November 29, 2007

God, And Why We Don't Need It Anymore

Since human ancestors first looked up at a majestic eagle soaring gracefully over a snow covered mountain top and thought "i wonder what that tastes like", we have been asking questions and seeking answers.

For primitive man this presented some difficulties. While he was able to ask the questions how did i get here, what is that bright circle in the sky and why do i stick to the ground he had absolutely no way of answering them. So he done what any primitive mind unable to answer questions would do, He invented gods. He invented thousands of them. Some primitives invented one all encapsulating god to answer every question and other primitives invented a god for each question.

After the invention of gods it didn't take long for leaders and bullies to realize that gods can also be used to control people if the people thought that god doesn't just make the sun rise, but he also has a set of arbitrary rules that wants us to follow which have been "revealed" to a select few. Rules like cutting your childs penis, Not eating sometimes and hating gays. At which point we found our species infected with the cancer we now call religion.

In todays society we don't need god in an explanatory sense. The only people who find answers in god are the people are lack the intelligence to understand the answers science has given them (given with no threat of eternal punishment or eternal subservience). We know what the bright circle in the sky is, We know how we got here, We know why we stick to the ground and we know what an eagle tastes like.

Since we don't need god in an explanatory sense anymore how can faith based businesses (churches) get people to continue to believe in god and hand over their money? it's simple. All they have to do is turn god from something that provides answers in to something that is just itching for you to mess up so he can send you to hell forever.

Just like children the religious not only find comfort in fictitious entities but they can also be controlled through fear of punishment.

So next time you are in church hearing about all the rules your god wants you to follow, How he wants you to have sex with your wife, What days you can eat on and how to mutilate your childs genitals ask yourself this very simple question;
Does this sound like something the creator of the universe would be concerned with, or does it sound like something invented by the depraved mind of a man intent on controlling a subservient population?

The answer will be clear, Even if you lack the courage or honesty to admit it.

33 comments:

  1. It's funny. You really blow the "mutilation of the genitals" thing out of proportion. It's not like they are cutting the entire thing off or anything.

    In todays society we don't need god in an explanatory sense.

    I disagree. There are many large gaps in evolution, and we need to figure out where that little spec that started the big bang came from, and we need to figure out where life came from. The experiment where they animated the mud was flawed. It was in an enclosed chamber, it was only shocked once, they did not use the right consistency of water, and they only got the building blocks, still nothing that can come together on its own to create a bacteria.

    Not eating sometimes and hating gays.

    Fasting is supposed to help bring us closer to god. Now your second point is interesting, but wrong. In the original hebrew, which is what we need to study the bible in, it never mentions hating gays or anything like that.

    The only people who find answers in god are the people are lack the intelligence to understand the answers science has given them

    So, Darwin, Newton, and Einstein all lacked intelligence?

    in to something that is just itching for you to mess up so he can send you to hell forever.

    No, He actually does not want to send anyone into hell forever. Actually, some sects of Islam (and I will admit I believe this too) believe that hell is temporary. You stay until you are "cleansed."

    Does this sound like something the creator of the universe would be concerned with, or does it sound like something invented by the depraved mind of a man intent on controlling a subservient population?

    I do ask myself that often. That is why I agree with the Catholic Church on some points and disagree with it on others.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes there are some aspects of the universe we need to figure out. Are you saying that when we do figure them out you will discard your beliefs? If not, don't use it as your excuse for believing now.


    Einstein and Darwin were most definitely not religious. Darwin was brought up christian but denounced it, Einstein's "god" was simply the universe and newton was born in 1643, He didn't know any better.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh for Odin's sake Matt I have never read a more childish interpretation of religion. Did you have some bad experience of Christianity when you were a child.

