Any other atheists here? Some frustration

[dynamicbuttler]

Atheists/Militant Atheists? Are there any in here?

And for those of you who are misinformed, a militant atheist is just a more outspoken atheist who believes in spreading atheism to others. We wield no weapons, lol

Honestly, I detest religion. I believe few things are less dangerous to modern thought than the noxious miasma of respect that shrouds people's religious beliefs: To paraphrase Richard Dawkins in a sentance:

Serious debate is allowed in every field of science, where ridicule is the typical reaction to ridiculous ideas, but if you tell me you can't touch a light switch on a Saturday, I have to respect that!

Why is so much respect given to ideas so utterly devoid of merit? Why is faith, which is basically the ability to stomp your feet and cover your ears in the presence of coherent evidence, seen as a virtue rather than a character flaw? I know that faith has been shoved down your throat from a young age, everywhere you go. It's crept into our language in such a way that it itself is hard to remove without causing serious damage to other ideas: "I have faith in you." "She was faithful in her marriage." I know how dangerous it may seem to attack faith but that's because of it's self preservation strategy: It's burrowed itself so deeply into our morality through simply sharing it's name with other ideas- superior ideas.

I honestly think that the respect for religion in today's time especially lies in the need for a defense. Just as women and children are protected with chivalry and all sorts of moral codes, the idea of religion which has no rational defense and should be so vulnerable to dissection and criticism, has found a way to protect itself with a towering wall of reverence and respect. However, Ideas are not people. I don't think there's anything at all wrong with attacking weak ideas.

[icey]

wow! you're brave lol

im an aetheist i always have been and i always will, i try not to criticise religion or its followers but it does get confusing and in my eyes somewhat hypocritical when things get twisted around and people only use what they want then discard the rest as and when it doesnt suit.

ive also seen people hurt through it or maybe i should say through carelessly and usually inaccurately quoted texts from the bible and other such books, both family and friends.

if people are going to follow something then i hope they get what they are looking for from it but i dont appreciate people who knock on my door every other day ramming it down my throat ...i dont ram my non-belief down theirs.

[fetishdj]

I am not quite an aetheist, I am more an agnostic bordering on aetheism because I still beleive in one thing - that a scientist should keep an open mind about all things and that includes the possibility or not of the existence of a godlike being or any other spiritual aspects of the universe.

However, I think you are confusing two definitions here. You say you do not beleive in religion but say nothing about beleif in god or similar. Now, it may seem pedantic but surely the two are not one and the same. Whether god exists or not is a matter for debate and one I relish. The matter of religion is a completely different issue. A god is not their religion and likewise a religion is not a god, even though many would think it to be so.

I do agree with you that a lot of religion is nonsensical, mired in the past and bogged down in dogma (beleive this because we tell you to...). I also agree that a lot of the bad things that have occured in the world are due to religion or religion has been used as an excuse. I think the modern world would be a better place without religion. However, I think the development of religion and what it has done to our minds was an essential step in human development. Without the ability to look at the stars and make shapes or the ability to link coincidences together and attribute them to a primitive deity we would not have the pattern recognition skills essential to modern science. Admittedly, we also would not need the scientific method to persuade our minds to only look for patterns that are actually relevant rather than ones we made up but I don't think we would have got that far in the first place. Religion has also been a driving force behind art, literature and story. The existence of the memeplexes we call religion has meant that we have had to devise more efficient ways to pass these on.

However, in the modern day, religion has lost its relevence. This is possibly due to it being dogmatic and incapable of adapting fast enough to modern times (I mean, seriously, how many Jews do you know who burn thier beds once a month after their wife's period? Its in Leviticus that they have to do this and technically fundamental Christians do too as they claim to follow the bible in its entirity when really they just pick and choose the bits that suit their own prejudices such as the sin of Onan which is completely misinterpreted as being against masturbation when it is really about refusing to shag your dead brother's wife...) Many of these concepts have no use in the modern age and are badly interpreted when they are applied.

I personally prefer to live and let live with regards to religion. So long as you do no harm to me or others (self harm is fine in my book...), do not evangelicise to me or otherwise attempt to 'save me' then I will happily get on with my life while you get on with yours. This is why I am not a 'militant aetheist' or even a 'militant agnostic'. But then I can never see agnosticism getting militant. Its like 'Meh, I dunno what to think, why should I tell you what to think when I can't decide meself?'

