Will Atheism Save the World?

**Taosaur** · 01-17-2008 08:29 AM

I must be perfectly clear; I am aiming at the simply belief in a God. God being related as a Christian one. Not behaviour or anything else, just the simple belief in God.

Also, if you can quote me saying that we ought to remove religion all together, I will be surprised. This is because I am not suggesting this at all. I am sure my thoughts come across strong, but I am not suggesting to remove such an integral part to human life. I am fully aware of, not only how difficult that would be, but how many people need it; even if it is completely false.

Pardon my scavenger hunt here,

Originally Posted by O'nus

Religion limits the endeavour of knowledge. Implications of supernatural beings always replace the true amazing nature of the universe. Furthermore, it encourages the abolishment of individual responsibility (ie. "do not worry, god will take care of it" "its in gods hands now" etc.).

...

Religion is the stubborn bully of the world only budging inches at a time. Without religion, our world would be incredibly and significantly better.

...

Everyone is very lucky to be here and there were an infinite amount of things that had to happen to bring you here. I want to cherish that and value my life all the more. Religion limits this and gives venture towards an after-life. It takes away from the value of the current 'now' and the life.

...

Yes, I have met liberal religious people and I can hardly understand why they stay religious.

...

Gandhi was a racist.
The Dalali Lama is a hallmark philosophy preaching sore loser of his country who wants his slaves back.

...

Science and religion cannot co-exist; it is impossible. The directly contradict each other and are complete opposites. Religion:science::rationality:irrationality. Religion:Science::Relinquish of individuality:strengthens individuality.

It doesn't seem like you're just talking about a monotheistic God, much less just the hyper-literalist moment-to-moment controlling God you seem to think all theists believe in. I left out all the times, including the last words you posted, that you said all religion is "completely false," "self-delusional," "irrational," "stupid," "ignorant," "enslaving," and whatever additional pejoratives I might have missed.

True. I worry that some people are simply not giving up their faith because of the fear of how their community would treat them. Can you imagine being part of a large Christian family in the Christian dominated USA and feeling perfectly Atheist? There is no doubt that they would be in fear and would likely convert to Theism simply out of deterrance. For others, I am curious if they are simply afraid.

As you've done each time I suggest that there is some validity to a religious viewpoint, you're demonstrating a total lack of respect or empathy for the majority of the human race. "I can see why you're so stupid" is not respect.

Is that unreasonable? I am sure any faithful person wants me to be just as open to their beliefs as I want them to be open to my view (I refuse to call it a belief and I hope you see why by now).

You're exhibiting a dogmatic disbelief. Not skepticism, but the proscription of specific viewpoints about which you already have fixed ideas.

And your assumption of faithful persons is false insofar as you appear to be defining openness to belief as a willingness to adopt it. Yes, all faiths have proselytizers, and monotheism more than others, but the average religious person has the humility to recognize his/her imperfect understanding and accept that other people are likely doing fine with whatever they believe, unless there's evidence to the contrary, evidence of undue stress and suffering.

The urge to convert, or more fundamentally, to be right, in comparisonto others, is one of the cardinal poisons of our society, not religion itself. And from what I can see, several zealots of nothing in this thread exhibit that urge as as surely as any zealots of something. Together with the urge to command others for power's sake, I'd say these two cover the problems you, O'nus, and Moonbeam and Korritke ascribe to religion. And you're all acting more like part of the problem than part of the solution. In fact, I'd say you're responding pretty well to the wishes of those perpetuating religious conflict for the sake of power.

Here's my case in point, Taosaur:
- Theism; works on circular logic and self-serving bias. Cannot be proven wrong.
- Atheism; works on empirical grounds and can be proven wrong.

Atheism, as a positive assertion of a Godless world and not simply opposition to theism, can only be "proven wrong" according to the assumptions by which one arrives at atheism, which is to say not at all. Your refusal to even entertain any viable model of theism is evidence enough of atheism's insularity and circularity. This is not to discredit all irreligious persons--plenty, like their moderately religious counterparts, are satisfied that their view works well enough for them and it will be clear enough if others need help.

**Moonbeam** · 01-17-2008 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Taosaur

As you've done each time I suggest that there is some validity to a religious viewpoint, you're demonstrating a total lack of respect or empathy for the majority of the human race. "I can see why you're so stupid" is not respect.