    I have never been to a church where they tell you how to have sex with your wife and mutilate your childs genitals or what I can eat and when. These are rituals performed by people where they are more political rituals wrapped up in the idea of religion than anything - much the same as we did in the west in days of old. In fact when I was a lad (1970's) I narrowly escaped circumcision as my mother and father thought it was barbaric. This went against the established dogma of the medical world at the time (yes a science based one not some voodoo doctor before you ask) as they said it was more hygenic and was safer this of course was rubbish (oooh science got it wrong).

    Science does not answer the questions of where I come from or why we are here unless you are a materialist and a reductionist. If I ask the question where was I before I was concieved? or why am I here? There is no answer. Now to a materialist reductionist the answer is there is no reason I am here and I did not exist before I was concieved. This is a belief however, not Fact (some people on this blog can't tell the difference). Materialist science has not answered these questions only philosophised just as the religious have. However, in certain areas of religion, physics and psychology people have postulated that conciousness is continuous this again is belief but it is no more or less proven than the materialist reductionist world view.

    Many Scientists do not believe the materialist reductionist worldview even though certain umentionable messianic scientists say this is expressly forbidden.

    Yes I totally agree the church has used and abused the ideas to control people and we all know most of these establisments are an anachronism but modern religion seems to be more about dogma than spirituality just like Dawkins et al's ideas are about dogma not science. I mean Lord Richards (all praise his name) ideas on evolution, which are based on 'the selfish gene' view of evolution are not even facts they are theories. Many scientists believe evolution works on many levels not just on the gene. Many ideas concerning the evolution of behaviour in animals are explained using the environment selecting genes for behaviour or even behaviour being learned and then the behaviour being favoured by the environment and nothing to do with genes. So evolution may be true (which I personally believe that it is) but the details of it are still way in the air.

    Matt I think you need to read some more and be a little open minded about your beliefs.
    To reiterate what I have said before Science has not proven anything about god or religion, despite what the Atheists say, It really is how you interpret things.

    And I will leave you with a great quote of Einstein the great Agnostic.

    "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ... a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist."

    and the great Agnostic Darwin

    'I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind'.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Are you saying that when we do figure them out you will discard your beliefs?

    No, you just said that we don't need it anymore to explain stuff. If there is ever irrefutable evidence that there is no god, I will stop believing.

    Einstein's "god" was simply the universe

    No. Einstein said "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." So he believed in a god, just not a personal god.

    Darwin was brought up christian but denounced it.

    "However, at the time of writing On the Origin of Species he remained a theist, convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause"

    newton was born in 1643, He didn't know any better

    but you said "The only people who find answers in god are the people are lack the intelligence to understand the answers science has given them" He obviously understood the answers science gave him, but he still believed. At what point in history did we not need god? If there was a specific point, then why do people still believe today? It is not because they are all stupid, is it? Otherwise, Newton was stupid, and so was Darwin, and so was Einstein.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Einstein said;
    "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated."

    A lie you are continuing to tell in true filthy christian style.

    He also said;
    "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Matt I think you will find he said that after being repeatedly accused of worshipping a judeo-christian god.
    he also said
    "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic"
    I think to say he was an atheist is a lie you are continuing to tell in true filthy atheistic style.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated."

    Of course, out of context, like you put it, it could also mean him being an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Are you saying in the quote he could be referring to claims that he is atheist?

    please say yes, I would love to expose your intellectual dishonesty one more time.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Are you saying in the quote he could be referring to claims that he is atheist?

    No, no, no. I'm not claiming that it could be that. I'm just saying that just like how you skewed it to sound like it was all religion, not just judeo-christian as di pointed out, so I could do the same thing. That's what I was saying. Also, would you mind using your "superior logic" to debate my points and not just pick and choose?

    ReplyDelete
  10. So you are ignoring the bit where he said;
    "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

    He is clearly explaining that his "god" and any references he makes to "god" is nothing more than a reference to the universe and it's workings as a science.

    ReplyDelete
  11. He is clearly explaining that his "god" and any references he makes to "god" is nothing more than a reference to the universe and it's workings as a science.

