Atheism and Secularism are the future

[Bunyip]

However honest, the words were not well chosen. Saying that we have a blind spot that's "immune to logic and skepticism" carries with it the implication that we're stupid.

No it does not. Having a blind spot does not equate to stupidity - we all have them.

What we intended to communicate isn't necessarily what we actually communicated. Monty Python did a great skit about that once.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's a pile of crap, basically. Logic is very important to me, as well. Nor do I think I know everything and will be the first to admit that humanity's knowledge is severely limited. Basically, everything the atheists in this thread about religious people is a just a bunch of negative stereotypes that they're using to bash us with.

I think there's a problem with how the word "logic" is used. I wouldn't say believers are
necessarily illogical. Rather, I say they're more willing to believe things to be true
without evidence, which isn't about logic at all. It could be called....
"Unscientific regarding spiritual & supernatural matters"

Here's an example of a logical believer who was smarter than I am,
& yet he didn't apply the scientific method to his religion....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It is clear that religions will die someday. It is very probable that this will happen; as for Christianity, the number of Atheists increases every day.

If Atheism implies Secularism, I can't do but think that this process will bring positive consequences. Given that almost all wars are caused by religions or cultural diversities.
What do you think? Do you agree with this prediction?

The less God-focused society may progress faster without such a distraction as religion - religion serves no point for our current life, and so without it there'd be a higher chance of instead using concepts relating to day by day life.

But the society with religion is a lot more interesting.

It just depends on if you want to eat ice cream plain or eat it with sprinkles

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think there's a problem with how the word "logic" is used. I wouldn't say believers are
necessarily illogical. Rather, I say they're more willing to believe things to be true
without evidence, which isn't about logic at all. It could be called....
"Unscientific regarding spiritual & supernatural matters"

Anecdotal evidence in the form of personal experience is a form of evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Anecdotal evidence in the form of personal experience is a form of evidence.

It just doesn't strike me as evidence adequate for making claims
about absolute truth of life,the universe & everything.

 

[Riverwolf]

No it does not. Having a blind spot does not equate to stupidity - we all have them.

You may not have meant it, but it was present. Sure we all have blind spots, but its good to use tact when wording such opinions.

 

[Revoltingest]

The less God-focused society may progress faster without such a distraction as religion - religion serves no point for our current life, and so without it there'd be a higher chance of instead using concepts relating to day by day life.

It might very well be that religion serves a mental health purpose.
I certainly wouldn't want to dissuade someone whom it helps.

You may not have meant it, but it was present. Sure we all have blind spots, but its good to use tact when wording such opinions.

Blind spots are a limited dysfunction (like my missing social cues).
This is different from stupidity, which is about ability to reason,
& is global in scope.

 

[Riverwolf]

The less God-focused society may progress faster without such a distraction as religion - religion serves no point for our current life, and so without it there'd be a higher chance of instead using concepts relating to day by day life.

...you just said there'd be no point to using religion in that life, and then basically said that a type of religion would be used.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It just doesn't strike me as evidence adequate for making claims
about absolute truth of life,the universe & everything.

Not all religious people view it that way and I'm sure some atheists make similar grandiose claims. No one knows the absolute truth about anything.

 

[Bunyip]

You may not have meant it, but it was present. Sure we all have blind spots, but its good to use tact when wording such opinions.

Uh huh - but "parroting nonsense" was tactful? Whilst saying 'blind spot in your logic' is not?

How does that work? Are atheists obliged to be tactful, but believers excused?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

...you just said there'd be no point to using religion in that life, and then basically said that a type of religion would be used.

I didn't word it right. I'm not saying that there is a different type in place of religion. Not talking about replacements. But when there is less unnecessary fields of study, there are plenty more to be explored; we could focus more on medicine, physics, etc. a lot more, and perhaps have an entirely different field.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well, there's a theory that when the standard of living increases, religiosity decreases because people don't think they need it in their lives since they're mostly comfortable.

Well, off the cuff, there might be some sense in that. I think there'd be a whole lot of things feeding it, though.

1) Education. And no, I don't mean education leads to atheism. Personally, I think education leads to us being more likely to make our own choices. More likely to choose a religion/non-religion that is 'not the norm'.

2) Religious freedom. If I lived in Iran, for example, would I be an open atheist (which is kinda...well, it's a weird term, but anyways, you know what I mean, I guess). Maybe. Maybe not. If I took a hundred random atheists and put them in Iran, how many would be open? Take the same hundred and put them in New Zealand. I'm guessing more identifiable atheists.

3) Time. Sure, we're time poor in the West, or at least I am. But I have easy access to all sorts of information in seconds. I carry the internet in my pocket, I have all sortsa appliances and conveniences to help with dinner and washing, my car gets me around, etc.
Plus, when making some of my formative decisions on religion, I was a lazy uni student who could read political and religious books as a hobby, have debates over coffee with friends of various persuasions, and worked out my general philosophy on life.
I suspect a general philosophy on life is far less likely to challenge your parent's religious views when things like 'survival', 'food', 'medicine' are first and foremost.

