Atheism's sudden rise
 

Seems like every week someone comes out and says he's an athiest. Another post here on TFP has an interview with Julia Sweeney in which she informs us that she too is an athiest. As few as 3 years ago, that would be a career ender unless your name was George Carlin.

That got me to wondering - how much of this athiesm movement is fueled by people genuinely sitting down, thinking it out, and coming to the conclusion that there is no god, and how much of it is just because it's a trendy thing to do?

I recall 10 years or so ago when being bisexual was suddenly hip. Every couple of days some celebrity would get him/herself onto a TV show and tell the world they were bi. You don't really hear about bisexual celebs anymore.

I'm sure it's a bit of both, but I'd be interested in knowing just how many of these newly-out-of-the-closet athiests are just hopping on the latest bandwagon. Your thoughts?

My take on this has to do with a belief that we as humans are endlessly fascinated and preoccupied with ourselves. We have the mental ability to devise a myriad of intricate, orthodox philosophies as a means of expressing our inner thoughts and feelings. The more intricate and complete the thought - the more fullfilling and satisfying...like a long hard back massage or thunderous fart. We are driven to creating such theories, even at times perhaps more than, 1) is necessary, 2) is psychologically healthy and 3) is even possible. It is like fiddling around with a 5000-sided rubiks cube.

Atheism is one such topic that especially comes to play in people's minds, because it pertains to many intriguing and existential issues such as who or what is controlling my quest for self-knowledge, who is controlling my destiny, who is controlling my decision-making processes, who is controlling the machinery. I think there is a certain amount of trend and peer pressure and herd mentality to it especially at first, but if it remains a long-term issue its probably based on an honest journey of self-discovery although I can see how it sometimes comes off as bs.

I am an atheist. It is due to study of various religions, anthropology, sociology, and history. I have put much thought into it. It is not because it is trendy. I don't believe that it is trendy as suggested. Atheists are viewed differently and not in a good way. It makes people uncomfortable. I don't advertise it to everyone because I realize it could have unwanted repurcussions.

Only those of us who can afford it, really. I think one would be surprised at how many atheists (and/or Western-fad "Buddhists") are middle or upper class, well-educated, and have plenty of time for navel-gazing and sitting around thinking deep thoughts all the time. The rest of the world is busy scratching out enough to live day to day, and you sure as hell bet they're believers. It's rational behavior... materials means determine superstructure/belief systems, not the other way around. If you ask me. :)

I think that a lot of people were (and still are) afraid of admitting their lack of belief in a god. Christians (and those of other religions) constantly insist that all morality and meaning in life comes from religion. And hence, anyone who is without religion must therefore be an utterly amoral nihilist. In fact even the word atheist has a kind of derogatory association with it (in The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins describes Juila Sweeney recalling in Letting Go Of God, that her mother could understand her not believing in God....but being an atheist....an atheist!?). Some atheists have even decided to create a euphemism for atheism ("Brights") though personally I find this somewhat misguided.

So there is a great fear of "coming out" and saying that you are an atheist. And doing so will often make you come up against a lot of ignorance, resentment and prejudice (and even outright hatred in some cases). Personally I have been told to my face that I deserve to be tortured for all eternity in hell for my lack of belief (despite living an otherwise moral life) and that my life is utterly pointless and that it should make no difference to me if I were to commit suicide now rather than waiting to die of other causes. (And these were my friends!. With friends like these......)

But the zeitgeist seems to be thankfully changing. It is starting to become more socially acceptable to be an atheist, without so many people assuming that you eat babies. And so you hear more and more people coming out and openly stating that they are atheists.

This of course has secondary effects. People seeing others stating that they are atheists, others who may be respected, or even friends, causes them to think about their own beliefs. It makes them confront the negative stereotype of atheists that they have in their heads - the bitter angry loner who resents society. It may even cause them to question their own beliefs - "do I really believe what I claim to believe? Do I have good reason to? Or is it just because I was brought up to believe that way?"

Are you saying that only rich people are atheists and working people are believers?
Are you saying that poverty drives people to religion?
Or poverty drives people to atheism?

Atheism is easier for educated people.

Not sure I follow...what does this mean?

I think what abaya is saying is that people who are more well-off have the luxery of reading more and learning more things beyond what they are taught in school and taught by their family/religion.

I think the "sudden rise" in Atheism is stemming from the fact that is now acceptable to admit to being one. Back in the days of yore, when you could lose your job, lose your family, be tortured, killed, or excommunicated for saying you didn't believe in God, "out" atheists were pretty slim.

Nowadays society is coming to accept that gee golly - you can be an Athiest - a lot more people are declaring themselves as such. I don't think their numbers have changed at all, but merely their visibility.

http://weirdweirdworld.com/images/b3...27da62c26d.png

I'm not sure that athism is easier for educated people, but i think that the truth is that SKEPTICISM is easier for educated people.

It is clear that religeosity declines as educational standards rise - for whatever reason, free thinking and clear reasoning skills seem to tally with a fall in orthodoxy.

If you look at the Europan 17th and 18th Century period of the Enlightenment, first there was the reformation, then a rise in learning, then a rise in non-conformist Christianity, then the rise in public acceptance of people admitting to Atheism.

It just means that you 'mericans are catching up.

Welcome to the 18th Century! :rolleyes:

Although it's definitely worth considering, and strongly, that the privileged find it easier to arrive at atheism, I wouldn't feel it diminishes atheism. Thanks, abaya, for bringing this up.

The same thing could be said of science in general (which I feel atheism is a part of). Of course the more well-off are and ought to be leading the way in these sorts of philosophical pursuits.

Here is a fact that the religious don't like to acknowledge. It makes them uncomfortable. Everyone is born an atheist. Atheism is the default.

I think atheism is a result of progression. I believe the more there is to know about something, the less there is to make up. By "knowing" I mean, witnessing, observing, touching, feeling, and other forms of hard evidence. As we progress in science and society, with the sharing of knowledge, opinions, experiences and our direct effect of communicating with one another, people are starting to become demistified. Part of what faith is is being "impressed" by something beyond comprehension. As we humans are able to comprehend more and more, the less faith there is to have.

Sorry, I thought it was clear. As Daniel said, with the accumulation of knowledge comes the ability to question (skepticism). With the ability to question comes the ability to doubt, then question, then study, then ascertain, then understand and evolve.

In addiction circles, there is talk of putting belief in a power greater than the self (theism) as a means for recovery.
Because it was this reliance upon oneself (atheism) that got them into addiction to begin with.

It seems to me this scenario can substitute for any case of spiritual impoverishment, be it gambling, overeating, extreme poverty, overshopping, sexual addictions, disease and sickness, eating disorders, alcoholism, neuroses, criminal behavior, sexual/physical/emotional abuse, severe depression, OCD, etc.
Where is one to turn when it becomes impossible to look inward for spiritual comfort?
.
.
.
(shakran, let me know if I'm threadjacking and I'll stop here.)

Atheism leads to addiction? Not in the least. The loss of self control leads to addiction. The use of theism in breaking addiction is about replacing one control with another, one dependence with another.

I require no spiritual comfort the same way I don't require the force from Star Wars. It's fictional.

I think it's a mistake to equate atheism with addiction. The purpose of a "higher power" in 12 step programs is to highlight that one cannot accomplish everything by oneself. Indeed, relying only on yourself to try and kick an addiction is, generally, a very big mistake and a sure recipe for failure. Twelve step programs refer to a higher power to encourage addicts to admit that they are not all powerful and that they cannot control their addictions without outside help. There does not need to be a god for this to be true. Unless I'm mistaken, 12 step programs do not generally dictate what that higher power is, and as such I don't think atheism necessarily goes against what 12 step programs teach. The higher power, for example, may be the power of collective humanity. The power of love, generated by strong bonds between people. That's a higher power, and it certainly goes a long way toward breaking down an addict's barriers to outside help. It also doesn't require belief in any sort of god.

This can go either way depending on the individual. I would say that material means can determine belief systems for some,while belief systems can determine material realities for others. Take this study, for example.

In particular, consider the following from it:

What the study determines is how religion in America acts as education in wealth issues. Also bear in mind that most religions stress a good work ethic and contributing to local communities, which generally helps one's material security.

Something else that confuses the issue is that many atheists I've met are disgruntled working-class people who barely had a high-school education. They didn't believe in God because if there were a God, their life wouldn't suck so much...

On the other hand, there are many mega-wealthy people I read about who are devoutly religious.

That's a line I've heard before, and although fallacious, it's only fair. If you're unable to break an addiction without in a belief in something other than yourself, then you shouldn't be an atheist. Please be religious, if that's what it requires to break your addiction.

