Isn't it better to be atheists?

[Estro Felino]

I think that the concept of religion has evolved a lot between the 20th and the 21st century, also thanks to Ecumenism and to Interfaith Discussion (and to RF..lol)
But one wonders: why is atheism on the rise, especially in Europe? I think it's because people have realized that religions are nothing but a "cultural product".
I am also convinced that the term religion comes from Latin res legere...that is, to cultivate a sort of ritualism. The real religion is the personal one, the one you create by yourself by understanding the world. And I think that being atheists help you understand your path,

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek. Also...I think that changing religion every five seconds vilifies people's spirituality.

 

[sayak83]

I think that the concept of religion has evolved a lot between the 20th and the 21st century, also thanks to Ecumenism and to Interfaith Discussion (and to RF..lol)
But one wonders: why is atheism on the rise, especially in Europe? I think it's because people have realized that religions are nothing but a "cultural product".
I am also convinced that the term religion comes from Latin res legere...that is, to cultivate a sort of ritualism. The real religion is the personal one, the one you create by yourself by understanding the world. And I think that being atheists help you understand your path,

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek. Also...I think that changing religion every five seconds vilifies people's spirituality.

Hinduism and Buddhism has given me many answers I sought in it.

 

[Mindmaster]

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek. Also...I think that changing religion every five seconds vilifies people's spirituality.

Admittedly, Advaita does attempt to approach spiritual issues from logical points of arguing and illustration, but ultimately these are conveniences and realized to be ultimately false. Even they are merely to create the "space" in the mind to receive knowledge of the truth. It's just to get someone to realize their own divine nature and consciousness, we have to meet them where they are now.

The problem with non-Hindu or Buddhism spirituality is that they've lost their sage traditions long ago and don't realize the scriptures are simply mirrors. No amount of following them leads to knowledge of reality and they were just to get someone to think along these lines. The seers/sages still reside in those two systems, almost to the near exclusion of any other systems. Without these, you have no way to translate those "mirrors" into something that can reflect the light of truth in a way plain to see. That explains why people are revolting against popular religious teachings - deep down they know something is up.

Advaita allows you to embrace science and religion as a peaceful whole, realizing that one is an empirical study of the material world and laws, and the other is a map to the sea of consciousness, mind, or God if you'd prefer.

 

[Foxic]

People often discover the answers they seek in religion because its main objective is to provide false comfort through imaginatively conceptualized answers that circumvent knowledge and logic.

There are many reasons that atheism is on the rise, but the main one is that religion becomes less necessary to the masses that become more intelligent. As soon as man became literate, after all, no longer primitively relying on the priests to read to them and tell them how to think about religion, man used his own critical thinking skills and came to discover the religious fiction for what it was.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Aside from what people think, there are simply no gods otherwise. None.

Atheism is a perfectly natural disposition and definitely better in terms of keeping grounded in reality.

 

[William Milverton]

.
.
I see no evidence of ‘atheism on the rise in Europe’
You can’t throw a hymn book out of a window without hitting someone who believes in a higher power in some form
You can’t scratch the surface of an inner city without pain and despair squirting out of people who are grabbing at spiritual straws of every description.


What I see is an increasingly educated population increasingly distrustful of the Christian church.


Since the 1960s Christian Churches have closed in their thousands and their tens of thousands
If Jesus defeated Satan at the cross and if the church is the body of Christ then it can only be Lord Jesus who is personally taking an axe to them.


And the only possible reason for that is that The Bride Of Christ will not (at root) be drawn from the churches but from the larger population
So when a Church reaches a level of phariseeism that is detrimental to its local population, Lord Jesus hews it to the ground.


God The Father exists outside of matter, energy, space and time, in eternity
He also exists in your soul
You know him as your conscience
When you develop a relationship with your conscience to the level that you do what it tells you even when you don’t want to, your life begins to go right again, and you are slowly directed towards your life purpose


Those who develop a relationship with their conscience over many years, reach a point where they can actually hear it speak to them.
Most Churches proceed with nothing more than that.
The Cleric listens to his conscience, which gives him advice specific to his life
He then tells the congregation that God has given him a message for them


The Holy Ghost is TIME. Time creates space
The Holy Ghost is your environment and you live within him
The Holy Ghost will coalesce in personality wherever people worship God
irrespective of their religion or doctrine
Worship of God slowly erodes sin


Any person can develop a relationship with their conscience
Any person can worship God anywhere at any time
A Church brings only doctrine and the effect of that doctrine to a community
If that doctrine or its interpretation does not have a beneficial effect on its local community
the Church dies. Lord Jesus plainly sees to that.


