Atheism is a Fringe Kook Theory Cult

[PostmodernProph]

Religion and politics are the same thing.

lol.....liberals tend to believe that crap.....until you accuse them of being religious....then its all denial.....

I'm not a liberal and I am religious. That doesn't change the fact that religion and politics are the same thing. I try to see my environment the way it is, not the way I would like it to be.

possibly you are not.....that doesn't change the fact that at least in this instance you share their idiocy....

 

[JakeStarkey]

The church as principal, of course, is responsible for the non-church executions, murders, massacres, and pogroms that resulted from church persecution.

 

[Rationalist1016]

So, because we have a history of believing in unproven stories and dogma, we should continue? Even as we continually learn real truths about our reality?

What is the objective evidence that religion is a beneficial behavior? How does believing in things that have no evidence, improve someones life?

I take it that you don't want to answer my questions.

Not intentionally. I just missed your post.

The objective evidence is that it exists. Stop thinking in terms of belief, because belief has nothing to do with this. Look as homo sapien as a species, like any other species. Name me one other species which has a evolved a specific behavior universal to that species regardless of location and that behavior provides no benefit. Just one.

You also need to stop thinking in terms of the individual. This is group behavior, not individual. It is about how groups interact.

I don't think I understand your "another species" question.
I think belief has everything to do with this. I want to understand how having a society of people believe something that they cannot know, be beneficial to that society.

Are you saying that because we (people) developed it and that it exists, it is by default beneficial?
I don't see how it's existence proves it's benefit. Totalitarianism exists, we developed it,.............that doesn't make it beneficial.

 

[PostmodernProph]

So which church would you be OK with the President of the US being the archbishop of?

I would not care. So long as he/she did their job in accordance with the Constitution, their religious affiliations are irrelevant to me.

So you would be OK with combining the office of the POTUS with that of the Pope?

I don't think your both talking about apples....one of you is talking about the leader of one automatically becoming the leader of the other......the other one of you is talking about the leader of a church running for office and getting elected........

 

[Derideo_Te]

I didn't think I had to give you the link since I was pulling those numbers directly from the link you provided. I just assumed you had read it.

According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2010,[6]
18% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a god".
45% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".
34% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force".

As to the definition, are you putting that forth as the authoritative source of what an Atheist is?

Thank you for conceding what I have been posting all along.

Do you have a problem with Merriam-Webster as an "authoritative source" on the definition of Atheism?

Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I'm curious what form of math you are using where 34% = 80%?

I am curious why you cannot understand what I have stated from the outset which is the inverse of what you just cut & pasted;

In Sweden today 80% of the population does not believe in God.

I don't accept a definition as a source of anything except word usage. It does not create reality. If it does not match reality, then it is wrong. Saying something is true because of a definition is dogma.

Then the onus is on you to establish that M-W is wrong.

In the absence of evidence the only position which is not belief is one of total neutrality. Are you totally neutral on the question of the existence of God? Do you hold that the position there is a God and the position there is no God are equally valid?

My personal position is not germane to this topic. However I have no problem stating my personal position and I would appreciate you reciprocating.

I am a spiritual atheist. By that I accept what is factual and provable over what is religious dogma and belief. There is no factual evidence for the existence of an omnipotent creator. Furthermore omnipotence is a logical paradox. That does not exclude the possibility that there aren't beings in the universe with "godlike powers" but that doesn't mean that they are actually gods. Today we can strike down someone with a bolt from the sky on the opposite side of the earth. To anyone living 200 years ago that would appear be a "godlike power". There is evidence for spirituality and it has been found in other mammalian species besides ourselves. There is zero evidence that spirituality has anything to do with the existence of any deities. It is merely a trance state that we can achieve through prayer or meditation.

Given all of the above I uphold the right of others to believe that there is a God since to do otherwise would be to limit my own right to freedom from religion. They are both equally valid under the same Constitutional right. Neither position supercedes the other.

 

[PratchettFan]

You think killing an innocent person is ok so long as you are afraid you might be killed yourself? That absolves the person of responsibility for their own actions?

