[Unthinking Majority]

While I have no proof that God exists, you have none that He doesn't. Stalemate.

The burden isn't up to a person, in this case an atheist, to prove a negative.

That's like saying me saying "While I have no proof that a giant purple giraffe created the universe, you have none that one didn't. Stalemate." Obviously ridiculous, just as your statement above is.

[Unthinking Majority]

But I would be curious to hear you justify the general idea that religion = something that the dumb believe in.

I know the quote above wasn't in response to me, but I'll comment anyways.

Religious people aren't necessarily dumb (i'll define "religious" here as those who believe in Western and/or theistic religions since I don't know enough about all world religions to make judgements). There are a lot of intelligent people who are religious. But if you're religious, you either:

1) have yet to fully educate yourself on fundamental science and the history of your religion nor taken the time to properly critically analyze exactly why you believe what you do.
2) are not intelligent enough to properly complete 1)
3) are literally insane and/or lacking in the ability to reason logically

(or any combination of the above)

You can be very intelligent but just haven't taken the time to complete 1). If you're intelligent, sane (ability to reason), and have completed 1), it's not possible to believe in a deity because doing so is completely illogical. So basically, you're either 1) ignorant, 2) stupid, or 3) insane.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

The burden isn't up to a person, in this case an atheist, to prove a negative.

Says who? You're making a claim, where's the evidence? Saying a higher power doesn't exist is as bad as saying it does, the fact is we just don't know either way.
If I were to ask you a yes or no question as to the existence of intelligent life not of this planet, what would your answer be?

[Verv]

I know the quote above wasn't in response to me, but I'll comment anyways.

Religious people aren't necessarily dumb (i'll define "religious" here as those who believe in Western and/or theistic religions since I don't know enough about all world religions to make judgements). There are a lot of intelligent people who are religious. But if you're religious, you either:

1) have yet to fully educate yourself on fundamental science and the history of your religion nor taken the time to properly critically analyze exactly why you believe what you do.
2) are not intelligent enough to properly complete 1)
3) are literally insane and/or lacking in the ability to reason logically

(or any combination of the above)

You can be very intelligent but just haven't taken the time to complete 1). If you're intelligent, sane (ability to reason), and have completed 1), it's not possible to believe in a deity because doing so is completely illogical. So basically, you're either 1) ignorant, 2) stupid, or 3) insane.

Of course, this all hinges on the idea that everyone has to agree with your narrow interpretation of things after doing #1...I am totally unconvinced of the position.

You do not seem to understand the nature of religion's position:

(1a) The Bible was never meant to be a science book. Just like every other religion, in its infancy much of it was meant to be memorized and passed down in such a fashion and thus in order to make difficult the falsification or perversion of it it was most often written in poetic meter (true of most Buddhist sutras & Old Testament texts).. Naturally, this produces limitations of its own, and it tends towards expressing things in a largely poetic way. Religions also enjoyed allowing large room for interpretation...

How is any of this supposed to fall into the realm of science?

Or, is it that (1b) Godhead is scientifically disproven, and that no such Godhead could possibly exist in any scientific model of the universe? That seems to be a patently absurd claim as well.

(2) And what do you even mean in terms of 'history of religion?

Perhaps if there was a religion like scientology that claims to have perfected their followers as a whole, perhaps that religion would be invalid. But of course, the histry of a religion is irrelevant...

Unless you are about to do the impossible and prove the fraudulent origins of dozens of holy books right now.

And this is all why you cannot portray the religious as being 'idiots/ignorant/insane' for disagreeing with you...

The hubris of nu-atheism is quite in a 19 year old kid but please tell me you aren't an older person thumping your Christopher Hithens text at us.

[Verv]

I'll sum it up in the context of politics. Regimes draw their legitimacy from a variety of areas, some from magical sky fairies. Welcome to organised religion since before history began. Your personal beliefs are not organised religion, a chiristian with a personal god is not a christian because he or she is not under the effect of the church and does not contribute to its spread in any way whatsoever. Such an individual is difficult to manipulate by any religious head or politician appealing to religious principles.

But if you buy into organised, mass consumed dogma, in this day and age, then you're merely a victim. Of the institution in question, of your parents, of their parents, etc. It is a self perpetuating cult, nothing more. That in itself is not the issue; this cult shits in the face of reason, logic, forward think. This cult is regressive, no matter how many famous scientists and figures you retroactively label as this or that. There is a good reason why the vast majority of people in the scientific community today are atheist or agnostic-they have to be smart to fulfill their occupational role. Most of the elite are also smart, otherwise they wouldn't be elite for every long.