With the crucifixion and the subsequent destruction of the second Temple, external magic ended
The only magic (miracles) in the world today are those created by humans
Release from Satan’s rule meant that humans now have astonishing powers
The one exception to all this is the Holy Mass – the bread and the wine


Whether the bread is the actual body of Christ is irrelevant. The issue is that the crucifixion of Jesus continues to this day
Whether the wine is the actual blood of Christ is not the point. ‘The blood’ is as real as the evil it settles.


Lord Jesus gifted humanity with a ritual that settles evil in the environment by throttling back the personality that has developed
The Roman Catholic church decided to confine this ritual to within its Churches
and to limit those who could partake of it
Frankly, that says it all


Christian Pharisees always see the population as servants to the church and vassals of its doctrine
Unfortunately, Lord Jesus sees the church as servant to the population – his future Bride
and he judges its doctrine only by the effect it has on the population, his Bride
On that axis alone the fate of religions is decided
.
.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I think that the concept of religion has evolved a lot between the 20th and the 21st century, also thanks to Ecumenism and to Interfaith Discussion (and to RF..lol)
But one wonders: why is atheism on the rise, especially in Europe? I think it's because people have realized that religions are nothing but a "cultural product".
I am also convinced that the term religion comes from Latin res legere...that is, to cultivate a sort of ritualism. The real religion is the personal one, the one you create by yourself by understanding the world. And I think that being atheists help you understand your path,

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek. Also...I think that changing religion every five seconds vilifies people's spirituality.

The irony that your belief of freewill (hence Pelagianism) is the result of someone who believed that God assisted every action. Sounds like a contradiction of beliefs eh?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

People often discover the answers they seek in religion because its main objective is to provide false comfort through imaginatively conceptualized answers that circumvent knowledge and logic.

There are many reasons that atheism is on the rise, but the main one is that religion becomes less necessary to the masses that become more intelligent. As soon as man became literate, after all, no longer primitively relying on the priests to read to them and tell them how to think about religion, man used his own critical thinking skills and came to discover the religious fiction for what it was.

How do you know it provides false comfort?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Aside from what people think, there are simply no gods otherwise. None.

Atheism is a perfectly natural disposition and definitely better in terms of keeping grounded in reality.

How do you know there are no other gods?

 

[joe1776]

I think that the concept of religion has evolved a lot between the 20th and the 21st century, also thanks to Ecumenism and to Interfaith Discussion ....

Before you go on to the other points in your post, let me point out that the movement toward harmony among the religions that you point out in your opening sentence is an effect not a cause.

I suspect that the cause is that, because of modern transportation and advances in communications technology, we humans now know that, despite all our differences in beliefs on God and religion, we are pretty much the same. That makes it much harder to accept the arrogant position that "We (name the religious faith) are God's favorites!" All religions appeal to the better side of human nature, but the most popular have appealed to the arrogant side as well.

According to the Pew surveys, Americans are leaving Christianity but they are not going to Atheism as a default. Instead, Pew created a catch-all category entitled "spiritual but not religious" as the fastest growing group.

 

[Curious George]

I think that the concept of religion has evolved a lot between the 20th and the 21st century, also thanks to Ecumenism and to Interfaith Discussion (and to RF..lol)
But one wonders: why is atheism on the rise, especially in Europe? I think it's because people have realized that religions are nothing but a "cultural product".
I am also convinced that the term religion comes from Latin res legere...that is, to cultivate a sort of ritualism. The real religion is the personal one, the one you create by yourself by understanding the world. And I think that being atheists help you understand your path,

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek. Also...I think that changing religion every five seconds vilifies people's spirituality.

To answer the question in the title, it is better for me to be an atheist, but not necessarily for others to be atheists.

 

[bobhikes]

I think that the concept of religion has evolved a lot between the 20th and the 21st century, also thanks to Ecumenism and to Interfaith Discussion (and to RF..lol)
But one wonders: why is atheism on the rise, especially in Europe? I think it's because people have realized that religions are nothing but a "cultural product".
I am also convinced that the term religion comes from Latin res legere...that is, to cultivate a sort of ritualism. The real religion is the personal one, the one you create by yourself by understanding the world. And I think that being atheists help you understand your path,

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek. Also...I think that changing religion every five seconds vilifies people's spirituality.