I think it changes the evidence from "that which is caused by a religion" to "that which is caused by an individual who is afraid of dying".......

But I am not claiming it was caused by religion. Religion is an excuse, not a cause. It is caused because human beings are killers. Give a man a rifle and tell him to kill, he will almost certainly kill. Whether he is a Christian, an Atheist, a Buddhist or a Flying Spaghetti Monsterist, he will kill.

 

[PratchettFan]

lol.....liberals tend to believe that crap.....until you accuse them of being religious....then its all denial.....

I'm not a liberal and I am religious. That doesn't change the fact that religion and politics are the same thing. I try to see my environment the way it is, not the way I would like it to be.

possibly you are not.....that doesn't change the fact that at least in this instance you share their idiocy....

Facts are never changed by belief, but they are often ignored.

 

[PratchettFan]

I take it that you don't want to answer my questions.

Not intentionally. I just missed your post.

The objective evidence is that it exists. Stop thinking in terms of belief, because belief has nothing to do with this. Look as homo sapien as a species, like any other species. Name me one other species which has a evolved a specific behavior universal to that species regardless of location and that behavior provides no benefit. Just one.

You also need to stop thinking in terms of the individual. This is group behavior, not individual. It is about how groups interact.

I don't think I understand your "another species" question.
I think belief has everything to do with this. I want to understand how having a society of people believe something that they cannot know, be beneficial to that society.

Are you saying that because we (people) developed it and that it exists, it is by default beneficial?
I don't see how it's existence proves it's benefit. Totalitarianism exists, we developed it,.............that doesn't make it beneficial.

Belief is just another human behavior. We are a species, like any other species. We evolved to where we are. As we evolve those characteristics which make us more like to reproduce will overshadow those which do not. So if societies which did not have religion were in competition with those which did, and not having religion was of more benefit than having it, religion would have died out. That's how evolution works.

A totalitarian regime is extremely efficient and quite likely to spread the society beyond its borders. How is that not beneficial to the society?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You think killing an innocent person is ok so long as you are afraid you might be killed yourself? That absolves the person of responsibility for their own actions?

I think it changes the evidence from "that which is caused by a religion" to "that which is caused by an individual who is afraid of dying".......

But I am not claiming it was caused by religion. Religion is an excuse, not a cause. It is caused because human beings are killers. Give a man a rifle and tell him to kill, he will almost certainly kill. Whether he is a Christian, an Atheist, a Buddhist or a Flying Spaghetti Monsterist, he will kill.

Immaterial to the argument and excuse for killing.

 

[PratchettFan]

Thank you for conceding what I have been posting all along.

Do you have a problem with Merriam-Webster as an "authoritative source" on the definition of Atheism?

Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I'm curious what form of math you are using where 34% = 80%?

I am curious why you cannot understand what I have stated from the outset which is the inverse of what you just cut & pasted;

I don't accept a definition as a source of anything except word usage. It does not create reality. If it does not match reality, then it is wrong. Saying something is true because of a definition is dogma.

Then the onus is on you to establish that M-W is wrong.

In the absence of evidence the only position which is not belief is one of total neutrality. Are you totally neutral on the question of the existence of God? Do you hold that the position there is a God and the position there is no God are equally valid?

My personal position is not germane to this topic. However I have no problem stating my personal position and I would appreciate you reciprocating.

I am a spiritual atheist. By that I accept what is factual and provable over what is religious dogma and belief. There is no factual evidence for the existence of an omnipotent creator. Furthermore omnipotence is a logical paradox. That does not exclude the possibility that there aren't beings in the universe with "godlike powers" but that doesn't mean that they are actually gods. Today we can strike down someone with a bolt from the sky on the opposite side of the earth. To anyone living 200 years ago that would appear be a "godlike power". There is evidence for spirituality and it has been found in other mammalian species besides ourselves. There is zero evidence that spirituality has anything to do with the existence of any deities. It is merely a trance state that we can achieve through prayer or meditation.