Atheism is reserved for those strong enough to take the hard route; if you need an easier route, then by all means be religious - I won't hold it against you at all.

I don't know about that. I always imagined that the smug self-righteousness of many atheists was more than enough to balance out the lack of reliance on a higher power.

A theist accusing an atheist of self-righteousness?
http://ganjataz.com/general-bollocks...ttle-black.jpg

I don't think that has anything to do with belief in god or not.

Theists aren't necessarily self-righteous. Filtherton, for example, didn't display self-righteousness in that post. Your comment doesn't make sense in this context.

But it shows that atheism isn't always indicative of strength. Just as with theism, it can indicate other less positive attributes as well. Point being, I think, that sweeping generalizations about either theists or atheists are bound to find exceptions. And perhaps the exceptions even form the majority of cases.

An atheist making overly broad, uninformed statements about theists? Shocking.
I'm not a theist, btw.

No, perhaps not. It does, however, reference what seems to be the main draw for a noticeable portion of atheists.

Whoops, my mistake as well.

It's okay, i could see how one might get the impression.

For a "noticeable portion" the main draw for not believing in a god is so that they can effect a smug self-righteousness? Oh please! :shakehead:

No, only that it seems like it is. Many of the sciencey people i know are atheists, but the majority of atheists that i know don't know shit about science, the scientific method, burdens of proof, etc. They complain about the sheepish nature of theists whilst themselves being relatively sheeplike in other aspects of their lives. There is definitely a number of people for whom atheism is merely another personality accessory, like the kind of shoes they wear or the kind of music they listen to. It is cool to not believe in god; it's rebellious. It's like spiritual punk rock.

I think we're all aware of how good it can feel to convince yourself(not you specifically) that you are better than others. All i'm saying is that there is a noticeable portion of atheists who seem to derive more pleasure from copping a holier than thou attitude towards theists than might be expected when you take into account that they're often the very same atheists who complain about holier than thou attitude given off by noticeable portions of theists.

I'm not saying that all atheists are like that, just that there are many who are.

atheism is a "harder route" how does that work? I would think it would be far easier for a person to say....blah blah blah..doesnt exist....I wont believe in anything thats not tangible...Im not accountable for anything when I die because there is nothing after death..etc

how is that "hard"? I dont see where that requires "strength" at all.

Yeah, Smeth had it right here. Sorry, hadn't checked in on this thread in a while. But yeah, I am not saying that by some law, poor = religious and rich = atheist, not at all (agreeing with Baraka_Guru on that point... obviously, there are very clear exceptions to the rule, particularly in mainstream America).

However, I do think Marx had a point with his "religion is the opiate of the masses" line... and since much of my theoretical foundation in my studies comes from cultural materialism (traced back to Marx, in part), I am biased towards thinking that many (not all) people who have less material resources have far less time and money to sit back and chew their spiritual cud... at least, as opposed to those of us who can afford to go to university and sit around shooting the spiritual shit over a joint with our deep-thinking buddies. This is especially true in developing and/or traditional societies, I think, where tribe and family are much more intertwined with faith and confessional identity (and thus much more rigid) than they are in the West. That is, when one lacks financial and human capital, one finds it in social capital... and where else to find social capital more regularly than at your local church, mosque, temple, what have you?

Well Shani, I'm not even a full-on atheist, but I have to say that for me it's been extremely difficult to give up my belief in God. I was a full-on evangelical up until about 7 years ago, and every step of the way I wished that God would give me belief back again. But everything was leading me away from it, and it was a mental and social struggle on a regular basis for me. The church and my belief in God had been pillars for me through a very difficult time in my life, and they had become part of my identity. When I gave that up, I had to basically start over from scratch in terms of figuring out who I was... God had been so central to my life, I didn't know where to start again.

So, I guess for me, losing faith was actually MUCH more difficult than gaining it, the latter which came almost naturally to me... having faith was not hard for me, a long time ago. I lost a lot of friends by walking away from the church, and a big part of who I was. It was not easy for me, and still isn't. I wish I could run back to church and sing my favorite songs and shake everyone's hand again... but I just can't.

edit

Because it's hard work to swim upstream against a very hard current. It's a lot easier to "go with the flow".

I'd say it also a little harder to be an atheist because your are on your own. Those who choose religion (regardless of which) have a road map and, if they attend services, continual guidance in the form of some sort of spiritual leader.

Being an atheist means doing the right thing because it is the right thing, not just because a book or a spiritual leader tells you you will be eternally punished if you don't.

I think it depends on what you choose to focus on. Certainly it could be easier to have a map. However, sometimes that map is completely missing large pieces or takes you places that really suck.

On the other hand, being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean that one doesn't have a map. After all, buddhism is atheistic(correct me if i'm wrong, it's been a while), yet is incredibly prescriptive.

Also, depending on the particular brand of theism in question, there isn't necessarily a map.

Believe it or not, theism can also mean doing the right thing because it is the right thing. Not all theists believe in hell- for them heaven is assured. Without the threat of damnation, one can defer to whatever one wants when deciding what the right thing is.

I think Richard Dawkins has put atheism back in the public consciousness in a big way, which is why we're seeing people jumping aboard. Without wanting to disparage anyone's particular belief, I can't say that I think it's a bad thing, but I wished I believed they were doing it because they'd really thought about it.

Agnosticism is interesing in itself since what you're basically saying you can't prove or disprove the existence of god, so belief is impossible. But you also can't prove or disprove the existence of allsorts of other things that are nevertheless unreasonable to believe in, such as hobbits, elves, fairies, men on mars, Cthulhu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

So to be agnostic about god is to be agnostic about anything we don't have direct evidence for. If you, as an agnostic, accept that it's unreasonable to believe in hobbits, then why not god? If you then go on to accept that it's unreasonable to believe in god, then you're pretty much an atheist.

It's also worth pointing out, I think, that absolute atheism is as much a position of 'faith' as hardline theism is, since I don't think we can honestly discount the possibility of a god.

Hobbits, elves, fairies, the Flying spaghetti Monster, and Lovecraft's Cthulhu are all fantasy creatures invented by fiction writers. We certainly can say that they don't exist - at least not on earth - except in the minds of their creators and those who read the stories. As for men on mars - we have direct evidence that there aren't any. We've photographed the planet, and there is NO indication of any sort of macro-scaled ecosystem which would be necessary to support a life form analagous to us.


True, but your examples all involve things we don't have direct evidence for. A better example would be the sasquatch. Photographs and filmstrips taken by known practical jokers aside, we have no concrete evidence that sasquatch exists. Yet it is possible that somehow a giant primate has managed to avoid our detection. Not likely, but possible. So sure, I suppose you could put me as being "agnostic" about sasquatches.

And if you want to be technical the breakdown of agnostic is a - gnostic. Gnosis is an early christian term for spiritual knowledge, and therefore it is not technically possible to be agnostic about anything but a diety.

Because hobbits were made up by JRR Tolkien. God was not. Unfortunately, the god legends start so far back in history that we cannot reliably assess their veracity. Because we have not proven it to be impossible, we must accept that it is possible that the bible describes accurately the supernatural events surrounding god and his kid. However for the same reason we must also accept that it is possible that the bible is pure fiction.

Here you're correct, but this statement is built on a very shaky foundation. It is certainly possible to be agnostic. I find that generally only those with fervent beliefs that there is or is not a god find agnosticism to be impossible.

It's also worth pointing out, I think, that absolute atheism is as much a position of 'faith' as hardline theism is, since I don't think we can honestly discount the possibility of a god.[/QUOTE]

How is that any different from the Bible?

because they are not from the inspired word of gawd.

we must remember that all theist, are atheist to 99.999% of all the gods that have came before.

That's why I slap my forehead when people who make judgements feel the need to speak up. I'm content to classify atheism as a progression in the understanding of the world. Screw all the other attributes that people like to give it.


but they are from the inspired word of Tolkein, who many revere as deity.

Agreed, that was a poor choice of example. I got carried away on a wave of literature.

Isn't this begging the question though? No, we can't verify the true origin of the God 'myth', but by the same token, can we say with absolute certainty that Tolkein isn't recounting some long-forgotten history of an age out of memory? It's presented as a chronicle, after all, rather than a straightforward fictional narrative.

In any event, just because you can't say who invented God, doesn't mean that he wasn't invented.

We have very strict definitions of the terms to work with though, which mischaracterise the debate. Atheism, strictly interpreted, means one will not admit of even the possibility of a god. I think very few people can reasonably take this stance. Agnosticism, meanwhile, puts one in the position of saying knowledge of a deity is impossible. There isn't really a label for the middle ground, which is where I think most 'atheists' realistically fall.

