Atheism and Secularism are the future

[lewisnotmiller]

Have you seen one that doesn't promote some kind of pseudo science or pseudo history?
Or do most in inadvertently follow this mistake?

Meh, I definitely don't offer myself as an expert on that. Most religions make no sense at all to me.
However, I think it's possible for people to follow scientific methodology rigorously regardless of their personal belief.
I knew a very good scientist who read tarot. Buggered if I know how she reconciled that in her head, but the key was she separated the more superstitious of her beliefs from scientific method, and she worked to that in the same way an atheist hopefully would.

Look at it this way. I can have a crappy day at home and come to work angry. I can have a strong view on what a particular experiment will result in. I can have personal investment in results, for scholarly or funding reasons. Etc, etc.

I need to try and check my bias (regardless of source) at the door, and follow scientific method. It's very purpose is to try and remove bias.

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

Ya, what you said.

Cheers, bud. That's all I meant, really.

 

[outhouse]

Meh, I definitely don't offer myself as an expert on that. .

4 Billion people will argue when you tell them that Abraham, and Noah, and Moses, and the Exodus, factually have no historicity at all as written and no real historical core either.

These people factually follow and live pseudo history.


My main problem is once you start perverting reality, you have removed all limits on reason and logic.


This is primitive men's errors being repeated for no good reason, limiting humanity.

 

[Riverwolf]

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 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.

All the examples of yours that I've seen are modern, though I may have missed any historical examples. They are representative of a very specific type of puritanism, and to paint all religion, or even all Christianity, with that brush is both unfair and insulting.

I mentioned the Greek steam engines as an illustration that general "progress", far as I'm concerned, doesn't even exist to be suppressed.

EDIT: Oh, these guys?

Diodorus of Tarsus, Severan Bishop of Gabala, Cosmas Indicopleustes, St John Chrisoston, St Athanasius. All examples of Christian apologists resisting the spherical view of the earth that had been more popular in Greece centuries earlier on theological grounds.

Even one of our resident Catholics has only heard of two of them, stating that he found no evidence that they argued those things. Until actual first-hand accounts of such doctrines being taught, and held until death are provided, they're just random names who clearly, anyway, had no lasting impact.

 

[s2a]

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?

Yep. But I won't live to see it.

No worries...I'll be dead.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

4 Billion people will argue when you tell them that Abraham, and Noah, and Moses, and the Exodus, factually have no historicity at all as written and no real historical core either.

These people factually follow and live pseudo history.

My main problem is once you start perverting reality, you have removed all limits on reason and logic.

This is primitive men's errors being repeated for no good reason, limiting humanity.

I get your point. Honestly, I do.
I just decided long ago to judge people on their actions. My way of looking at it is this...

• If someone rigorously follows scientific methodology, then they'll be a good scientist (simplistically)
• If someone doesn't, they'll be a crappy scientist.
• If someone's bias (and we all have 'em) leads to them not rigorously following scientific methodology, then they're a crappy scientist.
• If someone's bias is checked at the door, and the DO rigorously follow scientific methodology, then good scientist.

I'm not willing to prejudge their ability to follow scientific method based on whether they believe in God. If their belief in God leads them to bias and shortcuts, then that's what I'd judge 'em on.

It is, I'll admit, an overly simplistic example, and a simplistic way of looking at the world.
It's served me pretty well, and remains consistent with how I want to be treated, which is important.

 

[Estro Felino]

From what I have gathered, Europe is becoming much more secular than the "west". I don't think people realize how religious "Merica" is.

well....let's not forget that the 1789 American Constitution was never replaced, despite the numerous amendments that have been trying to modernize it.
In Europe secular constitutions are all recent: France : 1954; Italy: 1948; Spain: 1978.

I think that any constitution of the world should be secular. By secularism I mean that the constitution must explicitly state that
a) all religions are equally unimportant before the law
b) that there is freedom of thought and religion
c) that the juridic and judicial system refuse any religious influence. Only juspositivism (or legal positivism) is considered as the direct source of the juridic science.