Given all of the above I uphold the right of others to believe that there is a God since to do otherwise would be to limit my own right to freedom from religion. They are both equally valid under the same Constitutional right. Neither position supercedes the other.

The definition you provided refers to belief, and then you say belief is irrelevant. I am not following that. Belief, unlike religion, is entirely personal. So the only thing which is germane is personal belief. My position on Atheism is that is it a belief like any other belief based upon my own discussions with people who say they are Atheists. So I find the definition of Atheism as a lack of such beliefs to be false on its face.

What you are talking about is legal rights. Which has nothing at all to do with the definition you provided.

To your numbers, you seem to be counting people who do not believe in the typical western concept of God with people who call themselves agnostics and atheists. If they thought there were included in that number, they would have placed themselves there. I see no reason to accept your authority to do it for them. The actual numbers from your site is 13% atheist, 30 agnostic. Anything beyond that is fudging the stats.

I have no problem sharing my own beliefs. I am a Buddhist. I do not believe in a Christian style God. So you will understand if I don't appreciate your shoving me into a box marked "Atheist" so you can jump up your numbers.

 

[PratchettFan]

I think it changes the evidence from "that which is caused by a religion" to "that which is caused by an individual who is afraid of dying".......

But I am not claiming it was caused by religion. Religion is an excuse, not a cause. It is caused because human beings are killers. Give a man a rifle and tell him to kill, he will almost certainly kill. Whether he is a Christian, an Atheist, a Buddhist or a Flying Spaghetti Monsterist, he will kill.

Immaterial to the argument and excuse for killing.

It is entirely material. We kill because we are killers. That is the cause.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But I am not claiming it was caused by religion. Religion is an excuse, not a cause. It is caused because human beings are killers. Give a man a rifle and tell him to kill, he will almost certainly kill. Whether he is a Christian, an Atheist, a Buddhist or a Flying Spaghetti Monsterist, he will kill.

Immaterial to the argument and excuse for killing.

It is entirely material. We kill because we are killers. That is the cause.

Doesn't matter and does not excuse religious reasons for killing.

 

[Rationalist1016]

Not intentionally. I just missed your post.

The objective evidence is that it exists. Stop thinking in terms of belief, because belief has nothing to do with this. Look as homo sapien as a species, like any other species. Name me one other species which has a evolved a specific behavior universal to that species regardless of location and that behavior provides no benefit. Just one.

You also need to stop thinking in terms of the individual. This is group behavior, not individual. It is about how groups interact.

I don't think I understand your "another species" question.
I think belief has everything to do with this. I want to understand how having a society of people believe something that they cannot know, be beneficial to that society.

Are you saying that because we (people) developed it and that it exists, it is by default beneficial?
I don't see how it's existence proves it's benefit. Totalitarianism exists, we developed it,.............that doesn't make it beneficial.

Belief is just another human behavior. We are a species, like any other species. We evolved to where we are. As we evolve those characteristics which make us more like to reproduce will overshadow those which do not. So if societies which did not have religion were in competition with those which did, and not having religion was of more benefit than having it, religion would have died out. That's how evolution works.

A totalitarian regime is extremely efficient and quite likely to spread the society beyond its borders. How is that not beneficial to the society?

Well, I think we are evolving in that direction. More and more people are abandoning religion. Thus, we ARE in a position where a religious society is competing with a non-religious society. At it's current progress, the non-religious could very well be the majority.

As for totalitarianism.........yes it is efficient. But for the good of the society? Society would have no freedoms, no voice, no ability to control their lives. Again, how is no freedom and living under complete control beneficial?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm curious what form of math you are using where 34% = 80%?

I am curious why you cannot understand what I have stated from the outset which is the inverse of what you just cut & pasted;



Then the onus is on you to establish that M-W is wrong.

In the absence of evidence the only position which is not belief is one of total neutrality. Are you totally neutral on the question of the existence of God? Do you hold that the position there is a God and the position there is no God are equally valid?