I certainly wouldn't say angnosticism is impossible, but I would assuredly take issue with the notion that all agnostics are, by defnition, completely ambivalent about god's existence, and I'd go further to say that in the absence of better terms for their position, those who veer away from total ambivalence might as well be called atheists or theists, according to the direction they go. It would likely thin the numbers of declared 'agnostics' considerably.

True. I was certainly generalizing in my statement. There are plenty of "spiritual" types that are looking for a path to follow, etc.

Buddhism, while not theist is spiritual and does have a prescribed method of seeking "enlightenment".

I am referring more the standard organized religion method of theism. The benefit to an organized religion is that it *is* all laid out for you. Do *this* and you will achieve *this*.

I am not the sort who would deny people the right to pursue their spiritual path. I am also not the sort to say that one should always be rational. Irrational thought, to me, is when the moments of "magic" occur (and I don't mean magic like pulling rabbits out of a hat or turning water into wine). It was in search of this essence of irrationality that I did so many drugs in my 20s and spent so much time looking to break away from the rational world.

Art, creativity, tangential thinking, Freudian slips, humour, etc. are all magic moments of the irrational. I embrace these moments as they occur. For me, inspiration does not come from rational thought.

That said, I do not look to external forces such as deities for these moments. I see religions, at their root, as myths we, as humans, have created to explain the unexplainable. All of the other baggage that has been attached to religion... rules of diet, rules of sexual relations, rules of doctrine, etc. are all just controls on society - controls largely there to control the unruly masses. These rules were largely created (largely) thousands of years ago in a world that was a very different place.

Again, I was generalizing but you have to admit that the larger population of "religious types" are not of this ilk. Rather they are the reward and punishment sort.

My larger point was that being an atheist in America, in this day and age, is not an easy row to hoe. But with more discussion and more exposure, such as Sweeny and Dawkins there will come an understanding that atheists are people too. Just because they don't believe in God doesn't make them evil or immoral.

I see what you're saying and i agree. I don't doubt that the majority of christianity isn't what i would consider ideal.

My thing is that i grew up in a pretty religious household (my dad is a pastor) where i was not expected to believe in god, i was not expected to act a certain way based on the threat of damnation. My dad never told me to do something because god wanted me to do it, all the rules he set forth were solidly secular. He's a christian, but you'd never know it because unless you're at church it probably wouldn't come up. My experience with christianity isn't in the majority, but it is still authentic, so when i see all christians being lumped together it doesn't sit right with me and i have to say something. Thank you for your reasonable response.

I think that when it comes to dysfunctional human institutions like religion, the weak link is the human, not the ideology.

But it's humans that create ideology, no? I don't think you can separate the two like that.


My experience with religion runs the gamut from child molesting church leaders to fascinating Ministers (a Canon in the Aglican Church actually) who is my person I point to when I need to come up with someone who is devout that impresses me.

I may not buy into his belief system but he doesn't hold it against me. More importantly he is always full of questions. Every time I see him he has a list of questions to ask me about (anything from the television business to world politics). The guy is always thinking and always reading.

I am not sure the point I am trying to make here other than, there is a vast variety of people who have bought into religion. Personally, I think they are fooling themselves but I realize that, for some anyway, they get something out of religion that they find missing in their daily life.

Who am I to fuck that up for them?

I really have to disagree with that. It completely negates the fact that priests, rabbis, ministers, popes, imams, archbishops, etc.. have no education. When infact, these are some of the most educated people in society.
I really don't like evangelicals of any faith being held up as the archetype for religion.

a degree in truthology from our lady of the bleeding heart does not count. yes they are well educated, but in literature, art, theology, not in science, being able to discuss at great length, the great writers of our time is wonderful, but it is not a scientific education. when you look at the scientifically educated, you see a decline of the religious.

Sorry, Dilbert, but you're wrong there too. There are many priests, etc who are very well versed in science. I have met a fair share who have doctorates in scientific fields such as biology (and also accept and understand what they were taught in those fields). Like hagatha said, using the evangelicals as an archetype is a very bad idea. There's a reason the majority of religions actually do accept science.

So their beliefs and understanding must be in turmoil, then. After all, you cannot very well say I believe this based on reasonable proof and then turn around and say I believe this despite a complete lack of truth. That must make their lives very difficult.

For someone who claims to have formal psychological training, you certainly seem to be at a loss when it comes to understanding how people put their experiences in the context of their beliefs.

Perhaps you could benefit from actually exposing yourself to the amount of spiritual diversity offered by christianity, rather than just your dad's church. You might actually find that you no longer feel so compelled to put yourself on a pedestal over millions of people whose beliefs you can't even be bothered to differentiate between(let alone understand).

I guess you missed the fact that the first 20 years of my life I was submerged in the thick of fundamentalist Christianity. It wasn't just my dad's church at all. First off, my dad has not just been at one church, he has been in many spanning the US. Not only that, but I was active in the faith in that I would go to the various social functions, meetings, conventions that there are to experience. I understand faith just fine. Not only that, but but I've experienced Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism substantially as I searched out my own personal truth and understanding. Instead of a weak strawman, I would ask that you actually make an argument or try to poke logistical holes in mine.

Faith and reason are in turmoil. Those doctors and scientists and researchers have to ignore that they work within two opposing systems of reality. Again, that must lead to difficulties, whether it be denial, disassociation, or what have you.

What's so wrong about that? I enjoy myths...I enjoy tales of fiction.
At the very least, why not take the unknowable and use it your advantage?
Leverage it however way you feel it helps you out. Make something out of nothing.
Like ShaniFaye said above, the easy thing is to ignore and rebel.
It seems to me that by simply casting it all off as bogus, one is rejecting a potential source of psychological and spiritual enrichment.
Seems counterproductive.

regarding the op, here is a speculation.

i dont think there is any particular movement on the ground called atheism.
i am not sure whether there is any particular increase of non-belief, where it might be happening, how it might be measured.

what you do have happening is an increase in the amount of discursive referencing of atheism.
so let's exclude zeitgeist as an explanation. you can always exclude zeitgeist as an explanation. what is it? "spirit of the time"? what is that? the assumption that there is some animating force that sweeps through history, that unfolds progressively, in stages---something then that you or i could get an image of by looking for stages in history. what is a stage? well, this is where the problems start. a stage is what you want it to be. so if you are inclined to see atheism as a desirable end, and you see an increase in references to the word in the press, say, you could use the notion of zeitgeist to link these references to something in the world like a rise in the number of atheists. but that's circular: what is happening is that you are using a category so that you can see in the world stuff that you want to see in the world.
so that's out.

i think that atheism is primarily a christian category that refers to the reverse of itself.
so over the past few years, we have had to endure the rise to near-legitimacy of a particular variant of christianity---rightwing extremist fundamentalist types--as an element within the rightwing extremist coalition that is responsible for the bush regime.
now you are seeing the crumbling of that regime and fracturing of the coalition that is responsible for it.
it follows that, for the fundamentalist protestant community that identifies itself, its interests, its theocratic political aspirations with the fortunes of the bush administration, the sky is now falling.
since these groups talk about themselves as if they and they alone defined christianity (a lunatic claim, but no matter here), and since it follows from that to see in these groups folk who are wholly incapable of relativizing their own positions, you can imagine that the crumbling of the bush regime and of the coalition for which it stands can be seen as a defeat for god.

the idea that there is any sudden movement toward atheism seems to me little more than a way of expressing this defeat: "we" are god's people, "we" are taking a pounding politically, "we" are loosing ground very quickly--what is left in our wake? the absence of ourselves, the reverse of ourselves. what to call that absence, that reversal? atheism.

so personally, i think this rise of atheism is about as legit as the rise of those pro-smmoking organizations brought to you by philip morris, the fake grassroots mobilizations carried out by the christian coalition via its innovations in phonebank technology, etc. the spiking in usage of this term is a function of the implosion of the collapse of fundamentalist protestant political power, and is a way for those groups to speak to themselves about it and what it means. nothing else.

Well, pc, the depends on what meaning you've assigned to everything. In my mind, evolution and positive development are meaning enough to exclude theism from society, but some people don't consider evolution and positive development as being important.

It could be due to the rise of the internet and the ability of people to question their faith and get information on others. Science can explain the world in a way people understand more than religious dogma.

It could be that people are tired of fighting people who don't believe in the same religion. There have been a lot of wars and hatred in the past few years because of differing beliefs.

It could be the catholic priest sex scandal. People questioned going to church and being led by people that would do that.

It could be that atheists are becoming more outspoken and you can be non-religious in today’s world without any problem.

It could be that people started to realize that religion was designed to control people and instill fear into them. They might be happier by doing what they want to do in life without judgment from the church.

