<p>Basically the question was a matter of true and false. Atheism a contemporary idea: true or false?</p>
<p>False. To say that atheism is a contemporary idea is to say that no one in the history of mankind has rejected the idea of God. I am quite sure that someone, somewhere, in fact many people, have considered and even embraced this attitude in the past.</p>
<p>However, if you are wondering whether atheism has only recently been accepted, you should re-examine your premises, for atheism is still taboo in most cultures (even America).</p>
<p>false</p>
<p>(10 char)</p>
<p>Thankyou. Discussion over. :)</p>
<p>Now give yourself a big pat on the back.</p>
<p>Err, so you're saying it's like instinct... because of the level of miseducation in this country and how religious the country is? Half of the country thinks the world is less than ten thousand years old, almost half of it believes this "war on terror" is generating the hellish inferno required for the second coming, and only 14% of adults in this country accept evolution as being definitely true. That says something about our nation, not about "instinct." This instinct is what happens when you're exposed to religion, especially at a young age. Sure, I'd love to believe I get another chance to live... but that's a bunch of nonsense, and I'm not so feeble-minded that I can't overcome that. It's nothing more than what would be kind of cool. Theistic belief is not instinct, but rather a function of the mind under conditions of a religious society.</p>
<p>And what you're suggesting about Dawkins is ridiculous... it's clear he has no religiosity, and that he isn't superstitious in the least. It's absurd even to assert the possibility unless you have some sort of documentation or quote to back it up.</p>
<p><em>pat</em></p>
<p>awb-
I'm starting to feel like I'm talking to a wall. Perhaps I am just not articulating my opinion clearly enough. I was referring to "religion" as an umbrella term, not an American thing. And how can you judge the entire country's religiousity like that? THAT'S absurd! And where'd you get those statistics?</p>
<p>"And what you're suggesting about Dawkins is ridiculous... it's clear he has no religiosity, and that he isn't superstitious in the least"
-Really? Have you asked him? Hmph!</p>
<p>"It's absurd even to assert the possibility unless you have some sort of documentation or quote to back it up."
-Huh! YOU should be talking! If I had a nickel for every "statistic" of yours I'd have a private jet on 24 hr stand by.</p>
<p>If I didn't make it clear, I never said I had statistics. I made it clear that what I was saying was SUBJECTIVE and a hypothesis. </p>
<p>I'll try to explain the study to you. It's not scientific but is interesting nonetheless to people with an interest in religion. It was in the feature story of the NYT Magazine from two weekends ago. A prof. at NYU shows his students a box. He says it's an African relic and anything that goes in it vanishes. Some of his students claim to be atheists. Anyway, a few offer to put their pencils in the box. But once the prof asks them to put their cell phones in, they hesitate. When he asks them to put their hands in, some refuse. It was actually just a wooden box, but it's funny none of the students suspected that. I know this sounds silly, but interesting to think about. There was another study involving children age 3-6. A scientist shows the kids an animal cracker box with animal crackers in it. However, there were actually cheerios in the box. When questioned what was in the box, the children guessed animal crackers. After being shown that there were actually cheerios in the box, the children were asked what God would think was in the box, and the children answered Animal Crackers. What does this say? It may sound silly, but most children believe God is absolute and infallible. Anyway, just interesting stuff...</p>
<p>And no, I have no "documentation" or "quotes" to back it up. Do you? :)</p>
<p>"I was referring to "religion" as an umbrella term, not an American thing."</p>
<p>Are you aware how irreligious much of the rest of the Western world is?</p>
<p>"And how can you judge the entire country's religiousity like that? THAT'S absurd! And where'd you get those statistics?"</p>
<p>How not? Don't you think it's a little absurd that Dawkins had to wait six years to publish his book because the majority of America wouldn't be able to handle it? Or that it's impossible for an atheist to be elected to office in this country? I got my statistics from Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.</p>
<p>""And what you're suggesting about Dawkins is ridiculous... it's clear he has no religiosity, and that he isn't superstitious in the least"
-Really? Have you asked him? Hmph!"</p>
<p>Nope, and I also haven't asked him if his favorite color isn't magenta. Do you want to propose that it is?</p>
<p>""It's absurd even to assert the possibility unless you have some sort of documentation or quote to back it up."