Labeling yourself to belong to a group no matter what the group is problematic. We are all individuals we need to celebrate our differences. When we promote our similarities we create divides.

 

[HonestJoe]

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek.

What makes you imagine “being atheist” and “exploring religions randomly” are any kind of opposites or alternatives? Atheist isn’t the opposite of religious, it’s the opposite of theist. There are non-religious theists, religious atheist and I believe plenty of religious and non-religious agnostics (even if they don’t realise or admit it themselves).

What a person believes is just that. What they do about it is entirely open to them and is the much more significant element, both for themselves and others around them.

 

[Altfish]

.
.
I see no evidence of ‘atheism on the rise in Europe’
You can’t throw a hymn book out of a window without hitting someone who believes in a higher power in some form
You can’t scratch the surface of an inner city without pain and despair squirting out of people who are grabbing at spiritual straws of every description.


What I see is an increasingly educated population increasingly distrustful of the Christian church.

That is a very long post and I've only time to answer the first part.

You say, "I see no evidence of ‘atheism on the rise in Europe’", now I live in the UK, and the last two Censuses have shown the following...

Christian - 2001 71.70% 2011 59.30% (and only about 6.5% actually attend church)
Jewish 0.50% 0.50%
Muslim 3.00% 4.80%
Hindu 1.10% 1.50%
Sikh 0.80% 0.60%
Other 0.60% 0.80%
No Religion - 2001 14.80% ; 2011 25.10%

Is that evidence?

A YouGov poll has recently shown that non-belief in the UK exceeds 50%

 

[joe1776]

...
No Religion - 2001 14.80% ; 2011 25.10%

Is that evidence?...

Not really. "No religion" will include atheists but does not imply atheism.

 

[Curious George]

Labeling yourself to belong to a group no matter what the group is problematic. We are all individuals we need to celebrate our differences. When we promote our similarities we create divides.

That sounds like you are attacking categorization?

Is it problematic to label myself a living thing? What about an existent thing?

 

[Augustus]

But one wonders: why is atheism on the rise, especially in Europe? I think it's because people have realized that religions are nothing but a "cultural product".

Atheism is really nothing but a cultural product, and whatever irreligious worldview replaces a religious worldview is ultimately not really different from a religion.

Religions are really distillations of human experience, which seems as valid a method as any to create a worldview.

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek. Also...I think that changing religion every five seconds vilifies people's spirituality.

There is nothing inherently superior about atheistic/irreligious ideologies, people find meaning and community in may different ways. I don't see any real benefit from limiting these to consciously designed,'rationalistic' ideologies.

 

[bobhikes]

That sounds like you are attacking categorization?

Is it problematic to label myself a living thing? What about an existent thing?

Sure any label is going to generate opposition. Your living thing label maybe a problem for those that are deterministic or believe in the hologram theory. Some people will have problems with you not supporting non-living things you know Pet Rocks, Loved Cars and such. On average there's at least 10% of the human population that is not going to like your label and be against it.

 

[Augustus]

Labeling yourself to belong to a group no matter what the group is problematic. We are all individuals we need to celebrate our differences. When we promote our similarities we create divides.

I see it mostly the other way around.

A harmonious society relies on common similarities between its members, highlighting differences creates division. This doesn't mean we need to belong to a restrictive monoculture, just recognise what we have in common.

Assuming all cultures are ultimately compatible is a error in modern political thought and is problematic in centralised 'one size fits all' nation states. People care more about differences if they perceive their values as being threatened as a result.

This is why, imo, diverse societies are better covered at the local, rather than national/supranational level.

 

[Curious George]

Sure any label is going to generate opposition. Your living thing label maybe a problem for those that are deterministic or believe in the hologram theory. Some people will have problems with you not supporting non-living things you know Pet Rocks, Loved Cars and such. On average there's at least 10% of the human population that is not going to like your label and be against it.

Aren't 12% of statistics pulled out of people's...

My point was that categorization is useful, necessary and natural. There really isn't much reason to attack it. Or if there is, then there is just as much, if not more, reason to attack the abandoning of it.