    You are right on this point. You have still failed to adequately explain Darwin or Newton. Or other points in this and other posts.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I have explained them, You just lack the honesty to accept it.

    Darwin denounced Christianity and god(s) entirely when his daughter died and he died an atheist (and no he didn't repent on his death bed, and neither did anyone else) and Newton was living in a time where science had very little to offer in a way of an explanation. It was 400 years ago.

    I don't even know why i am wasting time answering these facile questions. I clearly said "In TODAYS society we don't need god in an explanatory sense".

    but don't let facts get in the way of you misrepresenting the dead.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Darwin denounced Christianity and god(s) entirely when his daughter died and he died an atheist

    Actually, he died an agnostic. A, as you put it, "fence sitting coward"

    I don't even know why i am wasting time answering these facile questions.

    I know that feeling.

    "In TODAYS society we don't need god in an explanatory sense"

    O.K. let's say we don't need it to explain away things like what the big glowing disk in the sky is. Why can't we still believe in god to have an afterlife?

    Newton was living in a time where science had very little to offer in a way of an explanation. It was 400 years ago.

    No, they knew much more than you give them credit for. They didn't know the fine details, but they knew about genes being passed down and all that stuff.

    IF we don't need a god today, we didn't need it back then.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Matt if you ever read anything about Newton, Darwin or Einstein you would not think they were Atheists. Darwin did reject christianity but he also rejected the idea he was an atheist as I said if anything he was Agnostic. Newton may have been a brilliant scientist but was way out there on the religion front even for his time he was an alchemist and believed in all manner of hocus pocus. He also changed the way God was percieved and in those days was a very dangerous thing. he also warned of looking at the universe in purely materialistic way as modern science does. Einstein may have been a scientist but he was also had a very spiritual personality and would never restrict himself to atheism he also was a devout Agnostic that believed in science not religious dogma. In fact he would probably have agreed that science has to be agnostic otherwise it is in danger of becoming a religion like Dawkinsism

    ReplyDelete
  15. A "devout agnostic"?
    WTF is that?

    ReplyDelete
  16. He *really* wasn't sure and nothing could shake his indecisiveness.

    This is the kind of nonsense language religious apologists use. And don't let Di trick you, He isn't agnostic. he's a deist and a christian apologist.

    Have a look at the ratio between his defence of christianity and his defence of Islam. For someone who "isn't sure" he is certainly sure of which cause to defend.

    ReplyDelete
  17. A devout agnostic is someone who does not mind saying they are a religious believer in agnosticism just like Einstein. Are you two (Karen and Matt) not devout atheists? ooh maybe there is a little doubt maybe you are Agnostics bloody fence sitting cowards. Bring it on I can defend anything from such ignorance as is put on this site. I am not sure I defend any religion and if this was a fundamentalist christian site I would defend atheism so maybe I defend all religions from ignorance. I am certainly not an apologist for anything. I a more like Einstein (except in brains obviously) in beliefs almost a religious belief in nature.
    The real trouble here is you equate religion with belief in God(s) etc this is why you cannot see atheism as a religion as you hold it in some high regard much the same way the church used to hold its faith. What makes a good scientist is someone who questions everything not accept what they are told. As the great Buddah (although I am not sure there was only one buddah) once said
    One should not accept anything with mere faith; but one should use one’s common sense and intelligence before accepting anything.
    See am also a buddhist apologist.

    ReplyDelete
  18. No i'm not a devout atheist. I'm not more atheist that anyone else who doesn't believe in god. You either believe or you don't, If you don't then you are atheist.

    There aren't degrees of disbelief or rules one must follow.

    It's just another attempt from a christian apologist to muddy the waters and drag us down to their level. Atheism IS NOT a religion, Just like bald isn't a hair colour and health isn't a disease. Atheism is a conclusion, Not a faith.

    We have you figured out Di, You are a deceitful fraud. I have been looking around your comments made on this blog and i found something very interesting. Every last one of them was made in defence of christianity. Not once have you defended any other religion. So like i say, For someone who "isn't sure" you certainly know what side you are on.

