. One could live by both the Buddhist and Christian way of life without trouble. Also there are many sects of Judaism that believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God. You may want to educate yourself further on World Religions before speaking on them. And quit using your sophomoric ideal that what you believe is the truth and you hold the “KNOWLEDGE”. No human being can “KNOW” Christianity is wrong. Also I suggest you quit making assumptions without any grounds for them.
Also I never once mentioned the Muslims so in your own words, “Ha”. Also at any given point
pp states categorically that “morals derive from religion.”
Is this true?
Well, there is much compelling evidence against this.
Not only does pp apply his/her morality to his/her religious training (selecting which bits of god-soaked moral lessons to take literally and which bits to take figuratively) but apparently comes at religious belief fully endowed to determine which bits are moral and which bits are not. How can this be if s/he must first extract this remarkable ability from the religion under examination?
There is compelling evidence that children are moral agents and exhibit moral behaviour long before any religious training takes place. How can this be if we must first extract moral teaching from religion?
There is compelling evidence that moral behaviour is exhibited in other critters. How can this be if these critters must first extract moral teachings from religion?
The statement pp makes stands contrary to and in conflict with the reality we share, yet no explanation of how this compelling contrary evidence from reality fits into, rather than against, his/her thesis. It’s just a naked claim uniformed by the reality s/he is attempting to describe, a claim that acts to stultify and block any honest inquiry into why moral behaviour occurs and makes it into a religious property where such pronouncements are rarely – if ever – criticized from within. This is religious theft, and religious belief does this all the time by claiming expertise where none exists. pp’s understanding of the ‘source’ for moral behaviour is both incredibly immature and factually wrong. It is not explanatory of the reality we share. Yet s/he feels perfectly able to make such bold statements as if true and think religious belief alone is sufficient to make it true! This is another example of the negative consequences (empowering broad ignorance and widely held superstition) we find all around us by people who think they are sanctioned by their religious beliefs to impose their faith-based beliefs on reality as if this were healthy and functional rather that allowing reality to adjudicate claims made about it. This is ignorance in action, superstition in action, and I am aware of no boundary recognized by religions where they allow subject matter expertise to be of a knowledge category greater than what their religious beliefs dictate. Religious believers on the whole allow their religious beliefs to be the adjudicator of all knowledge matters in spite of the fact that religious belief never has, currently doesn’t, and never will produce one single bit of knowledge about reality. Ever. At all. It can’t. It’s a broken method untrustworthy by its utter lack of ability to produce knowledge to adjudicate anything. Such religious over-reach (and claim for authority where none is deserved) as offered up here by pp is a great example of why entrusting the method of religious inquiry to describe reality results in producing products that are anti-knowledge, anti-science, anti-human. These inevitable results are part of its charm, we are supposed to accept. But unlike the hordes of religious apologists and accommodationists and agnostics who should all know better but assume religious belief (in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary) should be respected, I don’t think respecting religious belief in the name of tolerance is a higher standard than respecting what’s true. Respecting what’s not true is not just foolish but a very great and real and present danger to us all.
Holy crap! I’m going to post this comment as a post all on it’s own… this is awesome!
Morality cannot be seen in other “critters” do to morality being of and in the consciousness, which (according to modern science) other “critters” do not have. So we can say that our consciousness is born in a religious state, or we can say, children have learned traits that follow their household and surroundings. All secular beings follow moral codes that have derived from one religion or another, however no secular human has a moral characteristic not found in religion. And thus children are brought up (even in a secular home) around the moral codes of religion(s).
You are wrong, again. Consciousness has been deemed as shown in higher order animals. So the rest of your drivel can be dismissed without a thought. When you say “All secular beings” can you prove that you really mean ALL beings? I think you need to review your set theory. Plus you’re wrong… secular beings are morally kind to homosexuals… this is not a moral behavior they learned from religion… unless you count it as a moral behavior derived from not wanting to be like the believers.
Basically, everytime you put your fingers on the keyboard, you’re wrong in some way. You should stop doing that.