-Huh! YOU should be talking! If I had a nickel for every "statistic" of yours I'd have a private jet on 24 hr stand by."</p>
<p>Huh, I've mentioned three statistics now? You don't find the sheer number fundamentalist religious people in this country amazing?</p>
<p>"I'll try to explain the study to you. It's not scientific but is interesting nonetheless to people with an interest in religion. It was in the feature story of the NYT Magazine from two weekends ago. A prof. at NYU shows his students a box. He says it's an African relic and anything that goes in it vanishes. Some of his students claim to be atheists. Anyway, a few offer to put their pencils in the box. But once the prof asks them to put their cell phones in, they hesitate. When he asks them to put their hands in, some refuse. It was actually just a wooden box, but it's funny none of the students suspected that. I know this sounds silly, but interesting to think about. There was another study involving children age 3-6. A scientist shows the kids an animal cracker box with animal crackers in it. However, there were actually cheerios in the box. When questioned what was in the box, the children guessed animal crackers. After being shown that there were actually cheerios in the box, the children were asked what God would think was in the box, and the children answered Animal Crackers. What does this say? It may sound silly, but most children believe God is absolute and infallible. Anyway, just interesting stuff..."</p>
<p>How does this support your assertion that atheism does not exist? To draw a correlation between a MAGIC box and a GOD is a fallacy on your part. As far as the children go, most children will reflect their upbringing. This does not say that they instinctively "believe God to be absolute and infallible." This merely proves they have been taught/raised to "believe God to be absolute and infallible." Humans don't instinctively know anything. Thats the beauty of instinct, it is an unknown rational impulse to react in a certain way. We instinctivly urinate and make bowel movements. We are TAUGHT to control these instincts as we grow older and hold our movements until at a proper facility. We instinctively follow our parent's words and actions. We are TAUGHT their beliefs and knowledge. Through our upbringing, we are taught to believe in a "belief or hope beyond reason," that does not mean as we grow older we will not reject this belief. Our experiences shape who we are. Where is the investigation of the involved students' backgrounds to see whether or not they were surrounded by organized religion growing up? Wouldn't you need something like that to conclude that religion is "instinct?"</p>
<p>You're just confused and unsure about religion. What kind of a school do you go to that you have duck and cover drills? Sounds like the kind of school that would drill religion into your head beyond the ability to doubt. Clearly, you're the superstitious one, and it seems like you just can't fathom how somebody couldn't be.</p>
<p>Look, this is beginning to feel like I'm banging my head against a wall. There are so many things I want to say, but let me get back to the originial point. My point is that religion is atavistic and it is MY opinion that religion's purpose is to give man a point in life. It's a byproduct of evolution. For instance, a staircase allows people to go from one floor to another. But what about the space under the stair? It serves absolutely no purpose. Sometimes people make a closet out of it, sometimes it just sits there. The closet is a byproduct of the staircase. Like religion. Religion gives individuals an edge in natural selection, it allows them to keep working hard because they know there will be a reward in the afterlife (all religions dictate this), it gave man a reason to be moral and often, religion encourages procreation and family. If the world is really divided between an organic, scientific explanation of life and a religious one, that might make atheism counterproductive to survival, if you will. Let me explain. If a person were really to be atheist, what would be the point of living? If you say because life itself is the purpose of existence, then you are still prescribing to an ideology beyond reason. </p>
<p>OK, OK, I admit I am "confused and unsure" about religion. But who isn't? </p>
<p>"kind of a school do you go to that you have duck and cover drills?"
HUH? A school where there might be earthquakes, idiot! lol...geez! Doyou know what a duck and cover drill is?</p>
<p>"Clearly, you're the superstitious one, and it seems like you just can't fathom how somebody couldn't be."
OK...Watch out I might cast a spell on you :p</p>
<p>So you think God isn't like a Magic Box? Hmmm</p>
<p>-"Are you aware how irreligious much of the rest of the Western world is?..You don't find the sheer number fundamentalist religious people in this country amazing"
Huh? I think you're beginning to confuse yourself...</p>
<p>PS- Your "statistics" are ...interesting...