    Grow a pair and pick a position you coward.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh well done Matt, your impeccable logic is managing to put 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5 again. Since visiting this site, I was an agnostic fence-sitting coward and then an agnostic atheist, and now I am a deist and a christian apologist. I think you will find by me pointing out the crater size holes in your atheist fundamentalism does not make me a christian. After all, if I oppose communism it does not make me a fascist. Furthermore, in regard to picking a position I seem to remember that this was not a war as pointed out by a previous argument, so why is it cowardice to not pick a position? I don't think I am a coward for sticking by what I believe in. It is more cowardly to hide behind your beliefs and throw stones at the people you seem to have quite an intolerance (bordering on hatred) for. Is this a deep seated fear of religion that this hides or are you in denial?. The psychologist Carl Jung once said 'if those negative qualities you judge, were not also a part of you, then they would not trigger your emotions'. So maybe you are a closet christian.

    ReplyDelete
  20. devout
    1. Devoted to religion or to the fulfillment of religious obligations. See Synonyms at religious.
    2. Displaying reverence or piety.
    3. Sincere; earnest: devout wishes for their success.

    I guess you could use the third definition of devout to describe my atheism, but certainly not the first two.

    There is no degree of strength to my atheism. I simply don't believe.
    It's not possible to have more disbelief or less disbelief. There is simply disbelief.

    But my disbelief is sincere. I am definitely not faking it.

    And no, di agnostic, no doubts here.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Just gonna chime in here, hope you guys don't mind.

    It's not possible to have more disbelief or less disbelief.

    Yes you can have more or less. You can be like "I am 100% sure there is no god" or "I am a good 80% sure there is no god."

    In both cases you disbelieve correct? One you disbelieve more than the other. One of them is more rational because you can never be 100% sure of anything. Am I 100% sure that I am worshiping correctly? No, I'm not. In fact, chances are I am worshiping incorrectly. We can never know everything, so saying you are 100% sure about something like god is a logical fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  22. d
    LOL
    If I am 80% sure in disbelief, then I am a doubter, not an atheist. That would make me a theist who wasn't sure about my beliefs.

    Disbelief is disbelief, period.

    Apply it to Santa Claus, or Leprechauns, or invisible flying unicorns if it helps you understand better.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ok Karen you got me on the meaning of devout - piety does not apply to atheism. I actually took it to mean devotion to your stance and used a word normally related to religion for the sake of effect. I don't believe you doubt your position, neither do I really believe Matt does either. I do however think there are levels of disbelief. There are people who don't care, there are people who will describe themselves as atheist so they don't have to talk to jehovahs witnesses, mormons etc when they come calling but really are agnostic, There are those that are atheists who feel they need to denegrate other peoples beliefs (just like christians, muslims, creationists etc) and others who create dogmas such as communism,, there are people who are atheists because they hate religion so much, there are material atheists who use science as a basis for their beliefs (yes a conclusion they come to),and there is zen buddhism.
    You disbelieve 100%? you see this is where I don't understand atheism and atheists what makes you disbelieve with such commitment . I have probably seen all the same evidence for religion and atheism as you yet I find it bewildering why anyone would buy into atheism or religion no disrespect to you or d. I can understand people who are atheists because they can't be bothered to think about it or people who are spiritual who don't follow any particular faith. To me I just couldn't be bothered. I don't believe in evolution 100 percent as I think there is much we don't yet know as there is still so much mystery surrounding it and I am a biologist.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Good points, kinda splitting hairs, but goos points. I know when I am wrong and I have been proven wrong.

    But in the end.... can't we all just get along?? Is it really necessary to tell people that they are wrong if they are just sitting in their house praying?? They aren't hurting anyone. If I said I believed in invisible flying unicorns (which would be totally sick, by the way. I mean "A plane crashed today due to puncture wounds in the aircraft. Nobody is sure how it happened, but the culprit left unicorn shaped holes where they entered and exited." Besides the whole everyone dying, totally hilarious) would you really try convincing me? Or would you just be like "Ok crazy, believe what you want." Now I am not saying I am crazy, but I think you understand what I am getting at.