[Thorne]

Like fetishdj, I'm more of an agnostic than an atheist, not willing to say that there is no God, but that I don't see any proof that there IS. Actually, I generally refer to myself as an Apathetic Agnostic: I don't know if God exists, and I don't give a damn.

Like you, dynamicbuttler, I have a problem with religion, seeing it at the center of the vast majority of problems existing between cultures today. But don't confuse religion with faith. It's not the belief in a higher power that causes the strife, but the codification of a belief system, religion. Everyone has faith in something, to one extent or another. I have faith in science, since it's impossible for me, or anyone else for that matter, to know everything there is to know about all science. I have to trust that the scientists are, in general, following the scientific principles which have been developed to ensure that knowledge expands. It's quite easy for a religious nut to proclaim that the world will end tomorrow. Not too many will believe him (or her) though it's surprising to me how many actually will. But if an astronomer comes out and says there's a 95% chance that a newly discovered asteroid is going to strike the earth and destroy the planet in one month, it's probably a good idea to kiss your ass goodbye!

[fetishdj]

I have problem with the concept of 'faith in science'... you see, you cannot be a scientist and have faith in science as you always, absolutely always, question everything all the time... But I do understand what you actually mean by the term which is you are more willing to trust the evidence of science than that of religion.

There have been some amusing attempts at logic by religious types to try to disprove evolution. If I find the time and anyone is interested I may post a few of them I have heard. The basic summary of them is that Creationists and IDers are still fighting a battle scientists had among themselves about 30 years ago and are no longer interested in. They stopped worrying so much about 'If' evolution happened and started exploring theories as to 'How'. And it turns out the creationists were right - Darwin was wrong. Not in the overall principle but in some of the detail - specifically that evolution takes a long time to happen. We now know it takes a lot less time and is not entirely genes (which more recent scientific dogma had stated) - there are other factors at work.

But that is an aside...

[Thorne]

I have problem with the concept of 'faith in science'... you see, you cannot be a scientist and have faith in science as you always, absolutely always, question everything all the time... But I do understand what you actually mean by the term which is you are more willing to trust the evidence of science than that of religion.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I have faith in the scientific method. Results are checked and verified and checked again, over and over, until it becomes reasonably certain that the results won't diverge outside of statistical error. True, even then things can happen to change scientific understanding, but I have "faith" that scientific explanations of how the world works are far and away more accurate than religious explanations.
On the other hand, someone once proved mathematically that a bumblebee cannot fly!

There have been some amusing attempts at logic by religious types to try to disprove evolution. If I find the time and anyone is interested I may post a few of them I have heard. The basic summary of them is that Creationists and IDers are still fighting a battle scientists had among themselves about 30 years ago and are no longer interested in. They stopped worrying so much about 'If' evolution happened and started exploring theories as to 'How'. And it turns out the creationists were right - Darwin was wrong. Not in the overall principle but in some of the detail - specifically that evolution takes a long time to happen. We now know it takes a lot less time and is not entirely genes (which more recent scientific dogma had stated) - there are other factors at work.

But that is an aside...

I would be interested in hearing them. I'm always game for a good laugh. Except that in my neck of the woods (and it is, indeed, a red neck) it's more depressing than humorous.

[fetishdj]

Not only can bumblebees not fly but kangaroos cannot jump. Same mathematical logic. Both of these concepts are based on inaccurate information and assumptions - the bee is a solid mass and not almost completely hollow, the kangaroo weighs and acts the same as a sack of potatoes when various adaptations to muscle make jumping a more efficient method of travel.

I'll dig out some more but I think it may need to be a seperate thread...

[ObjectivistActivist]

Somewhat obviously (to anyone who's read Ayn Rand's non-fiction), I'm an atheist, and tend towards the militant atheist camp.

The idea of "religious tolerance" is probably religion's greatest weapon against free, secular society. It attempts to forbid us from passing moral judgment on people or cultures who do unquestionably evil things so long as they do them in the name of their god(s). Of course, until and unless it's attempted at the point of a gun (which in some places and ways it is), it's still defeatable without having to resort to weapons yourself.