Take a gander. http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~shane/words/animalconsciousness.htm
Take a gander: http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~shane/words/animalconsciousness.htm
That article is from 2000. The world has moved on since then. That wasn’t even a good try. You are a poe!
First the date you have said is not accurate, second oh yes you caught me I am most definitely a poe *sarcastic voice*
Religion is just an expression of certain moral codes in different elements of it, there are also elements within religion which don’t interlace with morality and are an absence of morality and there are also atheists and humanists who have a morality. If morality is derived from religion like you claim, I wonder how it is possible that civilizations without a religion had a morality. In older civilizations there have been people who also believed in an absence of God like modern rationalists, among Buddhists and Hinduists you will find them. They have a morality. How do you explain that?
Hindus actually believe in gods thus your statement is inaccurate. Also Buddhists came from Hinduism thus many of the moral codes carried over. Religion carries moral codes. And I never stated that a godless religion could not have morals. I simply stated without religion morals would not exist. Godless religions are included in that.
How do you explain apes sharing food with eachother in a fair way if they have both worked for it? Isn’t that a form of morality too? You can also find certain forms of morality among other animals and I doubt if they believe in Gods.
Again as I said a religion does not require the belief in a God or gods. Buddhists do not yet are still a religion. And also it all depends upon how you wish to define morality.
So according to you apes have a religion?
Now you are putting words into my mouth and inferring things that were not implied.
“You can also find certain forms of morality among other animals and I doubt if they believe in Gods.” is what I said. Then you said: “Again as I said a religion does not require the belief in a God or gods. Buddhists do not yet are still a religion. And also it all depends upon how you wish to define morality.”
I think there is a misintepretation here, but I really thought that you were referring to the animals.
No not at all. I simply stated that religion does not require a God. Buddhism is a prime example. Morals come from religion (dependent on how you define morals) and not necessarily from God or gods.
Morals are present in religion, that is a fact. People learn morals from religion, that is also a fact, but morals come from religion? Can you actually proof that claim? If you know that the first people believed in Gods you can’t automatically claim that because they believed in Gods and had religions their morals came from them. You are connecting 2 values in this case which were both present but of which you have no idea if they were connected.
Please show me 1 moral value not found in religion.
Don’t keep slaves or mutilate babies.
Both found in religious texts.
wakey wakey. You said name one not found in religion. Name a religion that says don’t keep slaves. How about a monotheism that doesn’t like to mutilate babies?
Buddhists say to commit no harm and to view all as equals. So both coincide with Buddhist teachings.
Then it’s a shame that monotheists didn’t pick that up….
Ahh but they do. Respect for each-other is a main point in Christianity.
Then it doesn’t appear that many of them are doing it right.
You blame the religion for the mistakes of humans and human nature.
Your reading comprehension is not all that good today, is it?
And peace is a major point in Islam.
Doesn’t look like they all got the message.
This seems an interesting post for a comment. Atheism is not necessarily a religion, but it can be a religion. Atheism is a world-view though and it’s very easy to make the confusion between a world-view and a religion. The world-view of christians is that there exists a God with interferance, their religion actually contains physical actions which are related to making contact with what they believe is God. Atheists don’t believe in a God, but it’s possible as an atheist to criticize religion and try to let people think in a rational way, which is similar to preaching your religion, the only difference is that religion uses supernatural claims and atheists use logic in order to convince people of their world-view. You can claim as an atheist that you don’t do this, but if you talk to a religious person in order to let him or her think rationally and let him or herself decide, you are still trying to convince this person of elements of your world-view.
Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet and the Atheist Experience TV Show are trying to get rid of the bad elements of religion, but they are at the same time spreading their world view which, although it doesn’t get a lot of adherants among the general population, higher educated people are influenced by them and often convinced by their arguments which are just related to our present time. The thinking of atheism has a relationship with science and according to the philosophy of science there are paradigms within science, which means that our scientific knowledge constantly changes. This also means that the arguments of atheists can possibly be false after a while. A good example of a sophistry used by atheists is that quantum mechanics have nothing to do with supernatural phenomena like telepathy. This is actually wrong. Yes, it is indeed not sure if quantum mechanics is connected with this phenomena, but since we don’t know everything about quantum mechanics yet and since it’s proven that particles can influence eachother from a distance without using matter which is between it, we can’t say that it’s impossible, it’s actually quite well a posibility that telepathy can exist with the scientific foundation. You will probably give the argument that what an object will become can’t be determined by our expectation but is just randomly chosen, but I say again that not every scientist who investigated quantum mechanics will agree with that, among Bohr and other scientists who researched it there were a few who had an esoteric interpretation of quantum mechanics, but who were scientists with enough knowledge of real science…
Concerning the religion part, although atheism in itself doesn’t contain ritual elements like religions, there are things in daily lives of atheists which are connected to it. Atheists don’t go to churches and such institutions, but their world-view is preached around academical institutions and just like how in churches people talk with eachother about God, scientists and researchers talk about scientific phenomena in universities, which is their interpretation of God, science the Laws of Physics replaced the christian God.
As gently as you put your argument it still fails. Religion is not necessary for life. Thinking rationally is. They are two different categories of things.
As an experiment, replace theism etc. with some form of ‘lizard people from mars’.
Atheism is NOT a world view. It is no more than lack of belief in gods. Some grade their disbelief in the way Dawkins talks about it. Just the same, it is not a world view. It supposes nothing and claims nothing beyond the fact that there is no credible evidence to merit belief in a god. Many atheists have similar world views and perhaps this is in part due to their non-belief but non-belief is not their world view.
As for telepathy, please produce evidence that such a phenomena actually occurs. It doesn’t matter if Quantum Mechanics might theoretically explain it if it can’t be shown to happen. Without evidence you’re simply trying to explain a theory with no evidence. You’re trying to hard here…
All believers must abide by the laws of physics. Survival is best accomplished with a good understanding of the laws of physics. Religion, on the other hand, is not necessary in any way. To say that the laws of physics replaced the christian god is ludicrous on several levels:
The christian god is not the only god to be replaced.
How can what has always been replace what never was? The laws of physics have evidence. No god has credible evidence for its existence. You can test the laws of physics… no so with gods. When someone stops believing in gods they do not replace that with physics… they just stop bothering with gods as an explanation for the way the world works. Every believer believes the laws of physics – they have to. You’re being obtuse if you think that dropping gods from the basket of possible answers means a person has replaced god with physics.
If you explain the world with just Gods and you dismiss physics because it’s physics thus not from God, you stop believing in God and then believe in physics I think it’s a replacement.
Your argument is not completely true. Religion can be in some cases necessary to live, there are for example drug addicts who get help from churches and who don’t get sufficient help from gouvernments or medical care, thus religion can be a way of survival.
In contrary to what you claim there is scientific research which actually shows that there were cases in which there was possibly telepathy, but they can’t be sure of course because the experiments need a foundation. You can look up Rupert Sheldrake, Dean Radin and Brian D. Josephson, who are some examples of researchers in this field. Rupert Sheldrake had an experiment which was redone by a sceptic who didn’t believe him, he got the same results, just gave a different explanation which wasn’t really in line with logic.
Now your argument about world-view:
A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society’s knowledge and point-of-view, including natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.[
I really don’t get why atheism is NOT a worldview according to you? Atheism is not a religion? I agree!! But not a world-view? How is it not in line with this text?
Religion might be a way of survival for some people but it is NOT necessary for life. You didn’t address the point I was making with this comparison. Are you here to simply argue? It seems to be all you’re doing.
Do you also believe that not playing golf is a sport? Abstinence is a sex position? Do you think bald is a hair color?
Atheism is not a world view.