To answer your question, I say to these people the same thing I say to children; that's nice. Keep it to yourself and if it work for you, you go tiger. These spiritual feelings arise from your emotional state, not your innate ability to answer real world questions with real world problem solving. Where your ability to solve something breaks down, emotion kicks in. That doesn't mean you've answered anything. Tragically, it means you have not even put the answer on hold-you've simply chosen to ignore it forever because it 'feels' better that way. Welcome to faith. An effective politician, businessman or scientist does not thrive on guessing games but on as much useful information as possible, the church doesn't provide that-it just provides an established powerbase that can be harnessed and thus manipulated.

As for the people you mention, the vast majority who did not inherit their position would be far smarter than to be digesting the bullshit they peddle. It is an act. Welcome to politics. I suggest you find a way to meet some of these people in private some day, somehow, your entire world might shatter but it is worth the wake up call.
<snip>.

It is a stance on the origins of the universe and the spiritual life of man, it isn't an act or a self-perpetuating cult.

Are things occasionally used for bad? Of course, and none of them more than science -- science is currently destroying the environment and is the forging ground of new weapons of mass destruction. Of course, it brings a lot of good with it - just like religion -- but you are only viewing this from the angle that you desire to view it from. You need to be more disciplined in your perception of things and remember to dot your I's and cross your T's.

Religion as a control mechanism is such a self-serving theory that doesn't pan out in the long run.

Religion is a series of explanations and, of course, it does involve Faith, and it is a Faith in a belief system... And it is a system far stronger than one which lazily tries to explain thousands of years of human history in a hasty generalization that doesn't stand up to criticism.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Religion is a series of explanations and, of course, it does involve Faith, and it is a Faith in a belief system... And it is a system far stronger than one which lazily tries to explain thousands of years of human history in a hasty generalization that doesn't stand up to criticism.

I have no problem with faith and pondering the unknown, but my main disagreement with organised religion is the ceremonies and so holy-men. What's it all about? If a higher power does exist why should we let priests and reverends stand between us and him? And what does he care whether we eat meat on ash Wednesday or keep the Sabbath day holy? In fact it is my belief in the possibility of a higher power that makes organised religion so unpalatable to me. Religion makes a mockery of God, its man worship, God does not need religion (if God exists).

[Drlee]

The burden isn't up to a person, in this case an atheist, to prove a negative.

That's like saying me saying "While I have no proof that a giant purple giraffe created the universe, you have none that one didn't. Stalemate." Obviously ridiculous, just as your statement above is.

And YET AGAIN we have someone demanding scientific proof for the existence of God.

If that is what you want for yourself, fine. Please leave the religious people, who have no need for this at all out of your narrow little world.

1) have yet to fully educate yourself on fundamental science and the history of your religion nor taken the time to properly critically analyze exactly why you believe what you do.
2) are not intelligent enough to properly complete 1)
3) are literally insane and/or lacking in the ability to reason logically

(or any combination of the above)

You can be very intelligent but just haven't taken the time to complete 1). If you're intelligent, sane (ability to reason), and have completed 1), it's not possible to believe in a deity because doing so is completely illogical. So basically, you're either 1) ignorant, 2) stupid, or 3) insane.

How narrow minded you are. Sad really. The Sheldon Cooper approach to life. You comments are also about as anti-scientific as they could be but you "have yet to fully educate yourself on fundamental science" so you will not understand why I say this. Others, both atheist and religious, will know why.

But you are a good example of why I intensely dislike , most atheists. You contrived to insult people for no good reason. That is immature and bigoted. I dislike immature people and bigots. But one thing is certain, immature and bigoted people are members of the unthinking majority. Whether religious or atheist.

[Donna]

You can be very intelligent but just haven't taken the time to complete 1). If you're intelligent, sane (ability to reason), and have completed 1), it's not possible to believe in a deity because doing so is completely illogical. So basically, you're either 1) ignorant, 2) stupid, or 3) insane.

You sound like a middle class 16 year-old who just discovered Nietzsche and New Atheist podcasts.

[Dagoth Ur]

I'd like to discuss that aspect of the issue further but am pressed for time, I will agree with Doestievsky who through one of his literary characters said that; "The one type of socialist to be truly feared is the christian one'.