Maybe parents aren't indoctrinating kids into the faith the same way anymore.

I know that in elementary school, I started questioning my 'faith' and religion. I always said "one nation, many states" during the pledge of allegiance instead of "one nation, under God".

I hope you can acknowledge that my weak straw man was a response to your weak straw man.

The only reason i mentioned it was because you seem to lack the will to differentiate between different types of faith. You seem to think that all theists think the same exact things in the exact same ways. This is plainly wrong, and the fact that you claim a certain amount of exposure to theism and still seem to implicitly insist through your assertions that there is only one kind of faith doesn't make sense.

Also, the idea that exposure to a lot of fundamentalist churches is a sufficient basis on which to make sweeping claims about all of christianity is as valid as the idea that eating at a lot of different mcdonald's is a sufficient basis on which to make sweeping claims about how food is prepared.

It must? Why? How can you make claims like that and pretend to hold the scientific method in high esteem? How many studies have you read on this particular subject and what were their flaws? I have a hard time understanding how you can cop this attitude whereby scientific reasoning is superior to every other form of reasoning whilst making all types of assertions that are very obviously not based on any sort of science whatsoever.

How are faith and reason opposing systems? Are algebra and geometry opposing systems? Physics and supply side economics? Please explain the means by which you came to that conclusion. As far as i can tell, being based on different assumptions isn't the same thing as being in direct opposition.

No, I disagree. I spent my undergraduate career at a thoroughly evangelical university and the entire science faculty were evolutionist Christians. Not to mention they were damn good at what they did... be it physics, chemistry, or otherwise. Their faith and reason went hand-in-hand, and they saw no reason to divide the two in their own minds.

These people spent a number of years at mostly secular institutions earning their PhDs in hard sciences... and came out just as Christian as they were when they began, if not more so (which is the part that surprises me, personally). For them, the science they practiced only confirmed the fact that God was in charge of everything. If they had any internal conflict about the issue, they discussed the issue with their students and were very honest about it. But they were all still committed to their faith, and their science. The two are by no means mutually exclusive.

Let me just say that after I graduated and went on to a secular public university to pursue my PhD, I never found any faculty or staff that I enjoyed working with more than I did with those undergraduate professors. They knew their shit and they were damn fine people, regardless of their beliefs. Or maybe because of them. Who am I to say?

abaya, we are talking about a similar subject on my wedding board and I have a scientist on there and she has basically said the same thing about her research and confirmation of God and how science basically worked to show her further prove of God's existance

I don't believe I said there was anything wrong with it, per se. Rather I was identifying what I believe religion to be: a series of codified myths and legends that we tell ourselves so that we might understand the unknowable.

The two big ones are where did we come from and what happens when we die. ALL religions have answers for these two questions. Most go beyond that and prescribe a way to live, a code of ethics and morality.

On the whole you are right, it does seem that ignoring this is easy. Cast all of it away and follow no systemic, prescribed path. This would be true if those who leave (or never find) religion were just "rebellious" and with out any sense of morality. I don't hold that you need religion to know what is right and what is wrong.

I have just *never* found religion useful. I have read the bible and I have gone to church. I have studied the new and old testament in University and spent time looking into other religions (from Mormons to Buddhist and back again). Some of them have some interesting ideas about how to live life but I could never get over their basic tenets of higher powers, afterlife, etc.

I might as well believe in fairies down in the garden.

So, on one hand, yes, it is easier to not choose a path to follow. I don't have to cover my head when I am outside, attended a weekly or daily service, pledge allegiance to a higher power, devote myself to a life of poverty or any of the various and sundry rules that come with all the various flavours of religious life.

But to stretch the analogy further, my path isn't laid out for me. I don't have a light at the end of my journey. Heck, I don't even have a path to follow. I am figuring it out as I go along. There is no reward (or punishment) waiting for me. There is no afterlife or regeneration. I wish there was an afterlife it would be a lot easier to live with regrets if I knew that I'd get a second chance.

I just cannot live my life based on a fiction. This may seem counterproductive to you but to me it's all I've got.

Oops, I meant to write ad hominem (attack the person) instead of strawman (misrepresent the opposing side). My mistake.
There are two kinds of faith:
1) faith in fiction
2) faith in reason
Theists always have 1 and sometimes have 2, but atheists have only 2 and never have 1.
Not just fundys, everyone. I've been in LCMS to ELCA churches. I've been from uber conservative to uber liberal. The sweeping statement was simply that you all believe in god. That's all the argument I need, and I doubt that you can argue that I'm wrong on that point.
Scientific reasoning is the only reasoning. It's not superior or inferior to anything because it's in a category all it's own. Faith isn't a type of reasoning. I don't need a study to figure that out. It's common sense. As so many theists and atheists have said before, you cannot apply faith to reason.
It's not reasonable to believe in the supernatural.

Faith is a belief that's not based in proof. Reason is conclusions based on proof. How do you see these as not being fundamentally opposed?
All the science they learn is contradicted by bible knowledge. Sure, maybe they pick and choose what to believe in the bible, but that makes them agnostic. Evolutionist Christians, for example, must be agnostic. Either you belive as the bible says that god created humans in their current form or you believe that we evolved from more simple creatures through random mutation and natural selection. Believing both doesn't make sense, or is in conflict. The same argument can be made by physicists who believe that the universe came from a big bang as opposed to being blinked into existence by a supernatural power. Either they don't believe what they are teaching is correct, or they do and don't believe the bible.
I would say that anyone who is good at their job is to be commended, especially those who are working to expand human understanding. I would also say that they are fantastic scientists in spite of their faith, not because of it.

You know, I agree with you on a personal note, since for me it was very difficult to be a Christian without taking the Bible literally. That was one of the little tiny holes that became a massive breach in the wall over a period of several years.

But for some people (perhaps my professors), I honestly think they have reconciled in themselves that the Bible is not always literally true, but they still find Truth in it as a whole... and they let these facets guide their lives, instead of focusing on the minute details (e.g. creating the world in 7 days... literally vs. figuratively? doesn't matter to them).

I did the same for a long time, but in the end I could not see how I was being any kind of decent Christian by adhering to some rules and not to others. I was basically picking and choosing what made sense to me, and disregarding the rest. I found it disingenuous to those who actually try to live by the letter. So, away I went from the fold...

I expect a thicker skin from someone who has no problem denying the intelligence of large groups of people because you disagree with their perspective.

That's one way to look at it. How is one way better than another and why must they conflict? Do you think it reasonable to believe that limitations to science exist? What should be done in situations where reason has no authority?

Like i said above when you busted out your pot/kettle picture, i'm not a theist, so you can drop the "you all".

I don't think that ELCA or LCMS are a particularly good example of the the uber conservative to uber liberal continuum. If the only generalization you make is that all theists believe in deities than that's fine, that's not a generalization. The places where i have a problem are when you make claims about the abilities of different theistic belief systems to absorb scientific information.

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in claiming that scientific reasoning is the only reasoning in the same paragraph that you claim that you don't need to study something because you have common sense? If this were a few centuries ago i could see you claiming that rats come from oilly rags. For as much as you herald scientific reasoning, you certainly seem prone to avoiding it.

You don't need to necessarily apply faith to reason, but it helps if you want funding. You can apply reason to faith. Neither necessitates the other and there are situations where one is better than the other.

For instance, can you prove that you love your family? How? You could claim that your actions are those of a person in love, but maybe you're just a latent sociopath.

Only an arrogant person would attempt to define reason for all of humanity.

They are what they are. They are methods, the only opposition to be found between them is how they are used. They are no more contradictory than a stapler and a hammer.

I know they're wrong. There's a difference. No 'perspective' exists that says there if tangible proof for the existence of god.
You mean what do we do in the absence of evidence or proof? We seek it out. We find the truth through investigation. We don't just guess. Science is only limited by what we don't know yet. As our understanding of the universe grows, these situations without reason will slowly sink into oblivion.
I wasn't including you in the "you all". The you all was intended for the theists reading.
As I said above, science often runs contrary to the 1500 year old book called the Bible, or the Qu-ran, or the Torah. The example I gave above, evolution vs. creation, should make that clear. Evolution is by far the best explanation for the origin of life. The bible says that humans were created walking upright and talking one day. You must see how those two explanations are contradictory.
Common sense is connected with science. Common sense is how we come to conclusions based on evidence. The only proof I need is the meanings of the words faith and reason. The definitions make them opposed. If you don't think they are opposed, then maybe you should use different terminology. As for the rats and rags thing, at least I would be trying. At least I could ask, "How does this work?" and make an effort to explain it. Sure it would wrong, and a few centuries ago I would be well aware of the functionality of the reproductive systems on mammals which makes your example tremendously weak, but the struggle for truth is what it's all about. It's not about accepting what others claim on blind faith. It's about thinking.
So go right ahead and explain to me how the existence of god is reasonable.
Love is an emotion which is accompanied by biochemical reactions that can be measured. Yes, I absolutely can prove that I love my family.
I've had the discussion 1000 times, and no one has yet given me a reason to believe that god is real. The supernatural is by definition unprovable by natural law. How can you say something is reasonable when it cannot be explained or proven at all? Only someone who is honest with him or herself can try to explain reason in pertaining to theism or diesm.
They are, again by definition, opposed. Do I really have to link dictionary.com? Is this really going to turn into that kind of discussion? Look up faith then look up reason. It's as plain as day that they are opposed in that one uses proof, evidence, method, and the other is devoid of proof, evidence, method.