Like I thought, you have no evidence that telepathy exists, not even weak evidence. So all the quantum mechanics stuff was just mumbo jumbo… boogity boogity boo
Like I thought you have no evidence that telepathy exists? Come on man, I give you reference to several researchers and you simply say: mumbo jumbo blablabla. You didn’t even check them obviously. According to Cambridge scientists you are wrong in your claim that there is no evidence. Check this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-403814/Telepathy-does-exists-claims-Cambridge-scientist.html
Furthermore, about world view:
fundamental cognitive orientation of an INDIVIDUAL or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society’s knowledge and point-of-view, including natural philosophy; fundamental, EXISTENTIAL, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.
If your cognitive orientation is not thinking about the existence of Gods, that is a possible point-of-view.
Ok, tit for tat, you quote the daily mail and I’ll quote the guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/sep/06/uknews1
A point of view is not a world view. Not believing in gods is not a world view. Period.
world·view noun \-ˌvyü\
: the way someone thinks about the world
point of view
: a position or perspective from which something is considered or evaluated
You are right, because a point of view can be within someones worldview, but a world of view is not a point of view. Wikipedia may be wrong in that..
Furthermore, I still don’t have your argument why atheism isn’t a way in which someone thinks about the world, which is the definition of a worldview. Explain.
Try to understand that for many people, not believing in god is like not playing chinese checkers. It’s not even a part of their world view. No two atheists are guaranteed to have the same world view. There are no sects of atheism. It is a single topic point of view.
I do not consider the existence of god in all that I do. For the most part it doesn’t even come to the fore. It’s a fact, just like cars have wheels. I drive every day but I don’t spend any time thinking about wheels.
Not believing in gods is not a guiding principle in my life, just like not believing in the Buddha is not a guiding principle in my life. Your insistence that my world view is atheism is completely wrong.
Is not believing in “Nephi” your world view?
If your occupations are to disprove christianity I think that atheism can become a world view actually. The guiding principle in life of someone whose goal it is to disprove christianity is the disbelief in christianity and showing why it is not true. Of course only a small percent of atheists are like this.
You are mistaken if you think I only speak against christianity. It is but one version of the plague like thinking that infests humanity.
My goal is to oppose delusion and promote critical thinking. religious thinking is deluded, dangerous, and counterproductive. The advancement of humanity and its further safety depends on ridding ourselves of dangerous and deluded ideologies.
Theistic thinking has never produced new information or done anything (net value) to promote the health of our species. It is currently the single most detrimental organization on the planet (religion taken as a whole)
The methods and mechanisms which allow humans to think in this way are both necessary and dangerous. Theism is an error in the programming. It needs to be corrected.
If religion hasn’t contributed anything to health, how do you explain the circumcision which protects the foreskin? It’s particularly a ritual which is present in religion.
You had to do that, had to go there. circumcision is child genital mutilation with no proven record of improving health. Billions of men have lived their entire lives with foreskin in tact and did not die of foreskin related health issues. You clearly have either not read up on this issue or simply don’t want to believe the facts.
More children die every year because of circumcisions than die because they didn’t have a circumcision. Your statement is insultingly stupid.
This is from an article of The Wallstreet Journal:
While many factors likely influence circumcision rates, part of the decline occurred after 1999, when the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement saying the potential medical benefits of neonatal circumcision weren’t strong enough to recommend it as a routine procedure. The group shifted its stance last year, however, saying newer studies indicate the health benefits of circumcision do outweigh the risks and that parents should be told of its protective effects.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324798904578531063301112102.html
There are benefits for healths in circumcision which is probably the reason why people use it within religion. In my opinion religion is just an evolutionary process which benefits strength of groups, examples of evolutionary benefits is how the Islamic world has conquered other nations using their religion. It’s one form in which evolution expresses itself, humanism will probably have a greater effect in the future, because of education and television, which are the most important tools of humanism.
I ‘m not religious and since religion is just a process within evolution is one of the reasons, there are other elements in society which will most likely surpass religion in an evolutionary perspective.
http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=488e687276f346699601a0275fc5827b&pi=2
It does not improve health if it kills you.
