"No-Religion" is the opium of the people?

[Sunstone]

But science caused this.

Knowledge by itself cannot be a cause of anything.

 

[Vinayaka]

Ha! So we do have here someone who thinks their superstition is any less a faith than religion.

I have absolutely no idea what you're attempting to say.

 

[Spiderman]

WTF?

This is a featured thread?

Really?

 

[Vinayaka]

When I think of no religion, it usually means no atheism as well. I was raised with no religion, and if atheism was present, it surely wasn't all that present. We just didn't think about faith, or no faith. Nothing at all. It's difficult to explain to people who spend time thinking about religion. For example, I'm often asked how I discovered Hinduism, or became Hindu, by the Indian immigrants I know. In India 99% of people will claim to some sort of religious belief. Here it's very common to have none. So it's really outside their paradigm, and I get this 'What?" dumbfounded look. It would be like saying I've never tasted a mango, or tried to explain snow.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Knowledge by itself cannot be a cause of anything.

On the contrary. The world we live in is simply a mental world with a physical overlay. We see all of this stuff as physical stuff, but the atomic bomb was developed as a result of two major events:
1. Einstein's E=mc2 theory
2. A letter to the president from him.

There were alot of smaller ideas though:
1. A friend of Einstein's Szilard, who was a refrigerator engineer who had arrived on an idea about nuclear chain reactions while waiting at a stoplight.
2. Szilard met with another refugee, Wigner, who met with Einstein, and they were originally going to talk to the Belgian queen, but decided better of it. They met a guy named Alexander Sachs who offered to deliver a letter to the White House.
3. They wanted to revise the letter, but at this point, the crew was split up, with Wigner in CA. So they hired another friend, Edward Teller, to be driver (he was also a physicist).
4. They put their heads together and offered a bunch of ideas they wanted other physicists to look into with the president's support. But as they weren't sure how to get it to him, they turned Charles Lindbergh. Only, they saw him on TV talk pro-German stuff and isolationism. Since Sachs wasn't very reliable, they gave him 10-days grace to get his stuff together.
5. Sachs made the deadline, delivering Einstein’s letter, Szilárd’s memo, and an 800-word summary he had written on his own. He didn't want it pushed aside, so he read it in person. Ironically, Einstein, the one who proposed the plan itself, was deemed too much of security risk to work on it. So he basically just paved the way, aside from fixing a problem involving the separation of isotopes that shared chemical traits.

All of these events were due to ideas.

Rather, the reverse is true. Without knowledge, without ideas, nothing can be caused.

 

[Sunstone]

On the contrary. The world we live in is simply a mental world with a physical overlay. We see all of this stuff as physical stuff, but the atomic bomb was developed as a result of two major events:
1. Einstein's E=mc2 theory
2. A letter to the president from him.

There were alot of smaller ideas though:
1. A friend of Einstein's Szilard, who was a refrigerator engineer who had arrived on an idea about nuclear chain reactions while waiting at a stoplight.
2. Szilard met with another refugee, Wigner, who met with Einstein, and they were originally going to talk to the Belgian queen, but decided better of it. They met a guy named Alexander Sachs who offered to deliver a letter to the White House.
3. They wanted to revise the letter, but at this point, the crew was split up, with Wigner in CA. So they hired another friend, Edward Teller, to be driver (he was also a physicist).
4. They put their heads together and offered a bunch of ideas they wanted other physicists to look into with the president's support. But as they weren't sure how to get it to him, they turned Charles Lindbergh. Only, they saw him on TV talk pro-German stuff and isolationism. Since Sachs wasn't very reliable, they gave him 10-days grace to get his stuff together.
5. Sachs made the deadline, delivering Einstein’s letter, Szilárd’s memo, and an 800-word summary he had written on his own. He didn't want it pushed aside, so he read it in person. Ironically, Einstein, the one who proposed the plan itself, was deemed too much of security risk to work on it. So he basically just paved the way, aside from fixing a problem involving the separation of isotopes that shared chemical traits.

All of these events were due to ideas.

Rather, the reverse is true. Without knowledge, without ideas, nothing can be caused.

You've failed to make an argument that it was the science itself that pushed for the development of the bomb, rather than the scientists.

