Atheism and Secularism are the future

[Riverwolf]

We do? I need to have a serious talk with my teachers one of these days to ask them to leave be then.

Well... let me clarify: the sources of all the religions I've seen; the Buddha believed in the cycle of rebirth. I didn't necessarily mean all their variants. 'Course, the Buddha also stressed to his disciples to question his teachings, and to discard things that don't hold up.

 

[LuisDantas]

Tying rebirth with an afterlife takes a bit of insistence, IMO.

 

[Nakosis]

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?

I think this is wishful thinking. I think religions ebb and flow. Christianity and other beliefs will alter themselves to become contemporary. New beliefs will spring up.

Religion is about faith, hope, power, certainty. Something people want and is difficult to replace.

People want something they can believe in. What does atheism have to offer?

 

[Riverwolf]

Tying rebirth with an afterlife takes a bit of insistence, IMO.

Sure it's not an afterlife, but it's still the idea that there's an "awareness" that survives bodily death to enter a new life. Hence why I didn't name an "afterlife" as the constant.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure it's not an afterlife, but it's still the idea that there's an "awareness" that survives bodily death to enter a new life. Hence why I didn't name an "afterlife" as the constant.

Well, that is not my take on the concept of rebirth, at least.

 

[sandandfoam]

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?

Religion will never die. Ask any Man U supporter.
Why would atheism imply secularism?
Wars are caused by resources not religion and cultural diversity would not die with religion.

 

[George-ananda]

I think the traditional religions will be in decline for the foreseeable future. I think so-called new-age thinking influenced by eastern dharmic thought will increase. Atheism I would predict will remain at about the same proportions for the near future.

 

[Bunyip]

Dude, the "Columbus argued the Earth is round to a flat-insisting Church" thing is based on a fictional account from Washington Irving, which I regard as more-or-less anti-religious propaganda. (And a perfect example of the importance of artistic responsibility, but that's a discussion for another thread). It's even got its own name: the Flat Earth Myth.

Nobody thought the Earth was flat 500 years ago. I never mentioned Columbus by the way, my examples are earlier.,

I identified a number of examples.

except maybe farmers, who often never left their villages their whole lives, so it didn't matter to them. What Columbus was arguing about was not the shape of the Earth with the Church, but trade-route viability with the Spanish Crown. He was arguing that the Ocean was smaller than it is, and that Eurasia was bigger than it is. (And many other details that are incorrect). Such that a trans-Atlantic trip from Spain to India would take roughly 7 weeks. That would give Spain a major trade advantage over their enemies (France and Britain). The only alternatives were to go around Africa, which took forever; or over land, which was incredibly difficult and dangerous, and went right through the heart of the Muslim world, which Iberia (...Iberia = modern-day Spain+Portugal) had just broken off from.

Yes, many ancient and not-so-ancient cultures believed in a Flat Earth, including the early Hebrews. Edda songs(that is, Norse Mythology) also describes a flat Earth, and those lays were written about 1000 years ago, give or take a century for an individual lay. But Aristotle proved that the Earth was round 2600 years ago, and the Catholic Church held the guy in extremely high regard, if his position in Dante's Inferno is any indication. He was regarded as the height of human intellectual capability. They knew well his calculations, and those of Eratosthenes.

By the way, minor correction: the Inquisition was insisting on a Geo-centric universe, not heliocentric. But more evidence that the Church was more than aware and open to the round Earth, and that a round Earth is, in fact, necessary to the closely held Ptolemic model, is once again found in Dante's work. He goes through Hell, which is described as a massive crater at the top of the world, and then going through Hell, pops out the "other side of the planet" to find the mountain of Purgatory. So unless they believed the Earth to be banana shaped, they've known the Earth is round this whole time. Dante lived about 500 years before Columbus: about as far in time from the overrated but incredibly skilled explorer as we are.

As another example of the Church holding up progress, there is stem cell research.

 

[Bunyip]

The only two I've heard of are St. John Chrysostom and St. Athanasius and I've never heard anything about them talking about a flat Earth.

I see no evidence for a campaign of the Church to promote a flat Earth.

Well of course not, I never claimed that there was.

 

[gnostic]

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?

People who associate secularism with atheism, are misunderstanding both terms.

Atheism is just a definition for people who don't believe in god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less. Atheism has nothing to do with law or moral, or with politics of any sort, because atheism is not a legal, moral or political issue.

Secularism, ideally is religion-neutral, in which people could freely follow religion or not follow any. Secularism is really about separating politics & law from religion. Every citizens, whether they be religious or not, should ideally have the political and social rights as the others, and have the same legal protection as the others. Ideally, secularism shouldn't favour one over the other.

The problem is, we don't live in ideal world, and it is not so black-and-white, so secularism can be perverted by political or religious groups, to suit their perverted agenda.

I always think people are naive, or worse, ignorant, when they think or believe that atheism has become synonymous with secularism, or atheism with science.

 

[outhouse]

I always think people are naive, or worse, ignorant, when they think or believe that atheism has become synonymous with secularism, or atheism with science.

Yes and no.

Without religious blinders most people have that limits their knowledge, we are free to have an unbiased view of reality.

In such, we have no issue with science and its methods and findings, because we have a better understanding of reality overall.