    ReplyDelete
  25. di agnostic

    Your first paragraph is not describing the degree of belief a person has, but rather the degree of fervor to which s/he chooses to express it, and possible reasons why a person might choose atheism (though you neglect the most common rational thought path).

    Communism is not dependent upon atheism as a base.

    Yes I disbelieve 100%, a complete 180 turn from when I was a believer . If anyone can show me evidence of any god, I will consider it, but as yet I have not seen any.

    One does not have to believe in evolution. Evolution is.

    ReplyDelete
  26. d

    But in the end.... can't we all just get along?? Is it really necessary to tell people that they are wrong if they are just sitting in their house praying??

    No, it's not necessary to tell anyone they're wrong for sitting in their house praying. That's EXACTLY where you belong. There or in the church of your choice. Not at a PTA meeting or at City Council meeting or at a football game or at a graduation ceremony.

    Your praisings of your god do not belong on the national currency, or in the national pledge or in the courthouses or in the public schools.

    So sure, we can get along. Just keep religion private and out of the public square. Don't ring your bell in my face when I'm going into a store, and I won't get in your face. Simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Your praisings of your god do not belong on the national currency, or in the national pledge or in the courthouses or in the public schools.

    Hey its not my fault that was put on the currency. I personally don't care weather or not its on there. Doesn't bother me at all. I personally believe prayer is supposed to be more within yourself. I personally believe that God will grant you more for being kind to others than he will for worshiping correctly. Cause in the end, if god really is as massive and omnipotent as we say he is, we can't know everything, so we have to be doing something wrong. So, I know I am wrong, but I don't care. I think I am more right than pretty much any organized religion.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Well Karen I think Evolution in its current form is a belief based on scientific evidence, it is a theory (I am speaking in strictly scientific terms). I think even Dawkins would admit that evolution is far from completely understood. He would say there is overwhelming evidence for it but then there was overwhelmming evidence the world was flat in the olden days.

    I think Communism does need no god at its centre as if it admitted there was a god then it would have to justify some of its ideas in the face of god-It was a way of redefining society without god at its centre.

    All of the ways of describing atheists I listed above are degrees of belief. What I am trying to say is most people are only atheists because they can't be bothered to think about it so in fact are agnostics. But you say you are 100 percent atheist so you have obviously thought about it so to me you are more of a believer in atheism than someone like me. Darwin was a Christian but then rejected it same as you but that did not make him an atheist it made him an agnostic in his own words. Darwin rejected the prevailing christian idea of god but did not give up on the idea of god. my personal view is he escaped like you did from the dogma of christianity and saw you don't have to be a christian to be a good person and became indifferent to belief in god.

    Sorry to be pedantic I am not religious but I wouldn't call myself an atheist because I think it has become another dogma and is in danger of replacing christianity with more of the same. To me live and let live is my motto. Its a pity all of the fundamentalists can't see it that way (I include many atheists here)

    The reason why there is religious symbolism on the American currency and throughout society is because it is still a christian culture (I am not saying thats a good thing). I think by saying no more religious symbolism on the currency as it offends atheists such as yourself is like saying no more nativity at christmas as it is insulting to other religions.
    The nativity does not represent anything religious TO ME (as I am not religious) it is a symbol of hope, goodwill and peace and all that (I can see through the religious part), which are fine sentiments no matter what you believe. I would rather have that than some sterile politically correct equivalent that offends nothing but our intelligence.

    You see in the end most people don't care whether something is religious or not they make up their own mind. Only religious people and atheists do so what is the difference between the two.