The whole and entire concept of religion (and faith in general) is antithetical to the requirements of human life, and its persistence correlates to the horrors (both on a local and global scale) that continue to be perpetrated today. Is that to say no atheistic regimes have committed horrors? No, it's not. Nazi Germany was atheistic (ostensibly; they accepted a lot of favors and help from the Catholic church), communist Russia was atheistic as well, and both are amongst the largest killers of humans in history.

However, their justification for slaughter was of the same kind as that religion uses; they just substituted the word Society for the word God. In that sense, they cannot be said to be atheistic, or at least not properly atheistic in that they did in fact have faith and worship an indefinable entity greater than the individual (again, it was just called Society instead of God).

Atheism in the western world is under attack, but it's not an obvious, overt attack. Instead, it's an insidious one that relies on guilt and peer pressure instead of laws and guns. The idea of religious tolerance, inspite of the attrocities committed in the name of religion and God(s), is the weapon being used, and the ultimate goal is a society-wide terror of being accused of intolerance towards evil.

I, for one, will never back down in the face of such accusations. I say, with pride and fervor: Yes, I am intolerant of religion.

[Alex Bragi]

...
However, their justification for slaughter was of the same kind as that religion uses; they just substituted the word Society for the word God. In that sense, they cannot be said to be atheistic, or at least not properly atheistic in that they did in fact have faith and worship an indefinable entity greater than the individual (again, it was just called Society instead of God).

...

Interesting, but taking that notion on board, aren't we all theists of some kind?

And, isn't it a kind of irony that one one thing theists and atheists (in the religion/anti religion sense) have in common is their belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong?

[bellelapine]

Interesting, but taking that notion on board, aren't we all theists of some kind?

And, isn't it a kind of irony that one one thing theists and atheists (in the religion/anti religion sense) have in common is their belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong?

Actually there is the type of atheist who put themselves as the individual above any and all others. I wouldn't say the individual worships themselves, merely they will not be a stepping stone for the undeserving "leeches" of society because these people fail to think and do for themselves. They look to do for themselves and achieve for themselves. These type of people I wouldn't say were theists in any sense of the word. They look to reason and logic for their answers instead of perception and belief or faith.

[Alex Bragi]

Actually there is the type of atheist who put themselves as the individual above any and all others. I wouldn't say the individual worships themselves, merely they will not be a stepping stone for the undeserving "leeches" of society because these people fail to think and do for themselves. They look to do for themselves and achieve for themselves. These type of people I wouldn't say were theists in any sense of the word. They look to reason and logic for their answers instead of perception and belief or faith.

???Unless I'm mistaken, I think you may have misread or misunderstood my post, bellelapine.

[Euryleia]

And, isn't it a kind of irony that one one thing theists and atheists (in the religion/anti religion sense) have in common is their belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong?

Good point, Alex.

One of my favorite quotes is from Umberto Eco: "When men stop believing in God, it isn't that they then believe in nothing: they believe in everything."

[Alex Bragi]

...

One of my favorite quotes is from Umberto Eco: "When men stop believing in God, it isn't that they then believe in nothing: they believe in everything."

That's a good one. I like it.

[ObjectivistActivist]

Interesting, but taking that notion on board, aren't we all theists of some kind?

No. As my pet so aptly pointed out, there are atheists who worship no power higher than the individual, and in fact do not recognize the supremacy of any power above the individual. Individual rights, and the tenets of reason (the antithesis of faith, faith being a requirement of theism) guide such individuals in their actions and life, requiring no worship of anything inherently unknowable.

The reason that atheistic so******m and religion are two sides of the same coin is because both demand faith in something greater than the individual, meaning that the individual is nothing beside "the greater good." Whether that greater entity is God or Society, it's exactly the same thing, since God is defined as "that which exists beyond existence" and Society as "that which is not the individual." Both are nonsensical, amorphous constructs that are to be sacrificed to, whether one is willing to give or not. One's willingness is not even a factor, since the individual and the individual's designs or desires are not to be considered.

And, isn't it a kind of irony that one one thing theists and atheists (in the religion/anti religion sense) have in common is their belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong?

There's a very big difference between belief and knowledge. I know atheism is right for a few reasons, the largest of which are as follows:

1) Does the universe function without the interference of a supernatural force? Indeed, can the forces at work in the universe be altered by appeasement of said supernatural, inherently unknowable force? The answer to the former is yes, and the answer to the latter is no. Thus, taking Occam at his word (though he had attempted to prove the existence of god rationally) "the simplest answer is most often the correct one."