 

[paarsurrey]

When I think of no religion, it usually means no atheism as well. I was raised with no religion, and if atheism was present, it surely wasn't all that present. We just didn't think about faith, or no faith. Nothing at all. It's difficult to explain to people who spend time thinking about religion. For example, I'm often asked how I discovered Hinduism, or became Hindu, by the Indian immigrants I know. In India 99% of people will claim to some sort of religious belief. Here it's very common to have none. So it's really outside their paradigm, and I get this 'What?" dumbfounded look. It would be like saying I've never tasted a mango, or tried to explain snow.

We see here so often an assertion from Atheism people that it is not a religion. Isn't one wrong here, please?

Regards

 

[Valjean]

People who have no faith in anything often just want to do what they want to do, no restrictions, no moral code to live up to imo.

They want to be the freest expression of their true selves. I totally expect it to lead to utter chaos. Heartbreak, inadequacy, jealousy, rage and anger, and of course hatred.

So you see people with "no faith in anything" (?) as abandoned hedonists; sociopaths with no moral code?
This isn't what sociologists and psychologists have found.

The only thing religion has going for it is they lean on virtues and morality. But that makes all the difference.

They preach virtue and morality, but, historically, I don't see religion producing particularly virtuous societies.

America needs to return to a commitment to virtues and morality, especially non religious people.

I'm all for virtue and morality, but aren't non religious people typically more virtuous and moral than religious people?

Immediate gratification, entertainment, and wantfulness leads to misery and addiction. But the world turns, and burns because they dont see the value of virtues and committing themselves to higher ideals, even if nobody follows.

Amen, brother!

 

[ShushersRdamned]

I have absolutely no idea what you're attempting to say.

Well. Too bad.

 

[LuisDantas]

We see here so often an assertion from Atheism people that it is not a religion. Isn't one wrong here, please?

Regards

Atheism is indeed not a religion, but it seems to me that @Vinayaka is pointing out that his formative social environments did not emphasize either atheism, theism or religion very much, so it wasn't much of an issue either way during those years.

 

[Valjean]

When I think of no religion, it usually means no atheism as well.

OK, you're going to have to explain that to me.

We see here so often an assertion from Atheism people that it is not a religion. Isn't one wrong here, please?

Yes, one is wrong. The misunderstanding is your own.
Haven't we gone round and round with this on other threads? We've explained the various permutations of atheism, we've explained the essence of atheism; the definitive sine qua non, of atheism, yet you seem to have absorbed nothing. You're back to your old concept of atheism as a religion.

 

[paarsurrey]

OK, you're going to have to explain that to me.
Yes, one is wrong. The misunderstanding is your own.
Haven't we gone round and round with this on other threads? We've explained the various permutations of atheism, we've explained the essence of atheism; the definitive sine qua non, of atheism, yet you seem to have absorbed nothing. You're back to your old concept of atheism as a religion.

Isn't all the above, colored in magenta, assertions about Atheism, please?
Regards

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When you don't believe in religion, you aren't suddenly free.

You believe in materialism.

Not necessarily.

You believe in authority figures.

Not necessarily. Also, so do theists.

You believe in celebrities.

Also not necessarily. Also also, so do theists.

You believe in scientists.

Once again, not necessarily. Also also also, so do theists.

"But all of these people know what they're doing. Unlike those crazy priests!"

This is true for the majority of scientists, yes.

Uhhh, about that. Suppose those priests are crazy. Who cares? Just ignore them.

It's not that simple when those people have millions of followers who believe what they say, and it becomes increasingly destructive to ignore them when they start calling for social or political reform in line with their beliefs, or start persecuting others for not agreeing.

When we started listening to shrinks we believed all kinds of stuff about raising children. Now children are screwed up.

Are they? That seems fairly subjective.

When we started listening to fad nutritionists, we started Atkins and other diets. Now even children have acid reflux and alot of other protein-based health issues.

But that was only because people fell in line with quacks rather than actual, qualified experts. Like how people follow religious ideologies rather than rational ones. I'm over-generalizing, but hopefully you get my point.

Ditto for the idea that butter and lard were unhealthy (triggering research on shelf-stable veg fats e.g. trans fats, interesterified oils, and fractionated oils). Our celebrities and news personalities have led us into psychotic hysteria about politics. You're not free of addiction simply because you no longer believe in God, you've just swallowed materialism instead.

Except all of those things can be equally true of thiests, so your logic ultimately just boils down to "Don't think you're better just because you accept one less delusion than theists do", despite the fact that suffering less delusion is a good thing.