I guess I'm answering for O'nus on this one, but because you can understand the biopsychosocial reasons why certain behaviors evolved does not mean that you think people are so stupid. I occasionally recognize superstitious behaviors in myself, and I realize it is a manifestation of the same thinking processes that in a lot of people in different circumstances becomes religion. There are other examples of behaviors which can be recognized for what they are (a vestige of something that may have been useful under certain circumstances, but no longer is), and then rationally modified. Rational people can recognize these illogical tendencies and change their thinking to something more productive. There are many examples of this; religion is just one.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

You're exhibiting a dogmatic disbelief. Not skepticism, but the proscription of specific viewpoints about which you already have fixed ideas.

OK, you never respond to this, but I'll say it again--needing proof is not having "fixed ideas"! It's exactly the opposite! Religious people don't change with their ideas with new evidence, scientific do! Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

but the average religious person has the humility to recognize his/her imperfect understanding and accept that other people are likely doing fine with whatever they believe, unless there's evidence to the contrary, evidence of undue stress and suffering.

But that's the problem--the world isn't doing fine, which you haven't seemed to notice.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The urge to convert, or more fundamentally, to be right, in comparisonto others, is one of the cardinal poisons of our society, not religion itself. And from what I can see, several zealots of nothing in this thread exhibit that urge as as surely as any zealots of something. Together with the urge to command others for power's sake, I'd say these two cover the problems you, O'nus, and Moonbeam and Korritke ascribe to religion. And you're all acting more like part of the problem than part of the solution. In fact, I'd say you're responding pretty well to the wishes of those perpetuating religious conflict for the sake of power.

Actually, if all religious people were like Jainists, I would probably think they were silly, but they wouldn't bother me (just an example, probably other similar religions would be fine). I don't want to "command" anyone, I just want to be free of their influence over government which leads to restrictive laws, wars, using money I earned for purposes I don't believe in, etc. The more forceful, obnoxious religions of course are going to be the ones that take over, as we can see that they did. The powerful religions are violent and oppressive.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Atheism, as a positive assertion of a Godless world and not simply opposition to theism, can only be "proven wrong" according to the assumptions by which one arrives at atheism, which is to say not at all.

Wrong. I can't really even understand that covoluted sentence, but we don't have to prove anything--the person making the extraordinary claim had the burden of proof.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Your refusal to even entertain any viable model of theism is evidence enough of atheism's insularity and circularity.

Because there are no viable models...? You make no sense at all.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

This is not to discredit all irreligious persons--plenty, like their moderately religious counterparts, are satisfied that their view works well enough for them and it will be clear enough if others need help.

So, if atheist's views are "working well enough for them", it's OK with you? As long as they don't tell other people, or what? I guess you think atheists shouldn't talk, but what about people with other views? Should they keep them to themselves too? That would be OK with me. What do you mean, "it will be clear enough if others need help?'

You seem to think that as long as everybody is completely wishy-washy, without any real views or opinions, acknowleding that their own beliefs are likely to be wrong, as are everyone else's, or maybe they're all right, that's great. You make no sense.

**skysaw** · 01-17-2008 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Atheism, as a positive assertion of a Godless world and not simply opposition to theism, can only be "proven wrong" according to the assumptions by which one arrives at atheism, which is to say not at all.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Wrong. ...the person making the extraordinary claim had the burden of proof.

Double plus agree with Moonbeam. Not to mention God can easily prove us wrong by simply appearing and setting the record straight. Should be a simple matter for him to clear up.

**O'nus** · 01-17-2008 06:06 PM

I think MoonBeam and SkySaw responded appropriately.

I wanted to add one more detail, significantly influenced by existential philosophers:

I want to outline what happens when one embraces each belief. There is a lot of overlap, which is why I will eliminate the commonalities. I will list those commonalities first:

Atheism and Theism both:
- Are views of the world
- Help understanding
- Give structure
- Give hope
- Give a community

This goes for pretty much anything. I think this is what you are focusing on..? Because this samething can also be said about the most sadistic of persons beliefs; do you think they ought be to left to there beliefs and be able to express them? (ie. racism and pedophilia)

What happens when embracing the beliefs:

Theism:
- Relinquishes individual responsibility

Atheism:
- Embraces individual responsibility as sole aspect

The former has something to give hope, yes, but also completely remove individual responsibility (if not individuality in general). The person chooses to decide that everything is the result of a God (deciding which definition you are using, so please bare with me here).

Atheism relies solely on the individual and gives room for discourse. Whereas, the former does not. Atheists, like myself, give room for falsifiability and will yield to falsifications. On the otherhand, look how long it took for the heliocentric system to come to fruition. Better yet, look how AIDS treatment is being treated by the faithful in Africa; prolification of their belief system.

Example:
Kid in Africa has AIDS:
Theist approach; give bible and pray for forgiveness
Atheist approach; give vaccines and medical attention

Sure the theist can use the scientific approach, they are fully well capable of it. But this is not the case.