You have strange ideas about religion. The reason people use it in religion is because their god is a blood thirsty maniac. Have you read the Christian bible? There is no sound medical advice in there, nor in the Koran. The best practical medical advice related to holy texts is don’t give the medical advice in a holy text any value at all.
Yes I have read the Christian bible and I agree that JHWH sounds like a blood thirsty maniac in some parts.
My ideas about religion aren’t strange at all, there are evolutionists who agree with me that religion has benefits in an evolutionary perspective.
So did the black plague. Your turn.
This reply doesn’t make sense.
By the way, the only religion which I like is buddhism, since most buddhists aren’t acting like fags like I see a lot among christians, muslims and atheists.
I’m going to assume that you are not calling people names in a bigoted way, and that there is some translation of fag that is not derogatory where you live.
I was referring to the way in which people of these religions are dealing with eachother in discussions.
By the way, I didn’t come to argue because I want to argue, I came to provide arguments because I don’t agree with everything you say.
What on earth are you on about? Atheists share exactly one commonality: non belief in gods or a god. Everything else is up for grabs.
Yes, atheists tend to respect reality. Yes, atheists tend to respect what reality tells us is true about it. Yes, atheists tend to respect knowledge. Yes, atheists tend to respect people as people with dignity. Yes, atheists tend to respect good reasoning. By default, then, anything that falls into any of these categories tend to be supported by atheists.
New Atheists share another commonality: to stop privileging any kind of faith-based belief in the public domain because it deserves none. It deserves condemnation. Loudly. Non stop. With gusto. New Atheists spend time and effort and money to point out where and how and why faith-based thinking is a cumulative negative force in the world that produces compelling evidence that it is anti-reality, anti-truth, anti-knowledge, anti-human, anti-dignity, and anti-reason. Empowering faith-based thinking with respect means empowering a method of inquiry that is antithetical to producing knowledge and benefit to the public good. Religious belief in the public domain is particularly loathsome because it has a long and rich history of fostering misogyny, bigotry, and discrimination contrary to the enlightened principles of legal equality and human dignity and reason in the name of piety that causes real harm to real people in real life. In addition, investing respect for any product of this faith-based methodology is a guaranteed way to fool one’s self because its goal has never, is not now, and will never be concerned with what’s true. It’s goal is to presume authority it does not possess by merit. New Atheists are convincing the next generation to stop being as gullible as those who now swell the ranks of faith-based believers into a majority. Non belief is on the rise, thanks in large part to the efforts and dedication of New Atheists. That’s why the internet is where religions (and other forms of woo and Oogity Boogity and POOF!ism) come to die.
The reason why I said that atheism is not adhered among the general population is because of the huge influence of protestant christianity in the United States. Maybe in Europe atheism is on the rise, especially in Northern Europe, but definitely NOT in the United States.
Let me correct myself. It is on the rise in the United States, but it isn’t adhered by the general population. In the whole world about 2% is atheist.
Au contraire, mon ami. not only is atheism on the rise in the US, but the growth of the ‘Nones’ (the Not-Religiously-Affiliated) is approaching a third of people under the age of 35). From PEW:
“One important factor behind the growth of the religiously unaffiliated is generational replacement, the gradual supplanting of older generations by newer ones. Among the youngest Millennials (those ages 18-22, who were minors in 2007 and thus not eligible to be interviewed in Pew Research Center surveys conducted that year), fully one-third (34%) are religiously unaffiliated, compared with about one-in-ten members of the Silent Generation (9%) and one-in-twenty members of the World War II-era Greatest Generation (5%). Older Millennials (ages 23-30) also are substantially less likely than prior generations to be religiously affiliated.
But generational replacement is not the only factor at play. Generation Xers and Baby Boomers also have become more religiously unaffiliated in recent years. In 2012, 21% of Gen Xers and 15% of Baby Boomers describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated, up slightly (but by statistically significant margins) from 18% and 12%, respectively, since 2007. The trend lines for earlier generations are essentially flat. Not only are young adults less likely to be affiliated than their elders, but the GSS shows that the percentage of Americans who were raised without an affiliation has been rising gradually, from about 3% in the early 1970s to about 8% in the past decade.”
