:D

it gets a lot more plausible if you factor in the whole bit where two of every species of animal on earth was loaded onto a handmade wooden barge just before the entire planet was flooded until it became a vast watery expanse.

it's seems to me an inescapable characteristic of the old testament universe that the human race is descended from some really rather ratty and inbred genes, if we all came from the same two characters (and one, as you say, was derived from the rib of the other).

embarking from such a genetic cul de sac, it's a wonder we aren't all hydrocephalic imbeciles at this juncture. but evidently the authors of the bible were no more aware of rudimentary genetics than they were that the sky wasn't a flat canopy over which a vast unseeable hierarchy of heaven could be inscribed. nor did they seem to know that the ground wasn't a flat firmament just barely containing the fires of a vast holy internment camp.

it's actually not their fault, the authors of the bible. they did quite beautifully given the body of knowledge they had at the time. but as for so many of us, 2000 years later, still believing it literally? i really have no way of accounting for that.

It's fear, MrTia. Fear leading to dependance and groupthink. Groupthink and dependance occasionally leading to delusions. Zealotism, allegiance.

Why do people die for their leaders?

There are more religions than Christianity out there, you know....

And Church doctrine does not equal truth for many people.

Sometimes people die for their leaders because they believe in them. They believe that they will bring a better tomorrow and not always because of groupthink.

atheism on the rise?

that's why Islamic parties are winning power all over Asia, Africa, the Middle East - why millions of second and third generation immigrants in Western Europe are massively less integrated than their parents... etc etc.

Of course, the point I am making is that I do not notice that religion is so much in decline... rather to me it is radicalising.

Christianity and Judaism are on the decline and the population of the planet is growing, which makes it easy for both atheism and Islam to be on the rise.

are you equating Islam and atheism as equivalent things?

I'm not sure how you got that because both are growing, both are the same or equivalent. Coke use is on the rise, is that also equitable to Islam?

Both are labels for groups of people, and both groups are growing.

Quite an oversimplification, wouldn't you say?

In terms of the number of adherents versus world population growth Islam ranks first, followed by Sikhism, Hinduism and then Christianity. This, in iteself, is no surprise as the fastest growing areas are the Middle East/Asia. In total number of adherents for each religion, they're all expected to increase with Christianity still garnering the most adherents. Judaism is expected to increase at a rate much less than that of the aforementioned religions.

As far as atheism goes, well, did you know that there were more people who defined themselves as atheists during the 1970's than do presently? As a percentage, the number of atheists world wide is expected to decline, but the number denoting themselves as non-religious is expected to rise. Ironically enough, the biggest religious gainers in the United States are, in order, Evangelicals/Born-again Christians, Non-denominationalists and those identifying themselves as non-religious. Maybe we should rename the thread "Evangelical's sudden rise" :D

I'm sure you can cite evidence.

Don't believe me, huh? Oh well...

Ye' of little faith, you think I made this stuff up?

Edit: Changed the last link to make it easier on you >_>

evangelical protestantism was among the fastest-growing social movements in the southern hemisphere over the past 20 years---the information i am thinking of (which i have notes about somewhere, but would have to find again...) is maybe 5 years old, but the numbers were amazing.

i had this idea at one point that you could link the shift into a somewhat more militant posture on the part of islam in certain areas to the suddent expansion of the evangelical reach---a factor that tends for whatever reason to be filtered out of american medialogic maybe because protestant ideology is like dirt here in that you walk on it all the time without giving it particular notice.

http://christianity.about.com/

That you'd cite from a site with this name is insane.

Why? It's just about.com, and it's merely linking content from somewhere else. I actually looked around a little in other places and couldn't find support for the idea that atheism is on the increase (at least over the last 30-40 years). Agnosticism, or even people calling themselves non-religious is on the rise. So the discrepancy, if any, probably has something to do with people self-identifying and self-reporting, so there's probably a lot of variation in what agnostic/atheist/non-religious means to those individuals.

It seems hard to contest that fundamentalist/evangelical sects are growing quickly. After all, they're...evangelical.

Erm.... Why is it insane? As Uber said, I got it from about.com and they're typically unbiased in the resources they provide (Even if I don't always agree with it).

I think you are willfully misunderstanding me.

I am not stating that because two otherewise unlinked things are growing (and I do not agree atheism is growing) that they are the same thing.

I am questioning why you placed the two things - atheism and Islam - together in a statement and opposed them to Judaism and Christianity.

I can understand some growth in certain rich countries of agnosticism (if that is the right term) - but to me real atheism - the active and religious disbelief in God is as silly as Satanism.

(and I do not say that are the SAME thing, I say that they are equally silly, equally illogical)

You're reading into it too much intentionally. I mentioned Islam because it was brought up before, and atheism was brought up for obvious reasons. Christianity and Judaism, two religions relatable to Islam and central in the US, were chosen because I'm too lazy to look up new information on Hinduism.