    ReplyDelete
  29. diagnostic
    Yes there is overwhelming evidence for evolution and it is indeed a scientific theory. If you want to insist on calling its current form a belief system, that's your prerogative. I doubt very much that anything I say will change your mind. Nor would anything I say change your mind about communism as it relates to atheism, so I won't beat that horse either.

    Atheism still has a great stigma attached to it, so I doubt whether those who can't be bothered thinking about it would claim an atheist label over an agnostic one.

    It is difficult to be a believer in atheism, since there is nothing to believe in. There are no rites, no rituals, no rules, no dogma. There is just a disbelief in any gods. You seem not to want to accept this, but you are not the atheist. Matt and I are, and we are telling you this is the way it is.

    The nativity does not represent anything religious TO ME (as I am not religious) it is a symbol of hope, goodwill and peace and all that (I can see through the religious part)
    You contradict yourself here, first saying the nativity represents nothing religious to you, then saying you see though the religious part. Having been brought up in the Christian religion, I know first-hand what an important tool the nativity is in the xian arsenol. They will fight to have it erected where it is not wanted, so how can it represent peace and goodwill?

    Only religious people and atheists do so what is the difference between the two.

    Believe it or not, atheists have everyones' rights in mind with a secularist platform. The religious who "care" are tilting toward a theocracy, and that is not in the best interests of "most people [who] don't care if something is religious or not". Or do you want the religious right telling you what you can do in bed or with your body, who you can marry and what you can watch on tv and what you can read, etc?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Karen

    I don't think I said evolution was a belief system although I may have infered it in previous posts to prove a point. I said it was a belief, but to use a scientific term a theory (which you can argue is an evidence based belief as opposed to a religious belief). I think Even the great Dawkins would concede if science came up with something that disproved evolution he would change his mind (so he believes in evolution). I see evolution as a way of explaining how life occurred on this planet that is all. If religious people have a problem with that then they can come up with a decent rebuttal which I don't believe they have.

    Look I am not trying to attack atheism when I talk about communism. I don't see communism as clinching proof that atheism is bad I don't think atheism is bad at all. I think communism is atheist but atheism isn't communism. What I am saying is the communists set up a state that was necessarily atheist with good intentions in mind (incidently I am not a communist) but it didn't work. because peoples interests get in the way in the end it ends up being another way of controlling people. Now I fear this militant atheism that we are seeing will go the same way because at its heart are philosophers with their own (atheist not secular) interests at heart. Thus replacing our dodgy christian ideals with just as dodgy atheist ones. I mean I have heard for the call to have atheism taught in religious education classes which is fine (eventhough ahem it is not a religion) but then you leave yourself wide open to ID being taught in science. secular ideas and humanism should be taught as a contrast to religion not as an alternative to it and children should be given the freedom to make up their own minds as I was.

    Maybe in America there is stigma attached to being an atheist but I think you will find most of the rest of western world have no problem with atheism and haven't for a long time. I certainly know people who call themselves atheist because its easier working in science if you do.

    Because you don't believe in gods or have any rituals etc does not make atheism without belief. You believe there is no god so conduct your life accordingly. I am sorry this is a belief. Like communism (I am not saying your a communist) at the heart of your life philosophy there is no god. the idea that there is no god is an unproven idea so you believe there is no god. Now there is nothing wrong with this whatsoever. What is wrong however, is saying there is no god full stop and then denigrating those that do believe in god as idiots because they don't know the truth like atheists do. This is exactly what christians did to other religions. I feel that the modern atheism movement is beginning to act like what it says is the truth when it is just an interpretation of the truth just like anyones beliefs.

    My comments about the nativity show that I can see past the religious dogma and see the sentiments behind it. I see your point about loony christians aswell. These people are mad and should be resisted also. If in my town they erected a nativity scene to show how dominant and right christianity is and nobody wanted it there then I would resist this because it then isn't a symbol of goodwill etc it is a symbol of control and domination. I don't think I contradicted myself at all.