I fully agree with that idea, and I believe that this is part of the reason that Atheism is so rigorously inculcated in revolutionary minds; to eventually set up a psychology that is counter-revolutionary in their minds. Never met a militant atheist that ultimately didn't sell out, looking out for 'number one', themselves. Life is a brief parenthesis to them, a life to be enjoyed, without personal sacrifices for things and ideas that won't occur in their lifetimes. All those things a true revolutionary movement needs. That is why I think that the most doctrinaire atheists are the Ayn Rand Objectivists, who have found an economic system most congenial to their mentality; Capitalism.... Remember Anton LaVey? Pure Libertarianism.

While I heartily disagree that Militant Atheists are one step off from selling out their class interests, there is a grain of truth to what you say. Atheism, as is practiced mostly in liberal society, is purely deviant (these atheists don't even have enough dignity to be militant). Despite my disagreement however I do agree that the faithful communist is a more valuable agent, especially when their faith enhances their belief in communism as it drastically reduces the chances of betrayal.

[Varax]

Yes it is, to some extent. The trend towards atheism/agnosticism and away from organized religion in general in the most developed countries is undeniable. Religion has become less important from a social, community aspect for many (there many other things people associate themselves with, if they associate with much of anything at all), less important from a moral standpoint (other forms of morality, civic or otherwise can fill in - there is no evidence atheism leads to criminality/anti-social behavior) and less important for providing a rudimentary understanding of the how the world works. It was understandable that in ancient times religious beliefs where very important for providing all of these things and humanity at the time having very limited scientific knowledge could rely on the quick and easy answer of the divine to provide comfort and explanation. As our scientific understanding becomes more comprehensive the need for religious explanations in the realms of cosmology and biology for instance is gone. There are still some who try to fill in the gaps with divine explanations leading to a "god of the gaps" argument but this is weak - it just means that there is always more for us to learn, not that supernatural explanations are true.

That doesn't mean that personal spirituality is going away anytime soon, far from it. But the trends here are quite clear. Our current economic mode is further pushing us towards this as well, since it emphasizes the materialistic and downplays spirituality. Organized religion in the west is losing its grip on the social/community sphere and is increasingly being regarded as an inefficient use of time by a populace that would rather do other things then attend a religious ceremony.

[Dagoth Ur]

See what you're calling "personal spirituality" is just new religion. And this new form has in fact exploded in popularity over the past century. Religion isn't going away any time soon it's just changing with the superstructure.

[Igor Antunov]

When religion is diluted so much to the individual (everyone with a personal god, nobody preaching on behalf of a church) it is no longer organized religion and no longer influential on the political stage. Thus it becomes irrelevant because no coherent socioeconomic movement can form on its behalf. Practically, it may as well have ceased to exist. Nobody will know about your personal god, and most won't even bother embellishing their own.

[Varax]

See what you're calling "personal spirituality" is just new religion. And this new form has in fact exploded in popularity over the past century. Religion isn't going away any time soon it's just changing with the superstructure.

To some extent, yes. Though I think you should not discount the tangible changes that come with a move away from the more organized aspects of religion including a less dogmatic approach towards it and loss of influence in the political realm (similar to what Igor said).

That said this doesn't change the fact that the percentage of people classifying themselves as atheist and agnostic is generally increasing. It is reasonable to expect this trend will continue due to the underlying material conditions, atheism becoming less taboo, etc. I never said that religion was going away altogether any time soon either.

[Dagoth Ur]

Fair enough.

@Igor: Yes but it doesn't really fit the atheist narrative of godlessness does it?

[Igor Antunov]

In practice it certainly does. If you don't tell me all about your god, or try to impose him on my affairs in some way, I will assume you have none.

[Donna]

Materialism and the technical management of society is a product of a civilization's overall decline. Without the hierarchy of religious faith, mass politics and conflicts between social groups eventually weaken the entire superstructure of a technological civilization.

In time, the hierarchy of God, the Angels, time spirits, and spiritual Principalities find a pathway to establish primacy again, so long as Sol continues to shine. The theme of disappearing empires, alluded to in the Bible by the tempter in the wilderness, is a relevant mention because it represents the limits (decline and death) of the will to power. Empires come and go, but wisdom is eternal.

[Drlee]

Wow. Good job Donald.

[ThereBeDragons]

Religions people may be self-righteous lunatics ready to ruin and cripple entire societies based on crazy ideas, but atheists tend to be such fucking wankers that I side with the religious on principle.

[Igor Antunov]

^Translation: "Atheists gave me my electricity and science so I can masturbate verbally on the internet, lamenting their very existence."

Typical religious dogma, shits on the hand that feeds it. Jesus was slowly tortured to death for preaching love and forgiveness after all.

If humanity is to have a future at all, it has to stop practicing lunacy as an institution.

[fuser]

By that logic theists gave us scientific method, so....................