Planet of the Atheists

[Tuthina]

Well, it mostly falls in the can of divine worms known as indigenous religions. The fact that their deities are not as pivotal as monotheist gods like YHWH in their cosmology only makes it more complicated.


If it is their choice, then why not? The fact that the two largest religions in the world alone takes a majority of humanity means “for most" might be a bit too generous a guess.

If you ask me, it's very slowly becoming not a choice. I don't think it was a choice for me. You can't choose what is reality and what isn't.

Religions do not necessarily concern themselves with reality. Personally, I see religions more as values systems that suggest how the world should be, rather than what it is. In a sense, you can say it is quite similar to political ideologies.

Also, even if we go by your definition, people are still free to choose what they believe in regardless of physical evidences.

[Cymrea]

I'm one of those who hold personal spiritual beliefs that do not align with an establish religious organisation. I have far too many unanswered and unanswerable questions about religion (which I define as a faith-based construct), as opposed to a simple spirituality.

In my opinion, if there is some form of deity on the other side of death, the communion is only ever going to be between me and that entity. No congregation, just me. Which makes the practice of faith a profoundly personal journey, one which does not require my participation in someone else's idea of what worship must look like.

[The Five Galaxies]

Actually, that's a well documented part of it. The contradiction of religious beliefs by scientific discovery is often something people take into account when considering theological thought and alignment, especially in people who are borderline atheists, which would include many atheistic religious practitioners.

People who ignore the science are often engaging in wilful ignorance, and more often than not, faith wavers under evidence.

I disagree. Being religious (i.e. believing in a god) does not mean you have an irreverence for science.

Being religious doesn't mean you can't accept science, this is true. However that doesn't change that there are still religious beliefs out there which are not compatible with science.

[Master Corporal]

Being religious doesn't mean you can't accept science, this is true. However that doesn't change that there are still religious beliefs out there which are not compatible with science.

I've always felt that religious ideas and science could easily co-exist. For instance, you could choose to believe your preferred deity constructed the universe and everything in it, including the mechanisms of science.

[Adab]

Being religious doesn't mean you can't accept science, this is true. However that doesn't change that there are still religious beliefs out there which are not compatible with science.

I've always felt that religious ideas and science could easily co-exist. For instance, you could choose to believe your preferred deity constructed the universe and everything in it, including the mechanisms of science.

That's actually the belief that I hold - that the Universe and everything in it were constructed by Allah. It was, in my opinion, Him who made the Big Bang happen.

[Master Corporal]

I've always felt that religious ideas and science could easily co-exist. For instance, you could choose to believe your preferred deity constructed the universe and everything in it, including the mechanisms of science.

That's actually the belief that I hold - that the Universe and everything in it were constructed by Allah. It was, in my opinion, Him who made the Big Bang happen.

Furthermore, you could effortlessly insert any deity's name in there and it could hold just as true.

[The Five Galaxies]

Being religious doesn't mean you can't accept science, this is true. However that doesn't change that there are still religious beliefs out there which are not compatible with science.

I've always felt that religious ideas and science could easily co-exist. For instance, you could choose to believe your preferred deity constructed the universe and everything in it, including the mechanisms of science.

Exactly, and that bit is not the problem. It's the whole Global Flood, Six Days Creation, Adam and Eve, etc.

[Tuthina]

I've always felt that religious ideas and science could easily co-exist. For instance, you could choose to believe your preferred deity constructed the universe and everything in it, including the mechanisms of science.

Exactly, and that bit is not the problem. It's the whole Global Flood, Six Days Creation, Adam and Eve, etc.

I think the problem mostly arise from people taking their holy books too literally. If you read it in a figurative sense, then all events will be able to fit quite nicely, seeing that those tales are either 1) originated as actual historical events that get passed through generations as oral traditions, and/or 2) it just makes too much sense not to happen.

[Camicon]

This science argument is tiresome.

It would make sense if there weren't a number of credible scientists with devout religious convictions. But there are a number of credible scientists with devout religious convictions. One who immediately springs to mind is Craig Venter.