2) Is faith a valid means of accumulating knowledge, of directing action towards the betterment of individual life, or of forming a cogent and integrated vision of reality? The answer to all of the preceding questions is no, faith is incapable of achieving any of those things. It takes reason to do those things, and one must work within the confines of the natural world, excluding from all equations and judgments the supernatural (i.e. that which does not exist). Nowhere does religion or faith form a cogent or applicable vision of reality, nor of a proper moral code intended to live within reality, and thus it is to be rejected on all levels as a detriment to life.

3) Does morality depend on faith, or on edicts from a supernatural entity? No, it doesn't, and there is every rational reason to be a moral person.

That being said, you are free to choose to ignore your rational faculty if you wish. I will not coddle you for it, nor support you when your inability to function irrationally forever catches up to you, nor will I allow you to take by force from me that which you would need to support your irrational life at my expense (in other words, I will defend myself against any use of force initiated against me). But you are free to try to live on faith and waste your time, energy, and resources trying to appease a supernatural ghost or distant genetic hope, both of which are without solid identity or definition, if that is your wish. Such is the beauty of rational secularism. It is a courtesy very rarely returned by the other side of the coin, who tend to like to use bombs, production stopping protests, or sniper rounds to make the point of "believe in the invisible man I do, or you will be purified."

EDIT: Why is most of s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-m being edited by the forum?

[Alex Bragi]

When I questioned if perhaps we, in fact, all worship in some form, I refer not to worshiping a deity of some kind, but things like money or a beautiful fast shiny car, things that are often adored and obsessed over. Is this not worship of a kind?

And the second part of your reply, well to be honest, I don’t understand most of what you posted. You seem like you’re quoting a whole lot of Richard Dawkins there. Certainly, I know a lot of atheists read and quote his books like Christians read and quote the bible.

As for " I know atheism is right for a few reasons..." I know (not just believe) any theist worth their salt could put forward and equally good argument to support their believes. Therefor, I rest my case.

I'd also like to remind people reading this that we do have a number of good people here, at the Library, who also just happen to be theists. While I understand it's not always easy to understand beliefs different from our own, I feel that it's still important to respect them.

[Alex Bragi]

Oh, something else I wanted to address:

...But you are free to try to live on faith and waste your time, energy, and resources trying to appease a supernatural ghost or distant genetic hope, both of which are without solid identity or definition, if that is your wish....

Don't you know or understand the power of your own mind? So much illness and healing is done by the mind and not the body. You can call it faith, mental power, God, prayer, or anything you like really, but the fact will still remain that it is a fact.

[MMI]

Atheists and theists think they're right:

Agnostics think they're right ... no they're wrong .. no ...

[Rational Head]

Every human is borne free and atheist with full authority to use his rational faculty.

Society makes him slave and Theist and restricts him to use his rational faculty to the full potential.

Every man, who denies the brainwashings by the society remains free, rational and atheist.

[Euryleia]

Another pithy quote. This one from Abraham Lincoln: "I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it."

[Rowen]

if people are going to follow something then i hope they get what they are looking for from it but i dont appreciate people who knock on my door every other day ramming it down my throat ...i dont ram my non-belief down theirs.

Icey, amen to that!

Another pithy quote. This one from Abraham Lincoln: "I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it."

Euryleia, you have that wonderfull fountain of quotes!! So right..

BTW: I am an agnost, even though I have seen religion maim and hurt people beyond belief...

[Rowen]

A Dutch critisist once wrote: "there will allways be that unsolvable argument between the whorshippers of THE book and those who love books" THE book may the Bible, the Koran but Das Kapital, Mein Kampf and the Red Book have similar effects..

[JimmyJump]

Atheists/Militant Atheists? Are there any in here?

And for those of you who are misinformed, a militant atheist is just a more outspoken atheist who believes in spreading atheism to others. We wield no weapons, lol

Honestly, I detest religion. I believe few things are less dangerous to modern thought than the noxious miasma of respect that shrouds people's religious beliefs: To paraphrase Richard Dawkins in a sentance:

Serious debate is allowed in every field of science, where ridicule is the typical reaction to ridiculous ideas, but if you tell me you can't touch a light switch on a Saturday, I have to respect that!