The old testament and the Torah is MUCH older than 1500 years

I would like to see physical proof of love, can you enlighten me on that?

Why is it the burden is always on the believers to "prove" the existance God.....I want some one to "prove" to me he doesnt exist.

Why is it so important for atheists to keep trying to disprove something they dont believe in anyway?

Someone who doesnt acknowledge the existance of the holy spirt surely isnt going to understand how it fills the person of a believer and let me tell you what....I wouldnt trade that feeling for what would surely be total emptiness for anything.

Shani, I have to say that I do understand how the Holy Spirit fills a believer... I experienced that for many years. I didn't think I would trade it for anything, either, because I also believed that any other belief (or non-belief) system would be empty. The strange thing is, it's not really empty, to no longer believe... it's different, but it's far from empty. I don't think I could ever go back, to be honest.

However, that doesn't mean I have any disrespect for those who still feel the spirit, not at all. I've been there, and it was real for me at the time. I wouldn't want to take that away from anyone. But for me, I had to walk away.

I was rounding up, for the binifit of argument. I know that the Torah/OT predates the NT and completed Bible. Is that really a strong point of this discussion to argue?
I found the following article to be concise, but adequate:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/
Because I'm saying he almost certainly doesn't exist. I'm not saying God absolutely doesn't exist. I cannot disprove the gods of the Greek mythos, Toaism, Hinduism and any other deistic religion. There is no more evidence of the Judeo-Christian god than there is of any other. The stance of many atheists, myself included, is that many things cannot be disproven completely, but that fact can hardly excuse absolutely believing in deities exist.
Because it effects atheists as much as it does theists. If theism were able to keep it's hand to itself, we'f have no reason to mind. Frankly, I have absolutely no problem with you or anyone else having faith in a supreme being. For many people it can serve to be a source of peace and understanding. The problem is when little things slip through and start effecting everyone. When my best friend cannot get married to his boyfriend because the law prevents their union being recognized the same as a heterosexual marriage, theism has effected everyone. When children are taught in public schools a 'scientific theory' that is based solely in religious texts, theism has effected everyone. When war is declared and one of it's justifications is that "God told me to do it", theism has effected everyone. When a man straps explosive to himself and gets on a bus in order to explode himself, theism has effected everyone.

I don't bring it up unless people ask.
It's not as simple as emptiness, though. There is comforting certainty and peace that comes from being able to always question, explore, discover, and move forward, evolving in your understanding of the universe. Speaking only for myself, I find that atheism is more comforting than theism overall. Yes, there's no one always looking over my shoulder. Yes, there's no comforting prayer when I feel as if I've lost control....but coming to the realization that there was nothing there to answer my prayer makes me being able to figure out how life works on my own so much more meaningful.

You obviously have to decide for yourself, but if you ask, expect me to answer. This thread is about atheism, and I've been addressing the subject.

That's cool. I'm just curious.

Once upon a time in America though, circa the late 60s, rumor has it that it was the progressive liberals who were dropping all the acid and smoking all the Maui Wauwi - tuning out conservatism and the war, and tuning into the "cosmic consciousness" and transcendental grooviness of the universe, Hari Krishnas dancing in the streets and passing out religious literature - it was a veritable hippy revolution of religion and spirituality! And what about spirituality in the arts nowadays? Do we realize that great art can no longer be taken seriously because of you atheists? That there is no longer a spiritual component to a great Matisse or Chagall due to excessive religious overtone?

Perhaps this isn't our father's America (or Canadastan) anymore.

:orly:

I'm pretty sure i know you're wrong, does that mean it would be a good idea for me to call you a delusional idiot?

Do you think that science can ultimately envelope all situations without reason? If so, how is this not a faith based position?

Like i said, you don't seem capable of seeing the distinctions between different theistic belief systems with respect to their abilities to absorb scientific information. Not all theists are of the strict interpretation variety.

No, logic is connected with science. Common sense is how people come to the conclusion that rats come from oily rags. Common sense is what people who can't be bothered with the science use to make decisions.

How is theism not an honest effort at answering the question "how does this work"? Perhaps in a few centuries science will have an answer and your ghost can ride around on a ghostly high horse and hand out "i told you so's" to all the theist ghosts you come across.

It follows logically from the assumptions on which it is based.

No, you can't. Do you honestly think that some scientist could hook you up to some machine, ask you about your family and then say conclusively that you love them? How exactly does this test work?

It is reason based on faith. I suspect the faith part is what you have the problem with.

I don't know if we can trust the dictionary, after all, they think theists are agnostics and that agnostics are atheists or something.

If you're trying to point out that reason and faith are opposites, well, maybe. It's a trivial observation. Just because two things could be considered opposites does not mean that they are opposed in any sort of meaningful sense. A stapler and staple remover are opposites in their functions, but to claim that the ability to use them both could only be the result of some sort of inner turmoil is ridiculous. The notion of faith and reason engaged in a death match over the future of the human race is perhaps somewhat understandable, but the general trend seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

Without evidence? No. With evidence? Well let's see it.
I'm saying that the more we learn, the less we don't know. Do you agree?
Again, they all believe in the existence of god.
I'm still not sure what you're talking about with the oily rag thing. Science replaced that idea (an idea that was not shared by most of the scientific community) a long time ago, as science is always growing and expanding. Maybe we should change out terminology to logic vs. faith.
Theism is based on answers that are thousands of years old. The Bible cannot expand. The Qu'ran cannot suddenly have a chapter on quantum theorem. The ascertion that we may eventually find out ghosts are real is just like the idea of god: no evidence, no reason. When evidence is presented, tested, and proven, then we can talk. I'll have still been the reasonable one, though, having not jumped to wild conclusions. There is a marked difference between science fiction and science fact.
That's not much of an answer. Want to try again?
Do I have to post a link again? Yes, love can be proven because certain combinations of chemicals released during love can be measured. It's as easy as drawing blood and taking a peak. I'm not up to date on the latest biochemical research, but this knowledge is decades old. Love is a biochemical reaction that can be tested for.
Reason based on faith is like an office building built on clouds.
Dodge that argument much? Comon. If you want to make this about semantics, then when I pull out the dictionary you shouldn't roll your eyes.
Reason and faith being in opposition would be trivial if the two were able to stay in their respective corners. That's not the case, as I stated in my response to Shani. They are opposed in a meaningful sense in that it's reasonable to allow homosexuals to have civil marriage, but it's a matter of faith that god thinks it's wrong. As reason has started growing again with Buddhism, the Renaissance, the Age of Enlightenment, and the 19th, 20th and 21st century, religion often found itself at odds with progress. When I say religion, I of course am referring to the organizations of the faithful (so no distinction can really be made). When the church condemns teachings and writings by Copernicus, Democritus, Anaxagoras, Epicurus, the entire Alexandria Library, Giordano Bruno, Ludilio Vanini, Galileo, Voltaire, Diderot, Darwin...the list goes on and on. You cannot just throw these examples out. The church set back atomic theory by hundreds of years when they burned the works of Democritus, for example.

OK you guys, take a quick break for a group hug.

Well, i'm pretty sure you can't prove that you love anyone, so you're wrong there. I'll refrain from calling you names, though.

I agree. What i'm saying is that there will always be limits to what science can explain.

You seem to think that they're strict interpreters too?

The oily rag came up as an example of what happens when people use common sense instead of the scientific method. It was an example of how your assertion that common sense is good science is incorrect.

I wasn't really serious about the ghost thing.

So theism isn't an honest effort at explaining how things got to be the way that they are?

There is evidence, it just happens to be a couple thousand years old and a little too fantastic.

Look it up. It fits the dictionary's definition. Perhaps popular culture has bastardized the definition of reason too?

Maybe you should post the link again, or maybe you should just post a the text in question in a quote box. I guess i missed the part of the article where it was mentioned that you could send in a blood sample and they could tell you who you are in love with. I was too busy taking the matchmaking quiz. Really, how does it work(not the biochemical processes, but the actual test)? How could they be so certain that you aren't thinking about someone else when they take the sample?