4) There might be some truth to religiousity decreasing due to people not thinking they need it. Certainly some use religion as a crutch. But I've never been the least bit tempted to become religious even when faced with hardship. That includes not only the religion of my culture, my parents, etc, but other religions that would be less likely to clash with my atheism.
If I lived in Iran, perhaps I go to the Mosque and pray to Mecca. I'd hazard a guess that given equivalent access to education, freedom of speech, etc, I'd still be an atheist, even if I went to Mosque. But the scenario is impossible, really. If I was raised in Iran, my life experience would be different. Some (at least) of my thinking would be different.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not all religious people view it that way and I'm sure some atheists make similar grandiose claims. No one knows the absolute truth about anything.

Many believers do claim to know absolute inerrant truth.
And those who believe without certainty will fall more in the camp of
skeptics, even if they don't come all the way over to the dark side.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Many believers do claim to know absolute inerrant truth.
And those who believe without certainty will fall more in the camp of
skeptics, even if they don't come all the way over to the dark side.

I think those sort of people are trying to convince themselves more than anything.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It might very well be that religion serves a mental health purpose.
I certainly wouldn't want to dissuade someone whom it helps.

I don't think religion is a bad thing, I actually think it is a great source of entertainment for people who like to contemplate such things.

I'm just saying that a society without religion would speed up progress and religion works as a chain on our leg. It causes wars, hatred, disorder, and it influences politics, and it does all those things when it doesn't make a difference in this current life, the only proof needed is the fact that atheists can go on with their lives without a god figure.

Would psychology not work as a replacement to benefit mental health?

 

[Revoltingest]

Would psychology not work as a replacement to benefit mental health?

Perhaps for some, but not for others.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, off the cuff, there might be some sense in that. I think there'd be a whole lot of things feeding it, though.

1) Education. And no, I don't mean education leads to atheism. Personally, I think education leads to us being more likely to make our own choices. More likely to choose a religion/non-religion that is 'not the norm'.

2) Religious freedom. If I lived in Iran, for example, would I be an open atheist (which is kinda...well, it's a weird term, but anyways, you know what I mean, I guess). Maybe. Maybe not. If I took a hundred random atheists and put them in Iran, how many would be open? Take the same hundred and put them in New Zealand. I'm guessing more identifiable atheists.

3) Time. Sure, we're time poor in the West, or at least I am. But I have easy access to all sorts of information in seconds. I carry the internet in my pocket, I have all sortsa appliances and conveniences to help with dinner and washing, my car gets me around, etc.
Plus, when making some of my formative decisions on religion, I was a lazy uni student who could read political and religious books as a hobby, have debates over coffee with friends of various persuasions, and worked out my general philosophy on life.
I suspect a general philosophy on life is far less likely to challenge your parent's religious views when things like 'survival', 'food', 'medicine' are first and foremost.

4) There might be some truth to religiousity decreasing due to people not thinking they need it. Certainly some use religion as a crutch. But I've never been the least bit tempted to become religious even when faced with hardship. That includes not only the religion of my culture, my parents, etc, but other religions that would be less likely to clash with my atheism.
If I lived in Iran, perhaps I go to the Mosque and pray to Mecca. I'd hazard a guess that given equivalent access to education, freedom of speech, etc, I'd still be an atheist, even if I went to Mosque. But the scenario is impossible, really. If I was raised in Iran, my life experience would be different. Some (at least) of my thinking would be different.

I agree. It's too simplistic a take on it. Good post.

 

[Riverwolf]

Uh huh - but "parroting nonsense" was tactful? Whilst saying 'blind spot in your logic' is not?

How does that work? Are atheists obliged to be tactful, but believers excused?

I'm tempted to call red herring, but clearly I said something triggering, or rather my lack of criticism triggered something.

I never said that that kind of rhetoric is excusable. Yours, however, was the trigger. Be better than your opponent.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Would psychology not work as a replacement to benefit mental health?

Any good therapist would tell you that religion or spirituality can be a big benefit to your mental health and would encourage you to look into it if you're interested in it. Therapy is not a replacement for religion.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't think religion is a bad thing, I actually think it is a great source of entertainment for people who like to contemplate such things.

I'm just saying that a society without religion would speed up progress and religion works as a chain on our leg. It causes wars, hatred, disorder, and it influences politics, and it does all those things when it doesn't make a difference in this current life, the only proof needed is the fact that atheists can go on with their lives without a god figure.

Would psychology not work as a replacement to benefit mental health?

First off, religion does not directly cause any of those things. Those will exist even if all religious behavior were to disappear from the world.

Second, what, exactly, is "progress" going towards? In my contemplations, I've personally come to the conclusion that general "progress" is nothing but an illusion. Technological sophistication has not changed our general behavior towards others. We're just as tribal now as we were when Doggerland was still above water. Sure, there's been progress in certain fields that have clearly defined goals, such as the continued refinement of enforceable human rights (itself containing a variety of groups), and similar things. But "progress" on its own, when a clearly defined endgoal is not established, is completely meaningless to me. Looking back through history, things seem far more cyclical than linear.