My personal position is not germane to this topic. However I have no problem stating my personal position and I would appreciate you reciprocating.

I am a spiritual atheist. By that I accept what is factual and provable over what is religious dogma and belief. There is no factual evidence for the existence of an omnipotent creator. Furthermore omnipotence is a logical paradox. That does not exclude the possibility that there aren't beings in the universe with "godlike powers" but that doesn't mean that they are actually gods. Today we can strike down someone with a bolt from the sky on the opposite side of the earth. To anyone living 200 years ago that would appear be a "godlike power". There is evidence for spirituality and it has been found in other mammalian species besides ourselves. There is zero evidence that spirituality has anything to do with the existence of any deities. It is merely a trance state that we can achieve through prayer or meditation.

Given all of the above I uphold the right of others to believe that there is a God since to do otherwise would be to limit my own right to freedom from religion. They are both equally valid under the same Constitutional right. Neither position supercedes the other.

The definition you provided refers to belief, and then you say belief is irrelevant. I am not following that. Belief, unlike religion, is entirely personal. So the only thing which is germane is personal belief. My position on Atheism is that is it a belief like any other belief based upon my own discussions with people who say they are Atheists. So I find the definition of Atheism as a lack of such beliefs to be false on its face.

What you are talking about is legal rights. Which has nothing at all to do with the definition you provided.

To your numbers, you seem to be counting people who do not believe in the typical western concept of God with people who call themselves agnostics and atheists. If they thought there were included in that number, they would have placed themselves there. I see no reason to accept your authority to do it for them. The actual numbers from your site is 13% atheist, 30 agnostic. Anything beyond that is fudging the stats.

I have no problem sharing my own beliefs. I am a Buddhist. I do not believe in a Christian style God. So you will understand if I don't appreciate your shoving me into a box marked "Atheist" so you can jump up your numbers.

My first impression of your response is that you appear to have a reading comprehension problem.

The M-W definition refers to atheism not atheists. Furthermore there is more than just a single definition. One is about disbelief (which is not the same thing as belief) and the other is about doctrine which is a set of ideas that may or may not be based upon logic and reason.

My position on Atheism is that is it a belief like any other belief

In which case you don't understand the definition of atheism since it is a DISbelief.

Full Definition of DISBELIEF

: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Then you went off on a weird tangent;

What you are talking about is legal rights. Which has nothing at all to do with the definition you provided.

You asked this specific question of me;

Do you hold that the position there is a God and the position there is no God are equally valid?

I gave you an answer as to where I stand on that question and of course it has nothing to do with the definition of atheism because the question wasn't about the definition it was about my positions.

Are you having a problem understanding the difference between a definition and a position just as you can't comprehend the difference between belief and disbelief? Words have defined meanings for a purpose.

You are welcome to your 'belief' that I 'fudged the numbers' because it simply isn't worth quibbling over if that is what you want to 'believe'.

Finally I never "shoved" you "into a box marked 'Atheist'" but feel free to 'believe' that I did if it keeps you happy.

 

[orogenicman]

So your argument here is what?

You want a theocracy?

I want theists to not take atheists so seriously and speak out against them more often.

Why? Because they don't believe what you believe? What are you afraid of?

 

[PratchettFan]

Immaterial to the argument and excuse for killing.

It is entirely material. We kill because we are killers. That is the cause.

Doesn't matter and does not excuse religious reasons for killing.

Does it excuse other reasons?

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't think I understand your "another species" question.
I think belief has everything to do with this. I want to understand how having a society of people believe something that they cannot know, be beneficial to that society.

Are you saying that because we (people) developed it and that it exists, it is by default beneficial?
I don't see how it's existence proves it's benefit. Totalitarianism exists, we developed it,.............that doesn't make it beneficial.

Belief is just another human behavior. We are a species, like any other species. We evolved to where we are. As we evolve those characteristics which make us more like to reproduce will overshadow those which do not. So if societies which did not have religion were in competition with those which did, and not having religion was of more benefit than having it, religion would have died out. That's how evolution works.