Why is so much respect given to ideas so utterly devoid of merit? Why is faith, which is basically the ability to stomp your feet and cover your ears in the presence of coherent evidence, seen as a virtue rather than a character flaw? I know that faith has been shoved down your throat from a young age, everywhere you go. It's crept into our language in such a way that it itself is hard to remove without causing serious damage to other ideas: "I have faith in you." "She was faithful in her marriage." I know how dangerous it may seem to attack faith but that's because of it's self preservation strategy: It's burrowed itself so deeply into our morality through simply sharing it's name with other ideas- superior ideas.

I honestly think that the respect for religion in today's time especially lies in the need for a defense. Just as women and children are protected with chivalry and all sorts of moral codes, the idea of religion which has no rational defense and should be so vulnerable to dissection and criticism, has found a way to protect itself with a towering wall of reverence and respect. However, Ideas are not people. I don't think there's anything at all wrong with attacking weak ideas.

I'm an atheist. But one that doesn't have a problem with religion, or rather: with people being religious.

My venom sprouts in the general direction of organized religion, i.e. the church, whatever the inclination of that institution.

If people want to be so narrow-minded as to fall back on religion for their own mental health (now here's a contradiction), who am I to not grant them that freedom.

But, when there's an institution, with its own fabricated set of rules, that takes over the reins and tells people how, when and where to be religious; things go seriously wrong.

Being religious is a private matter between the believer and his/her god. No-one should have the arrogance to come in-between to say how things should be done.

This is my limited response for the time being, as I'm dead-tired and am gonna kip a couple of hours... I'll be back.

[mkemse]

I'm an atheist. But one that doesn't have a problem with religion, or rather: with people being religious.

My venom sprouts in the general direction of organized religion, i.e. the church, whatever the inclination of that institution.

If people want to be so narrow-minded as to fall back on religion for their own mental health (now here's a contradiction), who am I to not grant them that freedom.

But, when there's an institution, with its own fabricated set of rules, that takes over the reins and tells people how, when and where to be religious; things go seriously wrong.

Being religious is a private matter between the believer and his/her god. No-one should have the arrogance to come in-between to say how things should be done.

This is my limited response for the time being, as I'm dead-tired and am gonna kip a couple of hours... I'll be back.

Nicely Put, I will leave it at that

[fetishdj]

There is an argument that humanity, as a species, could not have risen so far without religion. The reason being that it is our initial tendancy to look at things and make patterns out of them which gives us both religion and science. Without that tendancy we have neither. Religion could be argued to be the initial attempts by humanity to explain how the universe works (a pattern is noticed and cannot be explained it is therefore attributed to cosmic forces and eventually attirbuted to a god). As the ability to observe and rationalise improves with time (and the ability to record information in books, something which was driven ironically enough by religion, and later other media helps with this because it means that each successive generation can call on the knowledge of all previous generations) we learn to apply a rational explanation to a greater range of phenomena and therefore remove the need for a mystical explanation.

Its sort of the backwards interpolation of Clark's law - sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. For primative man, everything was a mystery - the stars, gravity, fire, climate, weather - and so everything needed to be explained by a god. As we learnt more, as we ate the apple of the tree of knowledge and so lost our innocent naivity, we learn that there are more and more things that god is not a part of.

[Thorne]

... the ability to record information in books, something which was driven ironically enough by religion...

I think this was probably driven more by economics than by religion. The necessity of recording transactions, keeping track of the flow of goods and money, and especially taxation, required writing and long term storage of information.

True, religion also promoted literacy, but mostly among the religious and the ruling classes, not among the peasantry. At least not until much later, after the advent of the printing press.

This is a simplification, of course. Throughout much of history, and much of the world, religion and government frequently went hand in hand, sometimes to the point of being indistinguishable.

[Thorne]

Its sort of the backwards interpolation of Clark's law - sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. For primative man, everything was a mystery - the stars, gravity, fire, climate, weather - and so everything needed to be explained by a god. As we learnt more, as we ate the apple of the tree of knowledge and so lost our innocent naivity, we learn that there are more and more things that god is not a part of.