Interesting information. Thanks for the link. Concerning the world population the percentage of atheists isn’t very high though. 2.3% of world population is atheist. Now I get my fault, I was confusing world population with America I think.
Source: wiki.answers
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_atheists_are_there_in_the_world
A 2005 survey published in Encyclopedia Britannica found that the non-religious made up about 11.9% of the world’s population, and atheists about 2.3%.
Yes, we certainly have our work cut out for us. But don’t forget that much of the world’s population is legally obligated to identify with a faith (and face charges of blasphemy and apostasy should they deviate from this). Whether or not many of these folk do believe in god or gods is still an open question. But what we do know is that as enlightenment values become fixed and economies improve, religious affiliations decline (as do a host of negative social behaviours). And we know in the West that the younger the generation, the least affiliated they are and the higher the rates of identifying as an atheist. This rate continues to increase and in many Western countries are now the vast majority.
I don’t understand one thing though. Among people who are Wiccans there are often very peaceful people, but they believe in some kind of God, although they have the same kinds of morals as atheists. How to explain that?
Morality does not come from gods. It is a human construct. I understand the law of reciprocity to be the base of all morality. Morality existed before any religion and it will outlast them.
Religions pretend that they give out morals. They don’t, they merely declare which ones they enshrine/enforce.
This is a thing in which I can agree. Nature is just amoral and because of evolution it was profitable to develop morals because we can maintain a big group of people to stay together and survive. It brings more profit than no-morality because if people have no morals they destroy stuff which isn’t profitable for the society as a whole.
I have difficulty declaring all of nature amoral as that denotes negative connotation. Human ethics directly relates to survival. You can see acts in the animal kingdom which appear to be ethical.
The difficulty is that we humans live in ethical perspectives. We can’t easily see a world without ethical boundaries, and we have through tradition skewed any sense of starting point.
Is it unethical to eat the flesh of a house cat?
In the US it might be thought so but there is no reason to think it unethical. Without the sense of a starting point it is easy for religion to say that morality comes from a god.
Your example shows ethics as nothing more than cooperative behavior with many layers of tradition on top of it.
If ethics isn’t more than cooperative behavior with many layers of tradition, how would you define it? If you want to make more out of it, you will very quickly find religion as an explanation of which I don’t think that it has a direct relationship with morals. I think that religion may be a tool of evolution to impose certain morals and also a tool for elite groups to have power over groups.
Ethics are part of cooperative behavior because groups which aren’t ethical don’t survive in the end and can’t stay together, because they don’t cooperate. Look at certain countries in the Middle East or North Korea, in the case of North Korea they are isolated, they don’t cooperate, they don’t show ethics and their population is in crap. Not really benefits in an evolutionary perspective. Look at the west, we work together and we have all kinds of profits.
I think your comparison of east/west may be flawed, but I understand your point.
Cooperative behavior with layers of tradition on it all that ethics is. There really are no objective good and bad, there is only survive and die and behaviors which make the former more likely or not. We call them good/bad or moral but its just one form or another of cooperation where the overarching goal is survival of the species.
In this way we get that killing people who help us is bad but killing people who hurt us is good. It is why you can’t simply say it is unethical to kill.
Well, I think that doing that to people who hurt is is bad too, because once you know the origin of them hurting is, you might realize that they have problems too and that it’s better to help them than to hurt them too.
Well, there are cases where that is true… but try explaining that to the people in Syria right now….. see what I mean?
I think that there are different levels of morality.
Buddha is one of the people who reached the highest level of morality, having compassion with everyone and every creature which, if everyone would do that, would be in an evolutionary perspective the most awesome thing to happen. That is also the reason why people want that, why people become buddhist and why we think it is good. Gandhi was also a bit like Buddha.