And I'm sure there are also a number of credible scientists that think the moon is made of cheese. Or that the Earth it flat. Or that the Illuminati control the world. But compared to the general population, the number of scientists that believe in a deity is very small. And when you look specifically at fields like astrophysics, the percentage of religious scientists is even smaller. From this very enlightening article written by Niel deGrasse Tyson:

"In a recent survey of religious beliefs among math and science professionals, 65 percent of the mathematicians (the highest rate) declared themselves to be religious, as did 22 percent of the physicists and astronomers (the lowest rate). The national average among all scientists was around 40 percent and has remained largely unchanged over the past century. For reference, 90 percent of the American public claims to be religious..."

You should note that mathematics is, of all the scientific fields, the only one that doesn't strictly require what one might call 'field work'. You don't need to grab up a telescope to pen a new theorem, or dissect an animal to disprove an existing one. And even then, the percentage of religious mathematicians is twenty-five points lower than the general American public. If you look to a field like physics or astronomy, where even the most basic concepts of the field disagree with some fairly important religious claims, then the percentage of religious scientists drops to twenty-two percent, which is sixty-eight points lower than the general American public.

And as is typical of scientists that do believe in a deity, they don't place that belief ahead of their scientific knowledge; which is to say, they attribute the things that they don't understand to their deity of choice. Interestingly enough, if you examine that particular concept a little further then you'll realize that these scientists are implying something very significant: that there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of any kind of omnipotent or omniscient god-like being. If there was, then they wouldn't be relegating their deities into roles that science has yet to explain. So even the scientists that sat they are religious are not as devout in their belief as the Bible-thumping fundamentalists, that include twenty-six percent of the US population, are.

Calling the "science argument" tiresome is incredibly ignorant. When the scientific field with the highest religiosity records twice as many atheists as the general population, and the least religious scientific fields have almost a complete inversion of religious belief when compared to the general public, then it's pretty obvious that the "science argument" has some significant and weighty points in it's favour.

[Marcunia]

What's causing is the fact that religion has stopped being a major factor in politics and ruling. Its still there and has some power, but its merely a shell of what it used to be.

[The Rich Port]

This science argument is tiresome.

It would make sense if there weren't a number of credible scientists with devout religious convictions. But there are a number of credible scientists with devout religious convictions. One who immediately springs to mind is Craig Venter.

And I'm sure there are also a number of credible scientists that think the moon is made of cheese. Or that the Earth it flat. Or that the Illuminati control the world. But compared to the general population, the number of scientists that believe in a deity is very small. And when you look specifically at fields like astrophysics, the percentage of religious scientists is even smaller. From this very enlightening article written by Niel deGrasse Tyson:

"In a recent survey of religious beliefs among math and science professionals, 65 percent of the mathematicians (the highest rate) declared themselves to be religious, as did 22 percent of the physicists and astronomers (the lowest rate). The national average among all scientists was around 40 percent and has remained largely unchanged over the past century. For reference, 90 percent of the American public claims to be religious..."

You should note that mathematics is, of all the scientific fields, the only one that doesn't strictly require what one might call 'field work'. You don't need to grab up a telescope to pen a new theorem, or dissect an animal to disprove an existing one. And even then, the percentage of religious mathematicians is twenty-five points lower than the general American public. If you look to a field like physics or astronomy, where even the most basic concepts of the field disagree with some fairly important religious claims, then the percentage of religious scientists drops to twenty-two percent, which is sixty-eight points lower than the general American public.

And as is typical of scientists that do believe in a deity, they don't place that belief ahead of their scientific knowledge; which is to say, they attribute the things that they don't understand to their deity of choice. Interestingly enough, if you examine that particular concept a little further then you'll realize that these scientists are implying something very significant: that there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of any kind of omnipotent or omniscient god-like being. If there was, then they wouldn't be relegating their deities into roles that science has yet to explain. So even the scientists that sat they are religious are not as devout in their belief as the Bible-thumping fundamentalists, that include twenty-six percent of the US population, are.

Calling the "science argument" tiresome is incredibly ignorant. When the scientific field with the highest religiosity records twice as many atheists as the general population, and the least religious scientific fields have almost a complete inversion of religious belief when compared to the general public, then it's pretty obvious that the "science argument" has some significant and weighty points in it's favour.

Thank you.

And, in light of this, I reiterate: you CAN'T choose what is real and what is not. It's not uncouth, or ignorant, or in bad taste, it's ridiculous if not insane.

[Tuthina]

And, in light of this, I reiterate: you CAN'T choose what is real and what is not. It's not uncouth, or ignorant, or in bad taste, it's ridiculous if not insane.