Disbelief in god includes both hard line atheism and rationalism.

*sigh*

Apparently humanism will lose until we understand ourselves better and learn to love ourselves more.

Even in this (mostly) civilized discussion, prejudice is showing.

Either god is happy and plays with us or is jealous and vengeful, and our mental masturbation is the root of my evil, my prejudice, and my discontent with our willingness to give up joy in life for sacred lies.

No statistics, mea culpa, but has anybody read "How to Lie with Statistics"?

We've been, and still are, killing each other over NOTHING, and I consider that a tragedy. No outside power will step in to save us from ourselves.

IT'S JUST US HERE, PEOPLE!

I agree with everything you said except for "NOTHING." We've been, and still are, killing each other over delusions.

Thanks.
Delusions don't make the world go around, they just go around on it.

I really like you OCM!! Even though I don't always agree with you.....:orly:

Wouldn't it be great to just erase all political/religious memories from everyone, and start from scratch??? :)

^And... Accomplish what?

A new start for everyone.......

A new start? How so? Assuming man made up religion, then what's to stop him from doing so if he were to somehow be "restarted"?

Religion is not the reason that people fight, it is simply a banner.

People fight because of the exploitative and alienating methods of production of commodities and control of labour existing in pre-revolutionary societies.

In the natural state of mankind, there was no war. Or, if you like - there was no war in the garden.

War is a result of exploitation and alienation... all known wars in all human history have been made by the master class and fought by the working class. After the imminent collapse of capitalism, there will be no war.

But one thing in which Marx was wrong was his views on religion. There is no human existence that is possible without God. Not even the Brave New World. Whether or not you believe that God created man, or it is just an accident of chemical reactions - the concept of God is more central to the human condition than any other thing.

I do not say this to be insulting, but atheism is perverse, an extraordinary reaction to a society where old certainties are scattered. To question things is human. To wilfully make a decision to actively disbelieve in God is simply a form of self debasement.... like the pimp in The Deer Park, who as soon as he thought an insecurity, somehow was bound to obey it

I remember seeing Richard Dawkins debating Tony Benn about this on a UK show (Dawkins being a famous atheist who hates the Christian religion, Benn being a socialist and a Christian)... Dawkins certainly has a point to say that a lot of evil has been done under the banner of the church, of many churches... and that texts such as The Bible and The Holy Qu'ran have some pretty crazy stuf in them... he also admitted that he wanted to believe in God and still hoped that he would meet God when he died, although he could not personally sustain his faith in God and believed people should live as if there was no afterlife.

Maybe if they start suicide bombing you will hear more about it.

The closest ape to human would be Pan troglodytes, the common chimp.

They have wars all the time.

There is no reason to believe that warlike behavior is a later invention of mankind, it is part of our nature.

at least try to make sense, ustwo.

Assuming what you claim is true, and I'm just assuming for arguments sake, the reason such would be filtered out is that they don't call attention to themselves by blowing people up.

I think it should have been perfectly clear in the context of your statement.

i dont think that what i wrote poses any great mystery, ustwo.
i am sure that you can work out what it means.


i'm going back to doing other things now.

Umm sure....

That you took that into ..such productive realms boggles my mind, such as it is.

Our species has a greater place, to go.

I, honestly hate being affilated with any group. I would best be classified as an "Aithiest" yet do not share all the qualities that are sterotypical for one. I could honestly care less if you are Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, or even Aitheist.
I don't go out meeting new people Saying "Hi, I am an _______. What are you? You are __________? Oh... well...
Generally I come from a very diverse area where its about 75% "Christian" 25% "Aitheist". Many people will not accept friends from the other view point, therefore I usually do not bring it up, because I could care less. I cound just "blend in" with any religion, if I got with a christian, sure, I'd go to church, I might not agree with what they are saying, but it wouldnt bother me.
I was raised going to church every sunday, and after a while I just started to sit back and think, this makes no sense, why would my life be in control of a higher being? I have complete control of my life and many of the things around me
This mirrors my view on political parties as well, I have some democratic views, and some republican views, and even some communistic views. I think our governmental parties should be done with and have everyone as an independant.

_Please Excuse My Spelling_

From another thread:
Seeing as atheism does not have any belief in the supernatural, no devotional and ritual observances, no organization, no moral code, and is not even close to being fundamental, I'd never consider atheism to be religion.

To be clear: atheism is a name for something one is NOT, not something one IS.

This speaks to atheism. And I agree: atheism isn't a set of beliefs--not in the sense of a religion. What we look at instead, is the individual atheist, and then ask: What is his or her set of beliefs? This is the difference between the religious and the non-religious. The religious belong to a unified belief system, whereas the non-religious base everything on individual experiences and thoughts. This is not to say that the religious have no independence, nor does it mean the non-religious do not belong to any groups that share similar beliefs. What it means is that the priorities are different; the balance shifts in the direction of where each person finds their foundation: in the religious, it is in the community cohesiveness based on religious texts/dogma; in the non-religious, it is in the individual observances based on community interaction.