(You cited a few names, those are "statistics?" Please make some citations or links before I can seriously consider what you're saying, because it sounds a little like BSing to me! lol...)</p>
<p>"it is MY opinion that religion's purpose is to give man a point in life"</p>
<p>Err, that's one of its purposes. Also, to control the plebeians. That doesn't make it a byproduct of evolution. It is not instinct. It is taught, and it kind of seems like you're twisting something Dawkins noted: it probably helped ancient people survive, and that's one of the reasons it was passed on. Passed on. Religion is taught, not instinct.</p>
<p>"Religion gives individuals an edge in natural selection, it allows them to keep working hard because they know there will be a reward in the afterlife (all religions dictate this), it gave man a reason to be moral and often, religion encourages procreation and family."</p>
<p>So the sex urge is really just dictated by religion? Do atheists have no sex urges? Well religion and the bible can help people morally. But it's cherry-picking. I can find peaceful verses, as well as bellicose verses in scripture. I could just as easily choose the bellicose verses and be absolutely morally compromised. It's societal standards that set the moral standards (there are, of course, deviations, however; e.g., murderers and other criminals).</p>
<p>"If the world is really divided between an organic, scientific explanation of life and a religious one, that might make atheism counterproductive to survival, if you will. Let me explain. If a person were really to be atheist, what would be the point of living? If you say because life itself is the purpose of existence, then you are still prescribing to an ideology beyond reason."</p>
<p>Yeah, if you really need incentive out of a book or from some God to live on. Life is life, nothing more. You can make out of it what you want. Having fun, enjoying yourself, etc. are the "purposes" of life that I see.</p>
<p>A "duck and cover drill" is commonly used terminology used to refer to drills practiced as precautions in the case of a nuclear attack.</p>
<p>"(You cited a few names, those are "statistics?" Please make some citations or links before I can seriously consider what you're saying, because it sounds a little like BSing to me! lol...)"</p>
<p>Wikipedia about Sam Harris:</p>
<p>"He notes that 44 per cent of Americans, according to polls, believe that Jesus will probably return within the next fifty years."
"He points out that, by the light of biblical prophecy, general Armageddon is regarded as a necessary precursor to the Second Coming, or the Rapture as some call it. Harris considers it no exaggeration to say that a significant proportion of the American population would see a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East, say, as a happy portent of the imminent arrival of Jesus."</p>
<p>only 14% of adults in this country accept evolution as being definitely true - National Geographic Article: <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html%5B/url%5D">http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html</a></p>
<p>Half of the country thinks the world is less than ten thousand years old - Sam Harris said it in the Beyond Belief conference.</p>
<p>So you believe there's no God, yet no atheists? Doesn't that make you an atheist? I am an atheist, I am not superstitious in the least. Forget Dawkins. I exist. Or do you think I'm a liar when I say I have no superstition? Lolz.</p>
<p>god... lol</p>
<p>Let me get straight to the point. Atheism is an abstract concept, and therefore the question of whether it exists or not is irrelevant. You and I have been discussing it, so therefore it MUST exist. If you think that this entire discussion has been about whether Atheism exists or not, then I am sorry for not making myself clearer because clearly that would render this entire argument pointless. I understand that atheism exists. You and I could sit here and make a list of why atheism is the correct way. Immaculate conception is impossible! G_d is impossible! What about the laws of gravity? How could Christ ascend to Heaven? What is Heaven? </p>
<p>You get the point...
It's easy to make a case for atheism. It's even harder to believe in. I think evolution and the Big Bang theory is a nice explanation of our existence. It has scientific proof. The whole 7-day scenario? Doesn't really make much rational sense. But why do so many human beings believe that then? It's not because they are stupid, or they've been "forced" to believe in it, as you would argue. It's because I believe humans are naturally inclined to believe in something beyond reason. I accept Evolution and atheism as the "correct," if you will, way; but I also accept that religion and spirituality is impossible to avoid. To some extent, I believe all humans harbor a spiritual side, something that allows them to give purpose to life. Darwin became a Christian at the end of his life, what does that say? (<a href="http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf057/sf057g18.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf057/sf057g18.htm</a>) Sam Harris practices a form of Buddhism. Ironic? I think not. </p>
<p>Thank you for the statistics. However, I really do not understand how they relate to this discussion except to describe the religiousity of a nation. In fact, that might attest to man's natural inclination toward religion. </p>