I know, seems like it has the potential to be the best of both worlds.

It seems to me that any exclusive commitment to reason is necessarily based on faith because it cannot be proven that an exclusive commitment to reason will make you better off in the long run than a commitment to faith and reason.

I didn't dodge it, don't be so dramatic. I addressed it right after i said what you're referring to here.

You know that there are churches who actually favor things like gay marriage, religious tolerance and inclusiveness and even evolution. You cannot just throw these examples out. You and dawkins have really missed the boat on this; the relationship between religion and science has been getting less and less adversarial for a long time.

I have never been comfortable with the "hippie" way to enlightenment. I suppose it was an important step in the search for new ways of doing things. For me, that is largely what the 60s ethos represented. Let's make a break with the power structures of the past.

In my mind, all there really did was replace one power structure with another. And all the drugs led to was either escapism from responsibility or in the worst cases, solipsist nightmares. No thank you.

As for atheism and the arts... interesting position. As you will note in my posts above, I do not subscribe to the completely rational mindset. I recognize the world is not an entirely rational place. For me, creativity comes from the irrational. I welcome these moments of pure oddness. They are what makes the world interesting.

As for an appreciation of art in general... I ask this: what are aesthetics? what is beauty? what is art?

Are you suggesting that a world without God (or Gods) is a world without an appreciation of these things? Or are you simply suggesting that great artworks that have religious contents should somehow be ignored because of those contents?

You can go on ignoring the fact that the biochemical state of love can be measured, but it weakens your stance considerably. I'd not call anyone names, but I can feel comfortable saying that in my opinion people are wrong or are behaving in a way that's harmful to others.
[QUOTE=filtherton]You seem to think that they're strict interpreters too?
The Bible, for example, is very clear on many points. One of them is that god exists. I think that we've already agreed that all theists have one trait in common by the word's very meaning: they all believe in a god or gods. On that stance alone I can claim that they are wholly wrong.
There is a large difference between guessing and common sense.
It is no more honest than saying the sun rises because it's sentient. When someone obeys a belief system that is thousands of years old and has not taken into consideration of how far our understanding of our world has expanded in that time, they aren't being honest with themselves or anyone who cares to expand their understanding of our reality.
If by a little fantastic you mean that it lacks any evidence or proof, then you've stumbled upon my point. Religion is a way for humans to explain things to themselves reality in ultra simple terms in a vacuum of evidence. It's understandable for a roving band with no access to advances science to believe that the sun rises because they pray or the food they eat gives them strength of spirit. I would let them explore their world and discover all that there is to know as they evolve. We should know better. We have access to facts on natural and social science. All of the information to explain the questions that god once answered is right at our fingertips. There has been evidence and proof gathered and it's alright to allow ourselves to move from the necessity of theism into a more mature understanding of the universe. I'm not saying you're immature, but that the concept of god facilitates understanding at a level below us where we are now.
Again I'll ask: how is the positive existence of god reasonable?
It's not specific yet, of course, but the fact of the matter is that you suggested that science cannot explain love. Quite the opposite is true. Not only can psychology and anthropology explain it, but now even biology can show you what biochemically love looks like. Combining biochemistry with psychology, and there you have it: proof of love from a scientific standpoint.
It would fall out of the sky because reality would have nothing to stand on.
It's not about being better off, it's about moving away from mythos and fantasy towards reality. It's about not allowing superstition to override our reason. Maybe I should postulate a scenario: say you're eating breakfast out with someone. You put your car keys on the table and they quickly ask you not to because it's "really bad luck". After that, this person throws salt over his shoulder. Would you see this as reasonable behavior? Why or why not?
You're talking about the churches that don't just change the interpretation, but actually pick and choose what from the bible they believe and what they don't believe? I guess they missed Revelation 22:19 when god himself warns that anyone who takes words away from the bible will not enter heaven. So those that snip out things like homosexuality being a sin are in specific and direct violation of the word of god. As Dawkins said, agnostics are straddling the fence, not being devoted to theism or atheism.

If science and religion are on such good terms, why do most church bodies fight against embryonic stem cell research? Bush originally fought against stem cell research because of moral reasons (coming from his religion), and only caved after California signed bill SB 253, the first US law permitting stem cell research, and the Reagans mounted a massive campaign after Ronald Reagan's deterioration and death from Alzheimer's.

I'm not denying that it can be measured; i've never denied that it can be measured. I just want you to explain how it can be measured in a way so as to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you love a specific person. Your inability to understand this might also be considered a stance weakener.

You can only claim that there is no evidence to support their belief. That they are wrong isn't something you could ever know.

And? There is a large difference between casually making sweeping statements about the mental facilities of an incredibly diverse group of people and actually having anything relevant to say about the mental facilities of an incredibly diverse group of people.

But we know that the sun isn't sentient. We don't know where the universe came from. Many theists have taken into account how far our understanding of the world has come.

The bible is a historical document. At least some the things contained within it are considered to accurately reflect history. Some of it seems pretty unlikely. There is certainly as much proof concerning the events of the bible as there is proof of the existence of archimedes.

The bold part is just plain not true. It won't ever be true.

I'm not going to use your ultra-specific definition of reason, okay. I will stick with the ones in the dictionary. Do I really have to link dictionary.com? Is this really going to turn into that kind of discussion?

You and dawkins can redefine the terms atheist and agnostic all you want, i don't care about those. Stay away from the rest of the words, please.

I didn't say that science couldn't explain love, i said that you couldn't prove that you love your family, because you can't. You can't prove that they love you either, though i imagine through some sort of faith you've convinced yourself that it's so.

I know, but i bet watching them build it would have been pretty amazing(really, this is analogy is getting stretched pretty thin).

You can be a theist and not have your theism contradict reality. They aren't mutually exclusive.

It might be considered reasonable behavior according to the dictionary's definition of reason, though probably not according to your definition. Personally, i would find it rather quirky, but probably harmless.

Yes, i'm talking about people who base their beliefs on a historically informed interpretation of the contents of the bible.

They aren't agnostics, they're thei- whoa, wait, let me guess, dawkins has redefined "theism" for all of us, too. Man, it's pretty unfortunate that the rest of the english speaking world has been using these words wrong for so long. How lucky we all are that richard dawkins has come along to correct us:rolleyes:.
Yeah

C'mon, if you're going to claim that most church bodies oppose embryonic stem cell research you should at least provide some sort of data to back it up.

Science and religion in america are on the best terms that they have been on in a long time, probably ever. The catholic church is even warming up to evolution. Did you know that february 8th was evolution sunday, where almost six hundred churches in the u.s. emphasized the compatibility of their faith and darwinism? Remember when creationism didn't have to clothe itself in pseudoscience to have long odds to be taught in a public school? Remember when it was illegal to get a blowjob? Man, that sucked. Remember when it was illegal to get a safe abortion? Man, that sucked, though you no doubt disagree since you and the conservative christians agree on the subject of abortion. Remember when praying in school was something the christians did over the loudspeaker?

Your sense of urgency about the conflict between religion and secularism is at least 10 years too late.

A combination of biochemistry and psychology can prove it.
They are as wrong as anyone can be.
Whoa whoa whoa, who says the sun isn't sentient? Just because no evidence exists to say the sun isn't sentient doesn't make it so, right? You've fallen into my devious trap. *rubs hands maniacally*

A great deal of evidence exists to support theories of the beginning of the universe, such as the big bang. Just because it cannot be proven does not put it in the same category as god. A great deal of evidence supports big bang, no evidence exists to support god.
Archimedes existed. He didn't fly, he didn't turn water into wine, and he didn't come back from the dead. He was a scientist that is credited with various ideas in physics and engineering. Jesus Christ may have existed, but the idea that he was the son of god is baseless. It's as likely as Hercules being the son of Zeus or what have you. Do you think that Hercules existed?
K, so show me.
Reason is reason. Faith is faith. Never the twain shall meet. I already included the definitions of both words in one of my posts.
Theism is the belief in a supreme being or beings, so yes they can. It's not reasonable to believe in something that has no evidence. God has no evidence.
What if the superstition kept sick people from getting better?
How about the last 4 years of news? This was a huge thing, epically around the time that Bush caved (when he lost a great deal of support from the religious right). How about the US Catholic Bishops, the Pope, LCMS, the NAE, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and many, many others.
Things aren't fixed yet. Slavery is over, but a lot of black people are still treated like shit by bigots. Sorry if I don't jump up and down with glee at the slow progress that still is causing horrible problems. Having lost my grandfather to Alzheimer's, it's abundantly clear that something like stem cell research is detrimental.