And I also reiterate:

Religions do not necessarily concern themselves with reality. Personally, I see religions more as values systems that suggest how the world should be, rather than what it is. In a sense, you can say it is quite similar to political ideologies.

[The Rich Port]

And, in light of this, I reiterate: you CAN'T choose what is real and what is not. It's not uncouth, or ignorant, or in bad taste, it's ridiculous if not insane.

And I also reiterate:

Religions do not necessarily concern themselves with reality. Personally, I see religions more as values systems that suggest how the world should be, rather than what it is. In a sense, you can say it is quite similar to political ideologies.

And how does that invalidate what I said?

Religions and political ideologies can be insane and/or ridiculous and should be avoided.

[Benuty]

And I also reiterate:

Religions do not necessarily concern themselves with reality. Personally, I see religions more as values systems that suggest how the world should be, rather than what it is. In a sense, you can say it is quite similar to political ideologies.

And how does that invalidate what I said?

Religions and political ideologies can be insane and/or ridiculous and should be avoided.

Hence the word "can" does not entail always.

[The Rich Port]

And how does that invalidate what I said?

Religions and political ideologies can be insane and/or ridiculous and should be avoided.

Hence the word "can" does not entail always.

So does huffing glue. Doesn't make it a good idea, not even a preferable idea.

[Tuthina]

And I also reiterate:

Religions do not necessarily concern themselves with reality. Personally, I see religions more as values systems that suggest how the world should be, rather than what it is. In a sense, you can say it is quite similar to political ideologies.

And how does that invalidate what I said?

Religions and political ideologies can be insane and/or ridiculous and should be avoided.

Which was not my intention. I am just pointing out that examining the (supposedly lack of) values of religions by something that religions do not always have to do might not be very fair. Sometimes it feels like nutjob creationists "disproving" evolution by saying it does not explain the Big Bang.

[Benuty]

Hence the word "can" does not entail always.

So does huffing glue. Doesn't make it a good idea, not even a preferable idea.

Huffing glue has nothing to do with ideology or religion at all unless you want to take this debate in the direction of masturbation. Of-course I'd heavily advise against it.

[Risottia]

Ni dieu ni maître.

More seriously, what has religion to offer nowadays? It does not explain the world or the universe, or even humans. It does not make people happier or better. It doesn't even SCARE people into being better anymore.

Basically, it's all up to the individual and how much he wants to abide by a tradition.

Source on it not making people happier or better?

Religion-driven terrorism and religion-driven hysteria prove that being religious doesn't make people better or happier. Doesn't make you worse, doesn't make you better. It's largely irrelevant to the purpose of happiness.

Source on it not explaining the world or the universe or humanity?

When what the last time a holy book or an oracle (or some other equivalent) yielded an accurate, verifiable and verified description of a bit of the Universe?

[Free Soviets]

Religions do not necessarily concern themselves with reality. Personally, I see religions more as values systems that suggest how the world should be, rather than what it is. In a sense, you can say it is quite similar to political ideologies.

well, now. back in the day, when people actually believed in gods, their religions were very much about the gods' power over the day-to-day operations of the world. the gods got very shy and very lazy once we came up with the idea of 'checking to see how things work'.

[Slavija Slovenska]

What is your opinion, OP?

In my opinion, it's the breakthrough of scientific research, the questioning of everything, and education. It has come to where religion can't explain some things that science can.

Scientific formulas were created by religious people. Way back in the day. I don't think its the fact that religion can't explain some things but the fact that others take them too literally.

[Tuthina]

Religions do not necessarily concern themselves with reality. Personally, I see religions more as values systems that suggest how the world should be, rather than what it is. In a sense, you can say it is quite similar to political ideologies.

well, now. back in the day, when people actually believed in gods, their religions were very much about the gods' power over the day-to-day operations of the world. the gods got very shy and very lazy once we came up with the idea of 'checking to see how things work'.

Or people just attribute physical laws to be guided by divine beings, like pretty much every religious who do not reject science entirely. Is it unnecessary for a scientific theory? Yes. However, at least personally I do not think it is too big a problem, and it fits the existing values systems if we do not take the holy texts and lores by face values. An omnipotent being that looks like a gigantic middle-aged white man? Maybe not, but an omnipotent being that is the manifestation of all universal laws tend to appear like something we can relate with in our mind and perception? Seems more likely.