 

[Etritonakin]

I think it would be far more likely that humans die as a species before religion dies altogether.

Otherwise, the religious might become a minority as extremism and denial of scientific facts get really, really old -at least until people realize that science can't offer any answers, but only a continuous stream of facts which can't solve the human condition, either.

Or... No matter what anyone believes, what is written happens -which involves God turning human tendencies to a predetermined end, destroying those who destroy the earth, setting up a literal government on earth and bringing the desire of all nations by enforcing peace until we eventually "get it".

 

[Desert Snake]

Religion will most likely increase. It all depends on how people define 'religion', in the past many in the west would just call themselves 'Christian' whether they were religious or not, now, one can call themselves something that sounds very secular yet hold extreme views.

 

[paarsurrey]

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?

Atheism does not imply Secularism.
The reformation movement of religions already having been started by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Quran/Islam/Muhammad would become the dominant religion in the world?

Quran mentions it:

The Holy Quran : Chapter 48: Al-Fath

[48:29] He it is Who has sent His Messenger, with guidance and the Religion of truth, that He may make it prevail over all other religions. And sufficient is Allah as a Witness.

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

Regards

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Secularism is definitely the future. Hell it seems to be the better part of what is successful NOW. However you can live a secular life and still not be an atheist. Deists for example are extremely secular but still believe in god.

 

[Iti oj]

New age will it rise to replace? Probably, but I hope not

 

[LuisDantas]

Secularism in the political and legal sense? Definitely. There is simply no other way.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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 don't see religion dieing. I see some religions losing a lot of would be followers....but some people look for and want something beyond their physical existence. I see many losing the shackles of organized religion and embracing alternative ways of life as well as many not embracing any religion or alternative ways of life. Even atheism is a broad term that encompasses many subsets of atheism....

 

[Estro Felino]

Atheism does not imply Secularism.
The reformation movement of religions already having been started by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Quran/Islam/Muhammad would become the dominant religion in the world?

Quran mentions it:

The Holy Quran : Chapter 48: Al-Fath

[48:29] He it is Who has sent His Messenger, with guidance and the Religion of truth, that He may make it prevail over all other religions. And sufficient is Allah as a Witness.

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

Regards

I deeply respect your beliefs...but this prophecy is absolutely unrealistic. Lots of religions are collapsing just like that...because man is starting to trust human nature and its potentialities.
Once man understands how powerful he is, he will realize that he doesn't need any God. And that God is potentially less powerful than him.
and that's how religions will die

 

[Sees]

I deeply respect your beliefs...but this prophecy is absolutely unrealistic. Lots of religions are collapsing just like that...because man is starting to trust human nature and its potentialities.
Once man understands how powerful he is, he will realize that he doesn't need any God. And that God is potentially less powerful than him.
and that's how religions will die

Your version of Catholicism is so very odd Seems to be something else entirely.

 

[psychoslice]

I think if religion declines, something else will take it place, be that atheism, or whatever. If this happens then atheism will become a new ideology, with the same dogma as religion.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think if religion declines, something else will take it place, be that atheism, or whatever. If this happens then atheism will become a new ideology, with the same dogma as religion.

It already does happen, that's what I was alluding to in my earlier comment, whatever it's 'called' is irrelevant.

 

[Bunyip]

I think if religion declines, something else will take it place, be that atheism, or whatever. If this happens then atheism will become a new ideology, with the same dogma as religion.

How could atheism ever be an ideology or have dogma? Can you explain?

 

[psychoslice]

How could atheism ever be an ideology or have dogma? Can you explain?

Do I need to explain ?, how long have you been on this forum ?.

 

[Desert Snake]

How could atheism ever be an ideology or have dogma? Can you explain?

What I brought up is the probability that the 'term' used for the belief or beliefs change, but the adherence is more extreme. We already have this in the u.s. to an extent.