Secondly you would have Jesus Christ, showing a lot of morals in comparison with the Old Testament God (of which christians claim that they are the saim but I think they are different). Jesus shows a lot of moral behaviour, but there is still a division with other people in some aspects.
Thirdly you have the loving humanists and other normal people who, when is needed would use violence and do bad stuff.
On the fourth place you have normal people, acting normal and liking people until there is something what they don’t like and they will not like others anymore and mess with them.
Fifth place would be between bad and normal, normal people who are regularly showing bad behaviour but are conforming to the society and participate in it.
Sixth place is both criminals and psychopaths (who aren’t necessarily criminals), people with no morals either because they only want self-gain and they don’t want survival of humanity as a whole or because they simply don’t have any understanding of morality.
What you have there is a spectrum of human behavior. The need or desire to cooperate is not equal in all people.
I’m also guessing that you haven’t figured out that the Buddhists in Tibet aren’t all that peaceful.
You’re missing the point that when it comes down to survival, morals change. The ethical behavior of a person will change when survival is in the balance. So when you categorize people you are placing static boundaries on ethics … it is wrong to do so.
I know that there are buddhists in Japan who joined fighters in the Second World War, but of course you have different movements in Buddhism. You have Islamic movements which are the complete opposite of the original too.
These ethics are actually in a certain form also present in other societies like some ancient ones, although ethics change depending on survival there is a process in which people change. People in the western world have lost a lot of agressive and violent behaviour and we became, what we call ‘civilized’. Even if there is a changing situation, the changes throughout centuries have changed us in such a way that it will develop only further. What you say by the way is automatically balanced, in the Second World War morals changed, but immediately there was a swing to what we consider as good morals after the war. Under normal circumstances people don’t show bad behaviour.
ethical behavior is directly related to survival – except in rare cases where the brain is not functioning in a ‘normal’ manner. There are people who are unethical most of the time and some people who will die rather than be unethical. In general, the closer you are to dead the less you care to behave ethically.
When the probability of survival is high, people find it easy to be more ethical to more people. Wait till the food supply dwindles and watch what happens to moral behavior.
Yes, I agree.
Religion’s input to morality is just a layer of tradition on top of a much older pattern of cooperative behaviors.
Religion was a way to explain the world with the limited knowledge available. Knowledge has increased – religion never produced valid information. Anything it got right it copied from other human constructs.
As a story, the christian bible is epic, but its a work of fiction. Dan Brown’s novels include real historical places and people but they too are works of fiction.
Where religion is shown to appear to have helped societies survive you can see on analysis that it was simply used as a tool to enforce cooperative behavior. It wasn’t that long ago that you could be killed for not belonging to the right religious group.
It can be argued that enforced cooperation of any kind would have worked in most of the same situations. It just happens that religion was the tool of choice till science came along to show it to be wrong.
History shows us that there were a string of revolutions throughout Europe etc. which threw off the burden of state run churches and kings/tyrants. The church (collective) lost power and continues to do so not because there is evil in the world but because the tool of choice is now information and communication. Religion does not have new information and does not communicate anything outside of its static information that is 2000+ years old. Religion can no longer control the people. New tools will be used.
Religion is dying because it is wrong and dangerous to those who used to use it as control. It won’t be long before the US figures out how much tax money is just given to churches… Italy already did. Religion is already useless, and absolutely because it has no new information, no credible evidence, no control. The crimes of the clergy are too great to forgive them and far outweigh the good done by the church in the general consciousness of society. The net effect is that the church is dangerous and wrong.
In two generations there will be few people still working who actively go to church here in the US. By 2030 this conversation we’ve had will seem silly. Between now and then all manner of believer will be praying to their god to come and set things right, but it won’t happen and you yourself know it won’t.
There is no god.
Most people – religious and non religious – are peaceful. What we share is our common humanity. The answers we seek about the basis for morals, therefore, will be found in our shared biology and not our fractious religious beliefs.
Well said, sir.
Excellent!
Wow, I didn’t see that one coming :0
Thanks for reading.
You are welcome, What’s good is good