Science and religion in America are lagging behind Europe, Canada, and many other places in the world.

Is this a discussion or a cage-match?

I think people need to be careful about what they are claiming for each of the two systems (science and faith). Faith created a problem for itself by overpromising - purporting to explain too much. When some of what it claimed to explain was shown not to be correct (e.g. Galileo), that set in motion a chain of events leading up to this day that steadily constricted the sphere of what it reasonably could be said to explain, to the point that today a substantial number of people say it explains nothing.

Those who put their faith in science need to resist the lure of overexplaining as well. Bear in mind that there are "fads" in science just as surely as in clothing. Eugenics was quite popular as science 85 years ago. So was racism and social darwinism. In my adulthood, as I try to keep my weight down, I have been warned away from (in succession) fats (but complex carbs OK), complex carbohydrates (but protein OK so long as the fat was unsaturated), saturated fats (but only in red meat, not fish), etc etc etc. Look at cosmology in the last 50 years, starting with Einstein, and how much it has changed. One criticism of string theory is that it requires much to be taken on faith.

Science and religion operate separately, or at least they should. Reason isn't foreign to either one (if you take the current Pope seriously -- and he is supposed to be a major intellect, from what I read -- you can't have faith without reason). But don't expect either one to bear more weight than it reasonably should. Science can't explain why we're here or how we should live. Faith can't explain how physical laws work.

Filtherton, I really respect what you said here. Definitely a lot more respect for you after reading this thread.

That said, I think everyone reading or participating in this discussion would benefit from replacing theism and christians in the above quote with atheism and atheists...

I'm really not sure what to make of this poll:<BLOCKQUOTE>A recent Gallup poll reveals that Americans are much more likely to elect a black man or a woman president than a Mormon or an old man. More interestingly, they’d rather be governed by a homosexual than an atheist.</BLOCKQUOTE>Complete article is <A HREF="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/02/black_president_more_likely_than_mormon_or_atheist_/">here</A>.

Oh - Will - I thought I'd share two pieces of insight I took from my "If you're depressed, you're a failure" thread, after I got owned by the respondents there.

1. With rare exception, you will never be able to persuade someone to agree with you after you've called them a failure, called them ignorant, called them stupid, or otherwise insulted their intelligence. If your goal is truly to "educate" someone, then insulting them will only impede your goal.
   
2. Anyone claiming to know the "facts" and insulting others for not knowing them will look very foolish in retrospect, especially if

   (a) their understanding of the facts is incorrect, or

   (b) the "facts" change with further research or

   (c) the "facts" cannot be proven or disproven.

In each case, the one doing the insulting looks like an insolent ass. I know from personal experience, because I looked like one after posting my thread.

I feel like i'm pissing into my own bladder.

Yes, i'm well aware of your assertions that they can prove it. I just want you to explain specifically how you, or any individual really, could use the technology you're describing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that person A loves person B. I know it can't be that difficult to understand, because you're not stupid. I think the problem here is that you can't explain it, and you're inability to do so undermines your entire position.

No, they are not as wrong as you. They are making claims that can't be disproven, while you are making claims about things that aren't true(see the love example).

I don't know, maybe we can use a combination of biochemistry and psychology to prove that the sun isn't sentient. Or we could recognize that we understand whole lot of stuff about how the sun works and what it is made of. With that in mind, there doesn't appear to be any sentience, as far as we define it. What we don't understand at all are many of the things that religion attempts to explain.

You think that i don't already know this? When did i ever make a claim to the contrary?

The evidence of archimedes' existence is as credible as the evidence that jesus existed. Cetainly, the fact that the bible makes fantastic claims about jesus makes the information a tad bit unbelievable, i won't claim that it doesn't.

I don't know enough about that to claim either way.

If you will note the lack of information offered by science concerning why we exist or what happens to us after we die. Really, for someone who claims a solid knowledge of science and religion you sure seem hard pressed to compare and contrast the two beyond one-dimensional posturing.

So i can't use the definition in the dictionary? Awww shucks! That's an novel way to go about trying to prove you're right. Just redefine words so that they mean only what you want them to mean, and not what they actually mean.

We can all agree that god has no evidence. Beyond that, i'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

I'm not sure how throwing salt over your shoulder or leaving your keys on the table can keep sick people from getting better.

I think i can see where you're going to go with this. If you really want to go in that direction you should ask yourself "Am i really giving this as much thought as i should?"

You're right. Obviously the fact that these folks got dickslapped in the last national election is irrelevant.

That sucks about your grandfather, but it still doesn't change the fact that science and religion in America are on the best terms that they have been on in a long time, probably ever.

So what? Tell you what, if you want to go somewhere where you can really make a difference, why not hop a plane over to saudi arabia fight the good fight over there? If you happen to make it back, let me know how you feel about the oppressiveness of christianity in america.

i figure I'll throw in a couple of cents late in the ball game, not that they'll amount to much.

personally, I think it takes time for people to be "ok" with atheism. I've been in several drawn out arguments with...hell, anyone...loved ones, unloved ones, unknown ones, you name it. Its a profound waste of time. they all involve a christian telling me that I'm empty inside, followed by a few stories of bad people who changed their lives for god, and now they're happy. and I just cant accept the arguments they provide, so we go back and forth, they tell me more of the same, and ignore the points I've brought up. it usually ends with the christian giving up and telling me that I must lead a dark, lonely existence.

and I definetely think that its easier to follow the religious path laid out for you by those in front. the free-market religious system has set up all sorts of groups, etc to help re-affirm your beleif...

really, being atheist is fairly similar to being gay in terms of the way you are viewed by religious society and family.

I can recall my christian days, when we christians would go to "jesus now" or some similar conference to sing songs, hear magical stories, and we would be led away to re-dedicate our lives to jesus (if we so chose). I always felt left out, because the only thing that I did wrong was look at porno and beat off....and I didnt figure that I was in need of a re-dedication to christ for fufilling a desire that was imprinted onto my brain by "him"

I guess I am to the point now where I dont care, and if someone comes to me and asks what religion I am, Im a christian (to save time).

and, for practical purposes, I am "muslim"...but thats another story.

I wonder how easy the Jews throughout history have thought being devout was?

I don't have 6 months to explain this, so I'll ask that you go out and buy The Psychology of Love by Robert J. Sternberg and Michael L. Barnes or We: Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love by Robert A. Johnson to explain the psychological side. Her is a 20 year old article written by famed Dr. Brian G. Gilmartin entitled: The Biochemistry of Falling in Love. It's breif, but very well written and explains the broad strokes.
They are making claims without proof, read above for references by doctors and researchers proving proof for my claim. There are not doctors proving information from experiments proving the existence of god.
I can make a case that god doesn't exist based on information about how life evolves. If god created the universe, it's not possible that he evolved in the universe, and since all life develops through the process of evolution, god cannot exist under our current understanding of the universe. It's not an amazingly strong case, but surely it's much, much stronger than a complete lack of evidence.
I have to ask: when faced with unbelievable stories with no evidence, why would one simply make the determination to believe that it is true and correct? What is that extra step that overrides the logical step to dismiss the stories as simply myth?
I'll clarify. Do you think that Zeus', the king of the gods', half son, who had supernatural strength, existed?
Science isn't here to give meaning to existence. That's why we have philosophy. What happens to us after we die? We decompose.
That's not what I said at all. I didn't want you to waste your time. By all means, consult Webster.
God has no evidence, therefore believing in his existence as truth is unreasonable.
Forget the superstition thing then. The bottom line is religion would be fine if it didn't cause injustice, or people to be hurt or killed.
Any political analyst can tell you that the Dems gained ground because of the Iraqi war, not stem cell research.
You're speaking in degrees, though. Sure things are relatively good, but it still sucks bad. I'm asking society to move faster.
Strawman. All religion is encompassed in my argument. Islam is right there next to Christianity. The funny thing is, while Islamic extremists are obviously more violent than their Christian counterparts, I've not heard anything about Islam impeding scientific advancements.

Speaking for a moment as to what I'm doing about Saudi Arabia, I'm friends with several very influential imams (I am very good friends with one of their sons, who is my age and shares my affinity for driving fast cars) in Arizona who often travel back to Iran in order to preach and teach and learn. I've had several serious discussions with them about how to bring the centrists and liberals of Islam into the ME, in order to counter the dogmatic and violent situation there now. They agree that bringing a more international view of Islam into the ME could act to calm down the extremists who have no other source of true Islam, which is very much peaceful. Bringing them the Islam I'm familiar with would be like bringing Vatican 2 policy to the Spanish Inquisition. It could really serve to help.