Thanks for helping with the jump over.

There basically is no community cohesiveness for atheists. Our church is nonexistent. We happen upon one another, sure, but I doubt one might have a place to go to discuss it in an organized manner.

Ok..... let's look at it this way.

Do you believe in God? If no, what is your belief?

Are you fervent in your belief?


I'm sorry, to me Atheism is a religion that believes in nothing spiritually. (Agnosticism is the one that says there maybe....).

Now you can claim Scientific belief that there is no God, personal belief, statistically.... anyway you desire to say there is no God. But MY BELIEF is that if you are fervent, if you are so wrapped up in being an Atheist and that you scoff others beliefs or are so closed minded that you believe your belief to be the "only true belief". Then you are basically, for all intents and purposes no different than 99% of all other religions and religious zealots out there. It's just YOU choose to say you do not believe in anything.... but a belief in nothing is still a belief in something.

So for me, in my belief.... you choosing to say "there is no God" and being adamant to which so that no prayer can be in school, even if the school is willing to cover all major forms of spirituality, even the lack of, then you are just as pushing of your beliefs as the Christian Right, the extremist Muslim, etc. I say this because you are still pushing a spiritual belief, whether you accept it is a belief or not.

I don't believe there's any evidence to suggest the supernatural exists, including god or gods. Based on this information, I cannot reasonably believe in the existence of god. So no, sort of.
I understand that the world can probably be explained through science. It doesn't really have any necessary connection to god except that apparently being a rationalist also makes me an atheist, which is an exclusionary term for those who do not believe in god.
It's not a belief, and I'm not fervent in it. I'm fervent in adapting my understanding of the universe to match whatever information I have. If I get positive evidence that god exists, bam I believe in the existence of god. It's highly unlikely that would happen because most of the information presented about god runs contrary to our current scientific understanding of the universe.
There's no belief about it except believing what my senses deliver to my brain.

You should read what you copy and paste. I couldn't find the word supernatural or anything implying as such in the definition(s) you provided.

Hence the word usually.

I'm guessing this is a joke. What would you call groups such as, say, AA?

No kidding.

I'm curious as to what your definition of fundamentalism is.

So you're an atheist but not really an atheist? Cool!

But you didn't answer the true underlying question.... which is..

WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME I CANNOT HAVE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN MY SCHOOLS??????

As long as every major religion (and atheism) is represented and if someone objects that theirs isn't taught and is willing to teach a week's worth, then what right do you have to object? IT IS BASED SOLELY ON YOU SAYING "YOUR BELIEF IS THE ONLY BELIEF YOU WILL SUPPORT", and what separates that belief from Pat Robertson's or militant Islams or so on?

You are militant about your belief and you refuse to allow open conversation that may open people's minds to accept others beliefs.

If you can't see that, then you are as blind in this area as Pat Robertson, militant Islams, etc.

The Constitution states There hasn't been an establishment of any religion as the "official religion" of this nation from Congress.

It goes on to say, I argue that taking someone's right to say prayer in school is abridging their right to freedom of speech.

And Article 9 states; So if a community or state wishes to allow prayer by MAJORITY vote of it's citizens, those rights should not be denied nor disparaged.

Yet, you would deny the majority voters those rights based on nothing else but YOUR SPIRITUAL BELIEF or lack of... or whatever, however you wish to phrase it.

I am sorry but this is just another argument in support of the so-called "tyranny of the majority". Just because a majority wants a thing doesn't mean that we should ignore the rights of a minority.

Religion does not belong in a public school. If you want prayer in your schools, start a private school. At best, lobby for a prayer room in your school so you can do it outside of the curriculum.

But then the question is WHY?

Why are you so militant to not allow prayer and religious education encompassing ALL major religions as I outlined above?

You cannot argue that the school is in any way stating one religion is above another.

My view is that in your doing so YOU are as closed minded, hypocritical and self righteous in your belief as those that would demand that a school could only teach one religion and had to ignore any other.

You are still taking away my child's right to speech, to religious belief. In doing so in the name of your belief of "nothingness" or however you wish to call it, you ARE dictating a religious belief is more important than another's.

And again, I point to your militant views as being no different than that of the religious extremist. You, whether you want to believe it or not, are being a religious (oops sorry.... anti-religious) zealot and extremist and pushing your beliefs as being more important than anyone else's.

And your argument does not standup to the true words of what the Constitution states. YOU are still asking for laws by Congress and the states to regulate religion.... YOU are still abridging freedom of speech by not allowing prayer....... YOU are still demanding that the majority bow down to YOUR beliefs.

What is the difference between YOU doing this and Pat Robertson making demands or any religious extremist making demands to support only their beliefs? NONE. YOU and the religious extremists are one and the same.... YOU just choose to hide behind your belief in "nothingness" or whatever/however you wish to say it.