A totalitarian regime is extremely efficient and quite likely to spread the society beyond its borders. How is that not beneficial to the society?

Well, I think we are evolving in that direction. More and more people are abandoning religion. Thus, we ARE in a position where a religious society is competing with a non-religious society. At it's current progress, the non-religious could very well be the majority.

As for totalitarianism.........yes it is efficient. But for the good of the society? Society would have no freedoms, no voice, no ability to control their lives. Again, how is no freedom and living under complete control beneficial?

You think we are, but what you really mean is you believe we are. There is nothing I see to support that belief. I personally have no problem with you being right about that, but I see no evidence of it. The very fact that you, who want to see this come about, are being driven more by your belief in it than in a rational examination of the evidence does not portend well for it.

I think we are seeing a rapid environmental change which is shifting us away from totalitarian regimes. Again, not because of any change in religion but in technology. Technology requires a higher level of education of the members of the society and that is going to result in greater freedoms. Those societies which can balance that freedom with cooperation are going to compete better. But this has nothing at all to do with whether any given individual is happy or full filled. If you have a better gene stock than I you will be more able to procreate. Sucks for me, but it improves the species. Mama Nature doesn't give a squat about me - only the species as a whole.

 

[PratchettFan]

I am curious why you cannot understand what I have stated from the outset which is the inverse of what you just cut & pasted;

In which case you don't understand the definition of atheism since it is a DISbelief.

I understand that is your dogma. It is written and thus it is true. Can I get an amen?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I understand that is your dogma. It is written and thus it is true. Can I get an amen?

Who knew that that Merriam-Webster was part of an atheist dogma conspiracy!

 

[Rationalist1016]

Belief is just another human behavior. We are a species, like any other species. We evolved to where we are. As we evolve those characteristics which make us more like to reproduce will overshadow those which do not. So if societies which did not have religion were in competition with those which did, and not having religion was of more benefit than having it, religion would have died out. That's how evolution works.

A totalitarian regime is extremely efficient and quite likely to spread the society beyond its borders. How is that not beneficial to the society?

Well, I think we are evolving in that direction. More and more people are abandoning religion. Thus, we ARE in a position where a religious society is competing with a non-religious society. At it's current progress, the non-religious could very well be the majority.

As for totalitarianism.........yes it is efficient. But for the good of the society? Society would have no freedoms, no voice, no ability to control their lives. Again, how is no freedom and living under complete control beneficial?

You think we are, but what you really mean is you believe we are. There is nothing I see to support that belief. I personally have no problem with you being right about that, but I see no evidence of it. The very fact that you, who want to see this come about, are being driven more by your belief in it than in a rational examination of the evidence does not portend well for it.

I think we are seeing a rapid environmental change which is shifting us away from totalitarian regimes. Again, not because of any change in religion but in technology. Technology requires a higher level of education of the members of the society and that is going to result in greater freedoms. Those societies which can balance that freedom with cooperation are going to compete better. But this has nothing at all to do with whether any given individual is happy or full filled. If you have a better gene stock than I you will be more able to procreate. Sucks for me, but it improves the species. Mama Nature doesn't give a squat about me - only the species as a whole.

I'm not sure why you had to change the language in my response by changing "think" to "believe" and tell ME what I MEANT. But this is not a "belief" that I hold. Nor do I care if it is happening or not. It has no bearing on my position.
But, why I THINK it is happening is:
Growth of the Nonreligious | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project
New study says Internet could be why Americans are losing their religion - Salon.com
Americans and religion increasingly parting ways, new survey shows
Study: Young Americans Dumping Religion at Rapid Rate

So, you can see that my thinking that this is happening has nothing to do with my position. These studies are what I would point to as "evidence"

I do not care to discuss totalitarianism here. I brought it up to make a point, not to debate it's social "benefits". We can discuss that in another thread if you would like.

But we have tap danced away from what my original question is. And that is, how is having a society believe in ancient writings, that cannot be verified to be true & that contradict much of our known reality, be good for society?