Who is persecuted is really dependant on who is in power... and who is in power is both a function of time (t) and position (x, y).

jews, native americans, christians, "heretics", muslims, black people, scientists, philoshophers...the list goes on of groups that have been persecuted.

Historically, it has been very difficult to disown "your people", due to language barriers, etc. it would be at a very minimum extremely difficult to disown your jewish heritage/family and become part of the dominant class.

allow me to provide a hyperbole...a jewish raised man under the rule of the egyptians is no more likely to become an upstanding member of the egyptian society than a black man on a plantation was to wake up and be "white".

back to reality, you cant really compare the historical journey of a race with your life today in western society.

um, I wasnt....I was going back to the "its easier to be religous and have a path to follow than to be an atheist"

I dont see whether it be in ancient times, or in Modern (as in the holocaust) how a religious path paved for them made it exactly, espcially since they were persecuted because of their religion

I dont really understand your point in relation to what my point was?

But there is evidence for the existence of God. You might not consider it *good* evidence, but it's there. I've made this point here before. Perhaps you would care to enlighten us with a definition of what you consider evidence? I suspect that either the definition is overly narrow, rendering your inference invalid, or that under your definition, the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God is false.

I also don't understand your claim that 'love' is nothing other than a bio-chemical reaction. This seems similar to the claim that pain is nothing other than C-fibers firing.* No, pain is that sensation I get when something's hurting me. While the physical mechanism is the cause of that sensation, there is more to the sensation than just the physical mechanism. Similarly, even if love is causally reducible to a physical mechanism, what love is, is the feeling that I am conscious of. To think otherwise is to just ignore the phenomenology of the whole thing.

*I've heard that the physical mechanism of pain is actually not C-fibers firing. If this is wrong, just ignore it -- it's not really important to the point.

You can scientifically prove Love? You must be joking. That is rediculous. You need to get educated because that is about the dumbest thing ive ever heard in my life.

filtherton - 1
willravel - 0

If you mean that it's in the bible, then the same evidence exists to prove the existence of Frodo. To which bad evidence are you referring?
I'm saying it can be proven, I'm not defining it. Love is very philosophical, and that aspect cannot be fully explained through scientific method. What can be explained is that it is present or not. That's all I was saying.
Speaking as someone who has his degree in psychology (4.0 GPA) from a private university famous for it's psychology department and is getting his masters, and is the son and fellow researcher of one of the more prominent psychologists on the west coast, I think that you should probably post at least a shred of evidence that I'm wrong before you start throwing scores at me. Read the evidence I posted. I presented two books and an article written by a well respected doctor of biochemistry. Maybe instead of assuming you know the first thing about biochemistry or psychology, you should fact check first. The dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life is that the WWE is real. Think about it.

Funny thing about all that education...maybe you need to get a lobotomy or somehow lower your IQ because you're wrong here. You've had too much education if you can say with a straight face that you can measure love. Think about that for a long minute: SCIENTISTS CAN MEASURE LOVE.

Hahahaha!

Again, quote me an article, quote me an interview, quote me from a textbook. You can make fun of me all you want, but until you prove me wrong your posts remain meaningless.

I'm reminded of a time when I was out with some friends and my then girlfriend. We went to a restaurant that happened to have a piano. The next part was right out of the movie Shine. Someone went up to play the piano and screwed up Fur Elise. I chuckled under my breath. Apparently, he thought he had played it perfectly. Instead of realizing I wasn't trying to disrespect him, he gave me the old "I'd like to see you do better." What he didn't know was that I've been playing piano since I was 4. I went up and played Fur Elise (one of the most hated songs by pianists, btw) correctly and then sat back down again. He insisted that I screwed up. I went back to the piano and played the piano part from Rhapsody in Blue from beginning to end. He realized that I knew what I was doing. As I left, I told him that he was quite talented and that if he had played as long as I had I'm sure he could have shown me a thing or two.

my my what a strange thread this is becoming.
there is a scorekeeper now and everything.
something strangely mideval is taking shape--a contest between peripetetics, one of those three-round discursive boxing matches attended by the entire faculty of the local omniversity, a kind of sporting event.

i am confused:
what point is being pursued--not made--with reference to the curious status of love as a category? besides, i thought haddaway had already defined love.


giving a general account of it is simple enough---a directing of the instinct for reproduction routed through a dense, curious linguistic category. in that way, it is not different from any other category, in that once the association is in place, you use it and so what it comes to mean gets sedimented with the history of its usage--a history of associations. if your experience is such that you have come to associate "love" with aspects of attributed to this other category "god" then--well what?---the association doesn't explain ANYTHING---except something about your personal history, your trajectory through informational environments (vector that you are)---any more than managing to equate a bundle of affect that you associate with love with a discrete sequence of biochemical responses would.

in a strange way, they are the same argument: both in the end would respond to the question "what is love?" (damn it, there's haddaway again....) by saying "it happens here." which really doesn't say anything.

if you say "god is love" you are only repeating an experiential loop--since there is nothing that you can say or do that would demonstrate that this loop has any hold on anything (except to other members of the same community, who would be defined in some way by internalization of this loop as if it had some explanatory power)--all you do by using it is demonstrate your membership in that particular community.

besides, it is unlikely that a discrete biochemical reaction that would "explain" love would be meaningfully localized in any event--it could be part of an explanation for love as an embodied experience--but it wouldn't EXPLAIN the experience--if only because you have the mediation of language involved with the experience (without it, what shape would the experience have) and so a whole other set of factors/problems to take into account if you wanted to go this route. the idea that locating a particular chemical response in a particular place in the brain would explain love is hooked to a particular way of thinking about cognition. it is far from the only such model and there is little agreement about which model is preferable to others: each open onto different types of information, each has a function that it serves and any number of others that it doesn't.

quote...quote...quote. Bah. Feel...feel...feel instead. Do you change your batteries every night before bedtime as well?

I'd like to put the love thing to rest. I can provide evidence both biochemical and psychological that someone is in love or that someone has feelings of love. It can't be 100%, but I can be fairly sure (and with psychology, that's often as good as it gets). The thing is, it's all subjective. While I can present the evidence, it's easy for me to be using "love" in one way and you in another. Love, after all, isn't easy to define. The reason it was introduced into this thread was because it was being related to evidence explaining something intangible or philosophical. God, as was suggested by the point, is going to be an intangible or philosophical creature, but the Torah, Bible, and Qu'ran all make it clear that god is more than an idea. God is as real as you or I, and it's made clear when he pulls back a great body of water for Moses, or allows his own son to perform miracles, or allows an illiterate farmer to write a beautiful book. The problem is that you can't relate symptoms of an emotion with proof of a deity, not only because it's a case of apples and oranges, but because there is no evidence for the existence of god. There is some evidence, be it biochemical or psychological, for love.

For the sake of not threadjacking, I'll leave the "love" part of the discussion to end here. This is about atheism, not the nature of emotions.

I'm sure you wouldn't have said that to Galileo, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Edwin Hubble, or the Wright Brothers. If I were a mystic or pastor, I'd agree with you. I'm not. I see the world through the lens of truth. I dabble in philosophy, sure, but when it comes time for me to figure out what's going on around me, you won't see me pray.

with all due respect because you're new.....As much as I disagree with just about every single thing willravel has said, your comments are not doing much to further the discussion are they?

Its interesting to see some of the names you posted willravel, because at least two of them were believers in god, Galileo and Einstein.

things grow curiouser and curiouser...


anyway, i am not sure of much, but this is one thing i am sure of....this:

says nothing.

Galileo was a patient man. If the church had done to me as they did to him, I might have given up. Also:
But, that really doesn't mean much. Many great scientists and thinkers have been atheist, agnostic, or theists.

I agree, I just thought it was interesting that you brought up men that believed something you claim not to, thats all

I'd probably have spoken up if someone said that a theist scientist was atheist, too, btw. I'm interested in keeping this whole thing factual.

Also, I'll always respect you a great deal, Shani.

I don't know if this got overlooked, but I wanted to thank Jinn for this post... pretty damn mature of ya there. Will, you know I agree with most of what you're saying, but your approach lacks something in its delivery. I don't know if I speak for any others here, but I definitely switch off my "oooh, interesting thread!" lightbulb when people start dissecting (this goes for Filtherton, too) each other's posts line by line, in some kind of pigs-in-the-mud wrestling match. I'm no doubt guilty of it in other threads as well. But come on here, let's not turn this into a one-upmanship contest...

Unless y'all just like to wrestle and get dirty in the mud, then suit yourself. At least get naked first. :thumbsup:

and I respect you too :) I dont have to agree with your thinking to do that, a person who has such faith (oh no did I use that word?!?!?!) in their convictions is not a bad thing. I have honestly enjoyed the exchange you and filtherton have been having.