Good points, dj. It's long been my contention that, as man's quest for knowledge has progressed, his need for the supernatural explanations of our ancestors has diminished. It is now primarily through religion that these superstitions are perpetuated, and while they still have some grip upon man's psyche, they are gradually losing there hold. And one of the few advantages of political correctness is that it's no longer fashionable (in this country, at least) to persecute those who don't believe the way the churches tell them to.

[Shwenn]

I'm an atheist. I'm a militant atheist. I am, as I think you are, an anti-theist.

And I agree that we should abandon our reverence for tolerance. I think intolerance is quite called for on this very topic.

The religious come into our homes, they try to desicrate that which we hold sacred. And, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

As long as those dimwits keep trying to get ID taught as science, I will say, in as many ways I can think of, that their ridiculous mythology is a work of fiction.

You want to use that one book to dictate who can and can not get married but you don't think you should have to defend the veracity of that tome of unbelievable bullshit? I don't think so. Not while I live and breathe.

[Virulent]

Not while I live and breathe.

Thanks for the segue!

Here's an idea: religion is a red herring. It is used by the consensus of elites who control this world's cultures to keep people angry, or better yet placid.

Theism and anti-theism are at best philosophical positions. Our world has been carelessly overpopulated to a degree vastly beyond the carrying capacity of the planet. There is no sustainable model for this population. Billions will inevitably die; the longer we put it off, the more we damage the environment, reducing the carrying capacity of the planet.

Not sure what I mean? Here's an example... think about how you (or your children, or grand-children, etc...) are going to keep warm in the winter after the shit hits the fan. Burn wood? How much wood is there in your local area? Will it warm everyone who lives in your local area for even one winter? What about food? Do you know what the last sustainable peoples in your area ate (the last sustainable age was the Stone Age; for Americans that would be the Native Americans)? Where I live the Shawnee ate deer, buffalo, berries, and corn. I can assure you that there is very little of the first three still available in the Ohio River Valley. Anyone who survives the collapse around here better fucking love corn.

The fun part is in thinking about how the 5 billion unsustainable inhabitants of this world are going to go; through voluntary population reductions, or involuntary ones.

In a little while, no one will care whether you believed in a god or not; they'll be more interested in the fact that they can't find any potable water.

Fun fact: it takes 3 to 5 liters of water to produce 1 liter of bottled water, and 250 grams of CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere to make the bottle, fill it, and transport it to you.

[lstsl]

First the great mystery:

Why is most of s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-m being edited by the forum?

c-i-a-l-i-s is the brand name of a drug for ED (chemical: tadalafil)

And onwards and upwards!

I myself am neither athiest nor agnostic. I definatly believe in a higher power, although I find the idea of a bearded old guy chilling in the clouds a bit hard to swallow. Someone once said that a god whose primary concern was the day-to-day workings of humans can't be a very important god. I believe there is no overall "plan" but in an infinite amount of time everything that can happen will happen, so the point becomes moot. My beliefs stem from a combination of science, logic, religious texts, and my own moral feelings. I don't see any incongruity of somebody taking this-and-that from a religion and leaving the rest. If it doesn't work, or isn't relevant to you, why follow it just to claim a label? If I read a book about a cowboy who is courteous to his neighbors, helps out with his community, is generally a good guy but, has a nasty habit of shooting Mexicans (no offence to any Mexicans intended), can I not model my life after this cowboy without having to go on a shooting rampage?

Before I go any further I am just going to say that I have a habit of being the devils advocate (OH! interesting topic: Satanists rebelling against Christianity), and many times argue a point that I don't necessarily agree with, just to see if I can, and to get the most out of a conversation. That being said, I have a couple of thought experiments

1) young Jane grew up to be an athiest in a devout Catholic family. Her religious views 'disappointed' her family but they remained as close and loving as any family. When Jane turns 23 her mother is diagnosed with terminal cervical cancer. Her mothers strong faith allows her to approach her imminant demise with a sense of acceptance. This made the transition easier (by no means easy) for the entire family, including athiestic Jane. After her mother passed on, after battling bravely for several months, she willed Jane her cruxifix necklace, through which she drew much of her strength. Jane wore the cruxifix, not out of guilt or new found faith, but rather to draw upon the memory of her mothers stoic strength in the face of what, for most people, is the most traumatic experience of their life (i.e the end of it). She found something beyond herself to believe in. Religion provides people with symbols, which are merely an external focus to help you find what is already inside of you.