Take a look at Mother Theresa's "Hospitals" and you will see that she perpetuated suffering because she believed that further suffering would bring them closer to Jesus and them bring a cure or, at least, a good death.

How about the recent case of the Islamic man who beats his wife because his belief system justifies it?

These are extreme cases..?

The person who believes, "Oh, AIDS is actually the cure for homosexuality as a gift from God." As opposed to a human immuno-deficiency virus.

My point here is that the belief in God is always a fundamental block and, unless that person is willing to relinquish there belief in God, they cannot give the proper attention or take individual responsibility that they ought to take (ie. "my daughter is taking drugs, I better pray to God more or I am not faithful enough").

On a more individual scale, it simply relinquish the individuals choice. Atheism gives room for individual choice and gives room for falsifiability rather than bias and self-fulfilling prophecys.

I think I am ranting too much now.

What do you think...?

~

**Taosaur** · 01-17-2008 11:03 PM

To everyone mocking the religious majority: it doesn't seem there's much left to say. You don't understand what religion is. Just like someone who thinks they're a "bad Christian" if they don't insist Genesis is historical fact, you're arguing from a position of ignorance.

You're interpreting religious symbols literally; whether you do it from a position of belief or disbelief, it's equally retarded. It's the source of the majority of problems you're citing. The rest come from politics making use of religion--eliminating religion (if it were possible) would not eliminate politics. Someone saying the word "God" six times in every stump speech is not a good example of a religious person.

I'm not saying there's no problem, just that you're misdiagnosing it, and thus not helping. Religious reform is needed, certainly, but shouting "It's all bullshit!" is playing right into the hands of those who use religion for control. It mobilizes their flocks in a defensive huddle.

Generally, I'm pro-atheist. I side invariably with atheists on issues of science, education, and political policy. I think the world needs more atheists, as they're underrepresented--but not if they're going to fall blindly into the same patterns of error and become just another voice in the shouting match for dibs on truth.

Atheists are perfectly capable of being mobilized into cults of personality, as happened in Russia and China, and the results are just as ugly as a religious crusade.

**O'nus** · 01-17-2008 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Taosaur

To everyone mocking the religious majority: it doesn't seem there's much left to say. You don't understand what religion is. Just like someone who thinks they're a "bad Christian" if they don't insist Genesis is historical fact, you're arguing from a position of ignorance.

I presume you say we do not understand because of the symbolism..? This being what I think the case...

You're interpreting religious symbols literally; whether you do it from a position of belief or disbelief, it's equally retarded. It's the source of the majority of problems you're citing. The rest come from politics making use of religion--eliminating religion (if it were possible) would not eliminate politics. Someone saying the word "God" six times in every stump speech is not a good example of a religious person.

So we should not tackle religions because of what they symbolize? Could you possibly give an example of this?

Say prayer. What does that symbolize?
What does it symbolize when someone says, "I quit smoking because God wanted me to."??

Can you help me understand this? Because if you are saying that some people only infelxibly believe in God, say the ones that hold "I quit because I wanted to" but still believe in God, then what God is it that they believe in..? A God that is not omnipotent?

Like I said; it really depends on the definition of God. I think we can both agree on that one, right? Because someone who thinks of God as an intangible energy that binds us all bust does not manipulate us, they could very easily be an atheist. In fact, I think it makes perfect sense to think of energy without mass. It is even under study right now. That kind of God (the culmination of all this energy) would not be problematic or deterimental to the individual, right?

So I think it depends on the God. As you said, the monotheistic Gods. I do not think there is detriment to individual choice whilst being a Buddhist.

That is what you are saying, right?

I'm not saying there's no problem, just that you're misdiagnosing it, and thus not helping. Religious reform is needed, certainly, but shouting "It's all bullshit!" is playing right into the hands of those who use religion for control. It mobilizes their flocks in a defensive huddle.

I hope my above content clarifies my intent.

Generally, I'm pro-atheist. I side invariably with atheists on issues of science, education, and political policy. I think the world needs more atheists, as they're underrepresented--but not if they're going to fall blindly into the same patterns of error and become just another voice in the shouting match for dibs on truth.

Very true. Atheist ought to also fall on grounds of falsifiability. Any scientific fact is only a scientific fact because it is falsifiable, right? My point here is that most monotheistic Gods are unfalsifiable.

Atheists are perfectly capable of being mobilized into cults of personality, as happened in Russia and China, and the results are just as ugly as a religious crusade.

Yes, they are just as capable but to what degree and to what level of coercion? This is my main point. I do not think that an Atheist world is free from war or pain. There are many psychotic individuals who think that they are God. My point is a ratio comaprison and the consequential significant leeway.

~