Moreover, a major sect of Islam before the 10th century, as well as some other sects in some other religions, seem to agree that physical laws are set by gods themselves, and it is a holy mission to discover what these laws are, so that might not apply to your idea there either.

[Alaizia]

Or people just attribute physical laws to be guided by divine beings, like pretty much every religious who do not reject science entirely. Is it unnecessary for a scientific theory? Yes. However, at least personally I do not think it is too big a problem, and it fits the existing values systems if we do not take the holy texts and lores by face values. An omnipotent being that looks like a gigantic middle-aged white man? Maybe not, but an omnipotent being that is the manifestation of all universal laws tend to appear like something we can relate with in our mind and perception? Seems more likely.

Moreover, a major sect of Islam before the 10th century, as well as some other sects in some other religions, seem to agree that physical laws are set by gods themselves, and it is a holy mission to discover what these laws are, so that might not apply to your idea there either.

Divine beings or cosmic forces. Whatever the case, I don't think that science should be so in a hurry to announce its one of its theorems as undeniably correct and absolute. They are just theories, this is how science works. Especially when in the vastness of the Cosmos we are like a grain of sand. Science can make mistakes. But at least science tries to explain the (mostly) physical world around through untiring labor and dedication. Something that religion and its followers lack.

[Christiaanistan]

Look.

The American education system was devised, in part, by an atheist. His name was John Dewey.

The best parts of the Constitution of the US were composed by skeptic who had a nuanced and fairly deep understanding of the roots and origins of his religion, and he was a lot less of an atheist than he was a genuine, pure-blooded humanist...and he was accordingly a hideously poor steward of capital. His name, of course, was Thomas Jefferson.

The titular "Father of Philosophy" and first of the Seven Sages of Greece was a critic of religious superstition. His name was Thales of Miletus.

The man who wrote the principle draft for The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a skeptic. His name was John Peters Humphrey.

I really disagree with the idea that western atheism is a mere "absence of religion." There is so much depth to it and history, and the ideas that surround it have played such an important formative role in our culture.

I believe that understanding this is essential for understanding the growth of atheism in the 21st Century.

[Tuthina]

Or people just attribute physical laws to be guided by divine beings, like pretty much every religious who do not reject science entirely. Is it unnecessary for a scientific theory? Yes. However, at least personally I do not think it is too big a problem, and it fits the existing values systems if we do not take the holy texts and lores by face values. An omnipotent being that looks like a gigantic middle-aged white man? Maybe not, but an omnipotent being that is the manifestation of all universal laws tend to appear like something we can relate with in our mind and perception? Seems more likely.

Moreover, a major sect of Islam before the 10th century, as well as some other sects in some other religions, seem to agree that physical laws are set by gods themselves, and it is a holy mission to discover what these laws are, so that might not apply to your idea there either.

Divine beings or cosmic forces. Whatever the case, I don't think that science should be so in a hurry to announce its one of its theorems as undeniably correct and absolute. They are just theories, this is how science works. Especially when in the vastness of the Cosmos we are like a grain of sand. Science can make mistakes. But at least science tries to explain the (mostly) physical world around through untiring labor and dedication. Something that religion and its followers lack.

Well, a core tenet of the scientific theory is that everything can be (and often is) wrong, after all. That said, trying to work deities in scientific theories rarely end well, and I would argue that religious people trying to mangle them (and failing miserably) is one of the main reasons religions fall: decrease of moral authority.

That said, I still hold the belief that religions concern more about how the world should be, while science concern about how the world is. They should not overstep their role, and they can work together instead of at each other'a throat. It does not have to be like that.

[Free Soviets]

well, now. back in the day, when people actually believed in gods, their religions were very much about the gods' power over the day-to-day operations of the world. the gods got very shy and very lazy once we came up with the idea of 'checking to see how things work'.

Or people just attribute physical laws to be guided by divine beings, like pretty much every religious who do not reject science entirely. Is it unnecessary for a scientific theory? Yes. However, at least personally I do not think it is too big a problem, and it fits the existing values systems if we do not take the holy texts and lores by face values. An omnipotent being that looks like a gigantic middle-aged white man? Maybe not, but an omnipotent being that is the manifestation of all universal laws tend to appear like something we can relate with in our mind and perception? Seems more likely.

my point is that this whole way of dealing with religious texts and gods as metaphors is a result of science undermining religion's old position in the world. that sort of thing used to get you in quite a bit of trouble in most religions.