<p>In my concluding statement I'd like to point out that this argument is inherently flawed. Why? Because you, and I, and Sam Harris and Dawkins are human beings. Therefore, it's impossible to produce a convincing argument for either side. Perhaps human beings do not even know HOW to comprehend life, it is beyond our capacity to ever understand.</p>
<p>"Let me get straight to the point. Atheism is an abstract concept, and therefore the question of whether it exists or not is irrelevant. You and I have been discussing it, so therefore it MUST exist."</p>
<p>Let me remind you of your initial comment: "I don't think Atheism exists."</p>
<p>"But why do so many human beings believe that then? It's not because they are stupid, or they've been "forced" to believe in it, as you would argue. It's because I believe humans are naturally inclined to believe in something beyond reason. I accept Evolution and atheism as the "correct," if you will, way; but I also accept that religion and spirituality is impossible to avoid. To some extent, I believe all humans harbor a spiritual side, something that allows them to give purpose to life."</p>
<p>No it's partly because of miseducation. And to quote Dawkins, "Fundamentalist religion is hell-bent on ruining the scientific education of countless thousands of innocent, well-meaning, eager young minds. Non-fundamentalist, 'sensible' religion may not be doing that. But it is making the world safe for fundamentalism by teaching children, from their earliest years, that unquestioning faith is a virtue."</p>
<p>Darwin considered himself an agnostic. It's his theory, but it's been advanced a lot since his death.</p>
<p>"Sam Harris practices a form of Buddhism. Ironic? I think not."</p>
<p>Religions such as Buddhism and Confucianism should be treated "not as religions at all but as ethical systems or philosophies of life." Harris has some interesting views, too.</p>
<p>"Thank you for the statistics. However, I really do not understand how they relate to this discussion except to describe the religiousity of a nation. In fact, that might attest to man's natural inclination toward religion."</p>
<p>If you had read through the article from National Geographic, you would know that America is FAR more religious than Europe. Just look at the statistics:</p>
<p>"In my concluding statement I'd like to point out that this argument is inherently flawed. Why? Because you, and I, and Sam Harris and Dawkins are human beings. Therefore, it's impossible to produce a convincing argument for either side. Perhaps human beings do not even know HOW to comprehend life, it is beyond our capacity to ever understand."</p>
<p>Science is relatively new. We obviously don't know everything, but we have learned a lot. Who knows what the capabilities of our brains are in understanding science. But our brains can evolve, too, can't they? Agnosticism, like irreducible complexity, cannot be objectively viewed in any other way than a surrender to ignorance. To surrender to ignorance and call it God (or too complex to understand even) has always been premature, and it remains premature today.</p>
<p>Oh, and evolution creates the ability to think. That is what led to religion and superstition. Evolution itself does not create god or belief in god.</p>
<p>Ignoring all the personal quibbling, someone mentioned that the belief in some sort of higher power is an inborn thing because even people who don't consciously believe in a higher power will make references to it. I've always thought this was more of a social thing...in my case, at least, I grew up being taught by my parents and by society in general that god exists and everything that goes along with that. Even if your parents weren't religious and didn't specifically teach you that, it's still a dominant aspect of culture and you learn about it anyway. So while you're young it gets stored in the back of your mind as some sort of habit or expectation of being human. Later when you're old enough to decide that, really, you find the whole idea of organized religion fairly ridiculous, the old habits don't really go away. You say "oh god, please let me do well on this test", even though you don't believe in god or think that saying that will have any effect on what happens. It's just an inescapable cultural thing, it doesn't mean everyone's born with a Christianity-believing gene or something. Although I suppose you could perhaps argue that humans are born with the tendency to make up fantastical stories to explain things that they don't understand, but obviously once there are logical explanations for those things the need for the stories goes away.</p>
<p>yeah, but that's a side-effect of the ability to think, from the evolution of human brains, isn't it?</p>
<p>-"I don't think Atheism exists"
Yes, I meant it the way I explained. I hope you can look past the surface.
-How do you judge religiousity? How many times a person goes to church? I just don't think that is possible to quantify. I don't go to church or even read the Bible, but I still consider myself a religious person.
-You keep saying that Buddhism can be seen as a "philosophy of life." So can Christianity! They are STILL religions, and still require some kind of conception of an afterlife. I can't say I believe in the Golden Rule but nothing else Christ said, that's absurd. So Harris doesn't lack spirituality altogether. I hate to keep using him as an example, but it does attest to the fact that spirituality, be it Buddhist meditation or the Golden Rule, is impossible to avoid.
-"Evolution itself does not create god or belief in god."