I think that most people on this thread are from the "Western world" and as such have a warped view of... perspective is the only word coming to mind but it's not quite right... scale maybe? We exist in massive, MASSIVE societies, made even bigger by the advent of the internet. Someone previously stated that some athiests believe in no higher power than the individual, that some may be contemptable of the so-called (and in some cases self-professed) sheep. This is all fine and dandy to be a cut-throat and build up your personal fortune on the gullibility and stupidity of other people, but to put the individual ahead of the society is, literally, cancerous. Since we live in these gigantic societies there is more of a buffer zone, an individual can't make too much of a dent in the system. But what of Africa? For the most part, the countries we see on the map are there only for the convenience of the UN. There exist hundreds of tribes who are just that: tribes. Just like you or me, they have different interests, ideas, dreams from person to person even within the same small tribe. If one person was to start recklessly pursuing personal gain at the expense of others, trouble follows quickly.

Which brings us to
2) there is a native who is put into non-specific situation where his own personal sacrifice (that of his life) will save all 23 other members of his tribe. His failure to lay down his life will surely result in the deaths of everyone but himself. How long do you think this individual will survive by himself in the African wilderness, with no social support, if he chooses the latter option?
I do not believe that human beings are individuals. We merely exist within the context of our society. Hitler took this view to the extreme, just as the Spaniards in charge of the Inquisition took their religious views to the extreme.

As others on this thread before me have said, religion is the precurser to science. The old gods were given birth out of the cold, dark night as the first primordial humans huddled around the fire in fear of what they could not understand. Just like the case of the modern-day bully and geek, they thought to appease their nameless fears, and in this way control them. In some places (like Africa), it is important to have something that ties a community together like religion, if for no other reason than it is important to know there is a group of people you can count on no matter what. The problem seems to me not to be one of religion or spirituality, but of extremism.


In closing, I would just like to say: Have you ever seen an atom? Ever likely to?


PS: I would like to say just one thing to all the people who dispute the theory of evolution: How many songs could Jesus fit on his iPod?

[Virulent]

I'm going to try and extract the premises from the prose. Let me know if I miss.

I definatly believe in a higher power ... a god whose primary concern was the day-to-day workings of humans can't be a very important god... I believe there is no overall "plan"... My beliefs stem from a combination of science, logic, religious texts, and my own moral feelings... I don't see any incongruity of somebody taking this-and-that from a religion and leaving the rest. If it doesn't work...

Summary: Spinozan deist. Fair enough?

Thought experiment #1... why does x wear her mother's crucifix?

Your answer: "Religion provides people with symbols, which are merely an external focus to help you find what is already inside of you."

I think its simpler than that. x is simply sentimental. Example: the 20th century appropriation of the swastika. Symbols mean whatever we say they mean. Further, to claim a social definition of a symbol exists is provably false, as no two people apprehend the same object the exact same way, as Husserl and Heidegger pointed out in their writings on phenomenology.

I think that most people on this thread are from the "Western world" and as such have a warped view of... perspective is the only word coming to mind but it's not quite right... scale maybe? We exist in massive, MASSIVE...

What is your premise? If your argument is that truth is relative and that we only have access to "Western truth", then I think you're using a useless definition of truth.

Thought experiment #2... why do individuals sacrifice themselves for society?

Your answer (paraphrased): individuals will not survive without social support

You're saying that individuals must (at least occasionally) be willing to sacrifice everything for the good of their society, which as you note by reference to Hitler, is the definition of fascism.

Obviously I disagree completely. I'm kind of surprised too - most rational people only advocate fascism unintentionally. Any just society is based upon free association; any society that uses compulsion should be destroyed by any means convenient.

Humans don't need long-term compulsory (and especially not statist) societies to exist. Most Stone Age peoples lived in fluid "bands"; most Native Americans in particular "split" their encampments during the hunting season into family units, and reformed in the winter (or not - it was not unusual for a family unit to join another encampment if that's where they found themselves when snow came). Its simply false to claim that human beings can't survive without society - it is indeed a fact that we spent the majority of our existence surviving without any inconvenient associations.

it is important to know there is a group of people you can count on no matter what.

No such thing.

In closing, I would just like to say: Have you ever seen an atom? Ever likely to?

No. Do you have a premise?