• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

Is the new Athiest Humanities downfall?

  • Yes it is!

    Votes: 4 11.4%
  • No it isn't!

    Votes: 18 51.4%
  • Yes but I will explain more.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No but I will explain more.

    Votes: 6 17.1%
  • I offer a different view.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The subject is more complex.

    Votes: 7 20.0%

  • Total voters
    35

PureX

Veteran Member
But like another here who posts anti atheist screeds, you can give no examples to back the claim.
No one is going to go through thousands of threads and comment to find and give you specific examples that you will only ignore and deny, anyway. Which, of course, you already know. Which is why you keep pretending that somehow it means something that no one is doing it.

If you really wanted those examples, you could go back through those thousands of posts yourself, looking for them. But of course you aren't going to do it, either. Because that would be absurd. Instead, you'll just keep harping on about it as if it somehow supports your contention that there aren't any examples to find. Because that's the easy, cheap way to pretend you made a point.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
In regards to the headline question "Is it humanities downfall?"

I don't really see how it could be? Religions give a lot of people comfort and meaning in their lives and a lot of them are moderate believers, that can make science and religion work together. As for Richard Dawkins, which I have watched a lot of debates with, he is very open about being against religious teachings, but I don't think he is against all of it, he is primarily focusing on religious extremists from the angle of education and humanism.

Meaning that certain religious views, which push the ideas that for instance the Earth is around 6000-10000 year old. That creationism should be taught as an alternative to evolution etc.

I don't think that he cares to much about peoples personal beliefs as long as they don't impact human lives.

Teaching young children that if they don't behave in a certain way, that they will go to hell for an eternity and burn and suffer, I do agree with him, is on the border of child abuse. Children are extremely acceptable for things they are told, especially by their parents and telling them these things, which in no way have been verified as being true, is to terrorize children.

Pushing for knowledge that can be verified and explained and teaching people this is not a negative thing, but is something that should be encourage. Science in the last many years is what have heighten our well being the most, from everything to better living conditions, better healthcare, the ability to feed ourselves, to learn about our planet, about the Universe etc.
Humanity as we know faces a lot of issues, whether its climate change, hunger, wars, pandemics and what else might hit us in the future. And so far, science and knowledge is essentially our only solution to these problems and even that might not be enough.

We can't live in a world and expect things to work out, if people simply believe whatever they want to because it feels right. We can't overcome Covid or climate change by praying to God or by thinking that he will protect us. That is the path of ignorance, there is no verified data that this would work or ever have worked. And if that is the case, we have to rely on ourselves and we can't do that, if around half the people just believe whatever they want to and have no respect for the knowledge and discoveries that are made.

Religions have had so many years to provide evidence for the divine, to demonstrate that divine intervention is true and can solve things. Yet, they have nothing to show for it. Nothing to rely on that can solve the issues we face.

So on one side we have people like Richard Dawkins and the others you mentioned, that pushes for secularism as the best way forward, that we have to focus on knowledge based on critical thinking and rationality, because it has demonstrated that it works. And on the other side, you have religious people that feel stepped on and violated, because their religions are not seen as part of the solution.

This is not ultimately about religion itself, its about how we approach things and issues we face. If the varies religions can get the God they believe in to help, these "new" atheists wouldn't care, but again, none of the religions have even remotely been able to demonstrate or been able to get help from their God(s).

So to get back to the question of the headline.. "Is it humanities downfall?" the answer to me is no. It might in fact be our only option. We have no other ways of dealing with issue than approach them with the knowledge we have and which can be demonstrated to work.

We can't keep refusing knowledge that contradict religious beliefs, and if they do, the religious people are perfectly free to demonstrate that they are correct.

Just a fun video of Richard Dawkins getting love letters from religious people:

That is a good balance response. Thank you.

That is an issue to consider. When you offer things, people will not always use that as you have meant or intended.

The hypocrisy of religion is what paves the way for people to give up God in thought.

Regards Tony
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
I take your point, but I’m not sure it’s fair to blame Marx for the atrocities of the Soviets. It’s a bit like blaming Nietzsche and Richard Wagner for WWII because they were popular with the Nazis.
As an agnostic, I don't think of the Soviet position on religion as an atrocity but Marx is one of the people responsible for it. Was he not?
 

lukethethird

unknown member
No, but there are organisations just like in religion and politics.
Issues that bring atheists together are the same issues that everyone contends with, abortion, creationism taught in science class, euthanasia, and so on. Their views on these issues can and do overlap with religious people's views.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Issues that bring atheists together are the same issues that everyone contends with, abortion, creationism taught in science class, euthanasia, and so on. Their views on these issues can and do overlap with religious people's views.

Yeah, religious people can agree with this:

"...
Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.
Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.
Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited."
Our Vision
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
You could of course disavow them all with a shred of objective evidence for any deity, sadly there appears to be none.

There is more to life than objective evidence.

I am curious though, let's just say you lived in the time of Baha’u’llah, who claimed to be a Messenger of God. What objective evidence would you expect and request?

Regards Tony
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Sometimes I think certain theists spend far more time thinking about atheists than they do about God.
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
There is more to life than objective evidence.

I am curious though, let's just say you lived in the time of Baha’u’llah, who claimed to be a Messenger of God. What objective evidence would you expect and request?

Regards Tony

I accept that you believe as you do. But there is no objective evidence for gods. You can believe in one of them, but that is not objective evidence.
And yes, there is more to life than objective evidence and religion is one of them.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
There is more to life than objective evidence.

I am curious though, let's just say you lived in the time of Baha’u’llah, who claimed to be a Messenger of God. What objective evidence would you expect and request?

Regards Tony
If you were asking me I would say that I wouldn't expect any objective evidence to come my way, just the unsupported claim that would give me no reason to formulate a belief.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
Ya know....sometimes being militant is appropriate.
When a court requires me to swear to God to tell the
truth, I refuse. So far, they'll allow a secular oath.
But they put me in the position of making all aware
that I'm not a Christian.
So when believers back off on imposing their faith
on others, perhaps they won't be so annoyed with
our being militant about their sky fairies.

Well it appears that the virtue of truth has been forgotten anyway and oaths are readily neglected.

So many lie now, who knows what is truth anymore? Look at YouTube and the pictures they put up, even pictures during the story all fabricated and naught to do with the subject. Fake photos, fake stories, fake people.

There is very little real justice anymore.

Happy Gregorian New Year.:D

Regards Tony
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well it appears that the virtue of truth has been forgotten anyway and oaths are readily neglected.
Not really the issue here though.
So many lie now, who knows what is truth anymore? Look at YouTube and the pictures they put up, even pictures during the story all fabricated and naught to do with the subject. Fake photos, fake stories, fake people.

There is very little real justice anymore.

Happy Gregorian New Year.:D

Regards Tony
The truth in a legal context is often easily established.
I am always both truthful & accurate.
But other people....not so trustworthy.
 
Top