    I do believe most atheists have everyones best interests at heart and it is right to resist a theocracy or any kind of despotic belief system. However, we live in a democracy where everyone should have freedom to believe what they wish as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. This was why in my younger days I supported secular atheismism (as this was its sentiment) but I feel as the pressure has mounted atheism has become just like its opponent - dogmatic and fundamentalist. And I distance myself from it but still believe in everyones right to believe what they wish.

    ReplyDelete
  31. di agnostic

    I believe (heheh) you are playing semantics with the definition of the word belief:

    1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
    2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
    3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

    synonyms belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer my belief that I had caught all the errors. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof an unshakable faith in God. credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent a theory now given credence by scientists. credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness.
    synonyms see in addition opinion

    This is the Merriam Webster definition, BTW.

    As regards evolution, definition # 3 would be involved. Same as with the sitting in the chair example offered previously. I agree that not only Dawkins, but any scientist worth his salt would not hesitate to throw the ToE into the trash bin if it were to be proven wrong. So far, no one has been able to do so.

    I mean I have heard for the call to have atheism taught in religious education classes which is fine (eventhough ahem it is not a religion) but then you leave yourself wide open to ID being taught in science.

    I have not heard such a call about atheism in religion classes, but it would be an awfully short lecture. It is the opposite of religion, without belief. It might come up in questioning; we can only hope.
    Maybe you've heard the saying, "if atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color" ?
    At any rate ID will never belong in a science class, because it is just...not...science.

    You believe there is no god so conduct your life accordingly.
    Which means what, exactly? I've often been mistaken for a model Christian. (Bleah)
    I understand what you are saying about militant atheism, and I think it is everyone's right to believe as they choose. But I also know from my own childhood that being indoctrinated into Christianity (or any other religion)can be a very dangerous situation for a child and I agree that it borders on child abuse. Children are not given the right to choose their very own thoughts. I will continue to speak out to let it be known there is a choice.

    And for those fundamentalist believers who insist on bringing their religion into the public square, I will keep challenging their beliefs publicly. All they have to do to get me to shut up about their faith being a delusion is to either bring forth proof, or to worship in private. I will still grieve for their children, but I can only hope that rational thought will one day break their chains.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Well Karen I agree with you on most of your points I think fundamentally we wish for the same things.

    But am sorry to say I still believe atheism is a belief whether you can see it or not. It is easy to say if atheism is a religion then bald is a hair colour because in essence atheism is trying to distance itself from religion and say it is an alternative. To me it offers the same thing as religion and to my cynical mind makes it a religion. Many atheists believe there is a vacuum left by the decline of christianity and it needs to be filled with scientific rationalism. I and many others however, don't feel this need. To me the end of christianity allows for free thinking and an escape from dogma not running to another one. Now all of this probably belongs on one of Matts other posts but it is more fitting in this debate but what I am trying to say is you have chosen not to believe in god and this is fine but that is your belief. This to me is one of the fundamental problems of the science vs religion debate (which is really atheism not science vs religion). People should keep their beliefs to themselves and not drag science into it. To say atheism is the opposite of religion is because it is without belief - what does that mean? you don't believe anything? Atheism means without belief in god. so what why does that make it a non-religion Zen buddhism is without belief also and atheistic but does that make it a non-religion no perhaps it is what happens to atheism when you take it to an extreme.

    Science has not proven the existence or non-existence of god it is way beyond its remit. Science could prove there is no material being that created the universe but even then it is still unlikely because unless it could show you were he lived it would be a difficult task. But as I understand it, no serious religion believes god is a material being he is a spiritual being. Now material science can say there is no such thing as the spirit world as there is no material evidence for one. But then there wouldn't be would there as it is not material so again science cannot comment. I am not saying there is a spirit world but there are people who say there is and indeed most of humanity believed in a spirit world in one form or another so I for one cannot say they are all wrong.