Huh? Evolution is separate from G<em>d conceptually, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. But by the Group theory, a belief in G</em>d clearly helps a group succeed in the survival of the fittest. For reasons I explained in earlier posts...(morality, partnership, selflessness, procreation) Not that atheism doesn't, but let's face it, Rousseau was right. When left to our own devices, it's easier to justify immorality.</p>
<p>Oh, I should add, ducking and covering is not really going to do much good in a nuclear attack... It will in an Earthquake because you can get under a desk to prevent head injuries from falling debris.</p>
<p>"-How do you judge religiousity? How many times a person goes to church? I just don't think that is possible to quantify. I don't go to church or even read the Bible, but I still consider myself a religious person."</p>
<p>On various levels. Do you believe in God? How old do you think the Earth is? Do you think the flaming inferno of the middle east and a potential nuclear war in Iran would be the cause of the Second Coming? Etc. etc.</p>
<p>"-You keep saying that Buddhism can be seen as a "philosophy of life." So can Christianity! They are STILL religions, and still require some kind of conception of an afterlife."</p>
<p>No. Buddhism (Confucianism, too) is not theistic. And no, I don't see Christianity as some sort of moral-guiding philosophy of life. I guess I'm morally compromised since I don't have a bible Lolz.</p>
<p>"So Harris doesn't lack spirituality altogether. I hate to keep using him as an example, but it does attest to the fact that spirituality, be it Buddhist meditation or the Golden Rule, is impossible to avoid."</p>
<p>No it doesn't. My existence attests to the fact that spirituality isn't impossible to avoid. Well, depends what you mean by avoid. Do you mean be exposed to and have some knowledge of? In that case, it may very well be impossible to avoid it, but then this entire argument would be even stupider than I thought. Or by avoid, do you mean not have personal experience/involvement in (this spirituality/superstition/religion)? In that case, then I can and have avoided it.</p>
<p>"Huh? Evolution is separate from G<em>d conceptually, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. But by the Group theory, a belief in G</em>d clearly helps a group succeed in the survival of the fittest."</p>
<p>Before you were saying it's destiny or some biological nonsense. It's a product of thought which is a product of evolution, and now you're just repeating Dawkins.</p>
<p>"Oh, I should add, ducking and covering is not really going to do much good in a nuclear attack... It will in an Earthquake because you can get under a desk to prevent head injuries from falling debris."</p>
<p>The term refers to nuclear attack drills.</p>
<p>First of All, Buddhism isn't a religion. Proper name of what you call Buddhism is Buddha Dharma. Dharma is untranslatable Sanskrit term that roughly means righteousness underlying the law[You can check [url=<a href="http://abhishiv.googlepages.com/dharma.php.htm%5Dthis%5B/url">http://abhishiv.googlepages.com/dharma.php.htm]this[/url</a>] if interested]. Buddhism and Hinduism aren't religions, because you don't have to do something in order to be a Hindu or Buddhism. aspiring said earlier that Richard practices some form of Buddhism. You can't become a Buddhist by practicing some rituals. In Ancient India, where these two Dharma developed, all people of the known world practiced the same Dharma. That's why there's no concept of conversion in these two(contrast that with Judaism where you need to be circumscribed in order to be Jew, or Baptized in Christianity). For you can be a Christian and a Buddhist at the same time. In Nepal many people claim to be both Buddhist and Hindu. That's why these two aren't religions in Abrahmic or Western sense. Not to mention that there's nothing that you could do that would make you a non-Buddhist.</p>
<p>Atheism exists. But then the thing is that true/sensible atheists object being called atheists. You don't have a special name for those not believing in aliens(if there's, then it's not used frequently), then why for those not believing in god? Contrast that with our teen, liberal, atheists that claim that they are atheists 300 times a minute.</p>
<p>"Do you think the flaming inferno of the middle east and a potential nuclear war in Iran would be the cause of the Second Coming? Etc. etc."
-Correction, that's how you judge stupidity. Not religiousity. Besides, there is a built-in bias in those questions. If you think that's what religiousity is, you're vastly generalizing. </p>
<p>-Christianity can absolutely be seen as a philosophy. Have you ever heard of being Christian? Patience, kindness, selflessness...? Those are not exclusively Christian, but they originated in the Bible. </p>
<p>-Right. Buddhism is polytheistic. So? It's still a religion. The point is, mono or poly theistic, it still offers an alternative explanation of our existence as opposed to the Big Bang Theory.</p>
<p>-In my opinion, science and religion are just different ways of explaining the same thing. Atheism is neither, basically. The very fact that human beings live and must face death attests to the fact that we must have some explanation for it. </p>
<p>Have you ever met someone who has never wondered why we die? Never been scared to die?</p>