Religion caused stuff like Muslim terrorists or the Inquisition, sure.

But science caused this.

Science also cured polio, measles, smallpox, rubella and malaria, and is solely responsible for basically all the comfort and luxury you and your descendants will enjoy for the rest of recorded history. It's a methodology, not an ideology, and despite that it has achieved far more good for the world than any religion ever has or probably ever will.

 

[Vinayaka]

We see here so often an assertion from Atheism people that it is not a religion. Isn't one wrong here, please?

Regards

It's not a religion, it's a belief system of sorts. When I said there is 'no religion' that means the folks have no belief system, including atheism. But it doesn't matter, does it? What matters is your behaviour to your fellow man, minute by minute.

 

[Vinayaka]

OK, you're going to have to explain that to me.

Just suppose there is no talk of religion period. No talk of anything metaphysical, but no denial of it either. No supernatural, no denial, life is focused on doing the stuff that keeps you happy, and surviving, and there is no room for any kinds of 'deeper' thinking. By definition, I suppose you could call it informal unaware agnosticism.

 

[Spiderman]

OK, you're going to have to explain that to me.

I found out English isn't his first language recently...i wasnt understanding him at times... found out why...

...different language and culture can make a person come across as incoherent on occasion...ya gotta give people a break

 

[LuisDantas]

Just suppose there is no talk of religion period. No talk of anything metaphysical, but no denial of it either. No supernatural, no denial, life is focused on doing the stuff that keeps you happy, and surviving, and there is no room for any kinds of 'deeper' thinking. By definition, I suppose you could call it informal unaware agnosticism.

This is noteworthy.

I dislike the rather mistaken dichotomy between religion and atheism that is sometimes presented. Religion does not imply theism, nor does atheism imply irreligiosity. Quite on the contrary, IMO.

But there is yet a third factor to consider. Supernaturalism. While it is often presumed to be a necessary part of religion, I think that such is not at all the case. And of course, nor is supernaturalism necessarily expressed in religious ways.

 

[Valjean]

Isn't all the above, colored in magenta, assertions about Atheism, please?
Regards

Certainly -- But what do you think is being asserted?
Many different assertions about atheism were discussed in other threads.

It's not a religion, it's a belief system of sorts. When I said there is 'no religion' that means the folks have no belief system, including atheism. But it doesn't matter, does it? What matters is your behaviour to your fellow man, minute by minute.

A belief in what, though? Most atheists don't assert that there is no God, and "system" I don't follow at all.

There are atheists of many stripes: strong, weak, explicit, implicit, positive, negative, militant, agnostic, &al, but the one, definitive feature all atheists have in common is lack of belief. That's it, that's all there is to it. When I say "atheist," unmodified, all I mean is someone without a belief in God. There's no belief, no system, just a lack of belief.
If I want to talk about some specific subdivision of atheism, like militant atheists or atheists who claim God does not exist, I use a modifier.

Just suppose there is no talk of religion period. No talk of anything metaphysical, but no denial of it either. No supernatural, no denial, life is focused on doing the stuff that keeps you happy, and surviving, and there is no room for any kinds of 'deeper' thinking. By definition, I suppose you could call it informal unaware agnosticism.

Ignorance of or indifference to Gods or the supernatural is what we call atheism; weak atheism, if you prefer.

 

[paarsurrey]

Certainly -- But what do you think is being asserted?
Many different assertions about atheism were discussed in other threads.
A belief in what, though? Most atheists don't assert that there is no God, and "system" I don't follow at all.
There are atheists of many stripes: strong, weak, explicit, implicit, positive, negative, militant, agnostic, &al, but the one, definitive feature all atheists have in common is lack of belief. That's it, that's all there is to it. When I say "atheist," unmodified, all I mean is someone without a belief in God. There's no belief, no system, just a lack of belief.
If I want to talk about some specific subdivision of atheism, like militant atheists or atheists who claim God does not exist, I use a modifier.
Ignorance of or indifference to Gods or the supernatural is what we call atheism; weak atheism, if you prefer.

"definitive feature all atheists have in common is lack of belief."

And that is also an assertion, if they have it. Don't they assert it, please?
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

"definitive feature all atheists have in common is lack of belief."

And that is also an assertion, if they have it. Don't they assert it, please?
Regards

Uh, I don't think that qualifies. Unless you are asking whether it would not be better for us to lie on this matter?