    Science has enabled atheism to come in from the very cold of intellectual void through the theory of evolution and given it some credence and has enabled it to flourish. But this is far from proving atheism is true. One of the fundamental arguments of atheism is that evolution contradicts the genesis stories of the bible ie creation and as there is overwhelming evidence for evolution and against creation so this particular religious myth does not hold up to scrutiny. However, this particular story is an ancient jewish creation myth and it was not until much later when it was transposed into western christianity did it become interpretted as literally true. If you know anything about mythology you will know myths are stories used to explain a particularly difficult idea to understand. In essence the idea of the blind watchmaker is a myth used superbly by RD to explain how the complexity of life arose by chance there is no blind watchmaker but that was not the point he was making. So in essence evolution proves Adam and Eve is not literally true. So from my point of view to say that evolution disproves religion is a myth believed by atheists. Many atheists say it is impossible to believe in science and religion as this is fence sitting cowardry but for many people they cannot see any contradiction between the two. Did you know the idea of the big bang was rejected by scientists initially as it gave credence to the idea that everything was created however, under closer scrutiny science was able to bring forth evidence that it was true. So atheists and materialists have to then make the philosophy fit the facts. Now atheism is able to do this much better than religion because it trusts science I will grant it that. To me as a scientist science is about exploring the nature of material phenomena - this is because these were the rules of science laid down during the enlightenment period in order to get rid of the magical thinking of the time. So atheism is not proven by science so it is a belief, ok religion maybe too strong a term to apply to atheism because of all the connotations the word religion invokes. But it is a belief about the nature of reality founded in scientific materialism.
    My whole problem with modern atheism is that it has dragged science into the atheism vs religion debate and made it science vs religion. to me atheism can argue with religion all it likes thats fine but to tarnish science with beliefs is beyond the pale and it is why I am a critic of atheism, creationism and ID. If atheism can be science then so can ID it is just two ways of looking at things. This would mean the end of science for me. Atheism may have rescued science from religion but now science needs to rescue itself from atheism.

    Living your life accordingly in the abscence of god means that all of your morals and motivations are not guided by a belief in god as opposed to being guided by a belief in god.

    ReplyDelete
  33. in essence atheism is trying to distance itself from religion and say it is an alternative.
    Well, it is an alternative, in the same way that not smoking is an alternative to smoking.

    Many atheists believe there is a vacuum left by the decline of christianity and it needs to be filled with scientific rationalism.
    Really? You know these atheists personally? Or are you conjecturing? Most atheists I know are hoping that rationalism will effect the decline of religion, but I have heard nothing about any vacuum needing to be filled. When a child learns there is no Santa Claus, you don't make up a new fanciful story for him to believe. He deals with the truth. So when people learn to set aside their delusions about religion, hopefully rational thought will be in its place, because that's how they came to the conclusion to set the delusion aside.

    To me the end of christianity allows for free thinking and an escape from dogma not running to another one.
    Exactly!!!

    Zen buddhism is without belief also and atheistic but does that make it a non-religion
    Not real familiar with it. Used to know a little about it, but have forgotten. Doesn't it have rituals and maintain you can reach a higher consciousness (buddha)?

    I am not saying there is a spirit world but there are people who say there is and indeed most of humanity believed in a spirit world in one form or another so I for one cannot say they are all wrong.
    You cannot say they are right either.
    Argument from popularity. If a million people say something is so, it doesn't actually make the thing so.

    But this is far from proving atheism is true.
    Atheism isn't true or not true. Atheism is a disbelief in gods.

    One of the fundamental arguments of atheism is that evolution contradicts the genesis stories of the bible
    Atheists will argue this, but it is NOT an argument of atheism. Atheism was around before evolution was discovered.

    My whole problem with modern atheism is that it has dragged science into the atheism vs religion debate and made it science vs religion. to me atheism can argue with religion all it likes thats fine but to tarnish science with beliefs is beyond the pale

    Where is this happening beside the debate about teaching ID in the public schools? And that IS a science vs religion issue. Or do you consider ID to be science?

    ReplyDelete