 

[steeltoes]

Yes and no.

Without religious blinders most people have that limits their knowledge, we are free to have an unbiased view of reality.

In such, we have no issue with science and its methods and findings, because we have a better understanding of reality overall.

Oh brother.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes and no.

Without religious blinders most people have that limits their knowledge, we are free to have an unbiased view of reality.

In such, we have no issue with science and its methods and findings, because we have a better understanding of reality overall.

Oh brother.

I think outhose's observation is fair. It must be acknowledged that being free to do something and actually doing it may be two difference things.

 

[outhouse]

I think outhose's observation is fair..

In a world where the vast majority wears religious blinders to the point of pseudo reality, I do too.


Who is a better judge then someone with no religious bias to cloud his or her view.

 

[Sapiens]

Yup, and I'm pretty much an equal opportunity type when it comes to religion(s), I see them all the same.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In a world where the vast majority wears religious blinders to the point of pseudo reality, I do too.


Who is a better judge then someone with no religious bias to cloud his or her view.

I think it's risky to assume religious belief demands religious bias. Long as scientists follow scientific method, I could care less whether they think there's a God or not.

 

[Riverwolf]

I never mentioned Columbus by the way, my examples are earlier., I identified a number of examples.

As another example of the Church holding up progress, there is stem cell research.

I think something got messed up when you quoted me, so I may have missed something, but this is what I got.

I've mentioned before that I basically don't even believe in general "progress", anymore. Belief in a flat Earth in the past had nothing whatsoever with any Church "holding up progress", but was simply the observations made by the people at the time, with the tools available to them at the time. As the tools became more sophisticated, so did understanding. From an every day perspective, the Earth appears flat. It therefore makes logical sense to just assume the Earth is flat, since it's what our direct senses tell us. As soon as Aristotle's calculations were made available, belief in a flat Earth evaporated very rapidly.

The Neophobic Church is a product of the Spanish Inquisition specifically, which was itself a product of 1. the Protestant Reformation sewing lots of social discord (itself a potential result of the Black Death), and 2. the Catholic Church's conquest of Iberia.

Besides, Necessity is the Mother of Invention, not "progress". Steam Power was invented in Greece ~2000 years ago, and its inventor was well aware of its potential. It wasn't suppressed for religious reasons (Greece was still Pagan at the time, remember), but because, well, what would you do with all the slaves? I see no coincidence in the Industrial Revolution corresponding to mass-freeing of slaves.

 

[Riverwolf]

BTW, I'm a polytheist, yes, but I'm very much a political secularist.

Atheism and secularism do not necessitate each other.

 

[Bunyip]

I think something got messed up when you quoted me, so I may have missed something, but this is what I got.

I've mentioned before that I basically don't even believe in general "progress", anymore. Belief in a flat Earth in the past had nothing whatsoever with any Church "holding up progress", but was simply the observations made by the people at the time, with the tools available to them at the time. As the tools became more sophisticated, so did understanding. From an every day perspective, the Earth appears flat. It therefore makes logical sense to just assume the Earth is flat, since it's what our direct senses tell us. As soon as Aristotle's calculations were made available, belief in a flat Earth evaporated very rapidly.

I gave a number of examples of Church theologians actively supporting the flat earth idea and resisting the broad acceptance of the spherical earth. I did not refer to Columbus. Further examples of tye Church impeding progress would be stem cell research, pro-life, anti contraception in the third world and so on. As well as the US Christian right spending millions on a direct attack on science in order to demonise reason and logic and thus create a wedge in which to insert faith in god. Young Earth Creationism/Intelligent design is a political weapon designed specifically to limit scientific progress. Not to forget Islam where women are (in some states) prevented from getting an education.

The Neophobic Church is a product of the Spanish Inquisition specifically, which was itself a product of 1. the Protestant Reformation sewing lots of social discord (itself a potential result of the Black Death), and 2. the Catholic Church's conquest of Iberia.

Besides, Necessity is the Mother of Invention, not "progress". Steam Power was invented in Greece ~2000 years ago, and its inventor was well aware of its potential. It wasn't suppressed for religious reasons (Greece was still Pagan at the time, remember), but because, well, what would you do with all the slaves? I see no coincidence in the Industrial Revolution corresponding to mass-freeing of slaves.

The potential commercial possibilities of steam power simply were not recognised at the time, I would not suggest any sort of conspiracy of suppresion in that case (I think you must have misread). The Greek steam engines were brilliant, but mostly used as stage effects - they did however free many of the slaves whose jobs were to pump the water from mines, as the steam powered mine pumps were far more efficient. Not sure what relevance there is to either the op or my claims.

Lastly, the Wedge Doctrine from the US Christian right organisation the Discovery Insitute was very definitely a religious conspiracy to demonise science and encourage people to distrust logic and reason. Their manifesto was leaked some years ago - so there is no real question that this conspiracy existed and it's agenda is clearly stated in the manifesto.

 

[outhouse]

I think it's risky to assume religious belief demands religious bias.

Have you seen one that doesn't promote some kind of pseudo science or pseudo history?

Or do most in inadvertently follow this mistake?

Long as scientists follow scientific method, I could care less whether they think there's a God or not.

I have no issues with scientist that do good work, despite their personal beliefs.

Ya, what you said.