What does atheism offer?

[StrontiDog]

The atheist religion is free to have faith other animals have religion. I don't need to research millions of critters that are or have been, so they can foot drag.

 

 

pioneer,

 

 

Atheist Religion? Once again. . .prove it!

 

Is nonbelief in Odin a religion? Do you suscribe to this religion? I think you may. So, are you an aOdinist? Is THIS your religion?

 

Really?

 

Bill Wolfe

[Sisyphus]

pioneer:

 

If only humans can have religion, then it's necessarily also true that only humans can reject religion, and all that implies.

 

However, "religion" is so amorphous and non-human psychology so poorly understood that I wouldn't be willing to make either statement with certainty. I don't have "faith" that other animals have religion, I just a) don't think humans are different enough to justify assuming such a thing, and b) don't think it's necessarily even a meaningful statement.

[Rickdog]

In my opinion, only humans have the ability to be misled by religion into doing things that are not good for the species (for example it's time someone explained the effect of condoms on overpopulation to the Pope. I hope that people will accept that's just one example; there are plenty I'm not just picking on one faith here).

 

Since when, is it the responsability of the church and the Pope to be worried on over population ?

 

Their concern is in matters of their faith. It doesn`t have anything to do to have more followers.

 

Maybe next time you could say that "Global warming" is also the church`s fault ().

[John Cuthber]

I think it's the responsibility of the church to give up, go home and find proper jobs, but I realise that's not the issue here.

 

However, the church seems to think it's their responsibility to address moral issues like overpopulation. At least one major religion has a bizarre view on this matter.

 

The church probably has a view on global warming- so do the kids at the local primary school but I'm not inclined to blindly follow their lead either. In any event, it's a strawman.

[Sisyphus]

Regarding the Catholic Church's position on birth control, "what atheism offers" in this case is the removal of a barrier to responsible behavior, and absence of a policy that results in overpopulation and the spread of diseases like HIV.

[Rickdog]

In regards to the position of the Catholic church on birth control, is that it must be done within marriage and by responsible means, that is by the use of a natural method of misconception.

 

The Catholic church has never oposed itself in the use of condoms, if one of the members of the marriage is affected by HIV.

 

The church will never aprove extramarital sex, no matter how it is presented, which is considered as a sin for her, so if the church appears as endorsing the regular use of condoms among any couples, which aren`t married, it would be self-denying itself, by the permition of a promiscuous attitude.

 

The Church has no involvement in overpopulation, and has never said anything about it. Only groups who oposes it, have, and are willing that the Church gets involved in it, as a mean of discrediting her afterwards. If overpopulation comes as a result of a natural conception within marriage, it will endorse birth control within the marriage only by natural techniques (which are self-imposing), and if these fail, it will never support the use of abortive techniques.

 

In regards to my last sentence about Global warming, to John Cuthber, it was a little bit of sarcasm, due to the fact that his example, imho, was completely out of place giving to the Pope a responsability that has never been his, the same as most of his detractors.

 

You may not think about it by the tennor of my posts, but I have always been oposed to the Church, only that in my position I always try to give them my respect, as I ask them to respect me, for what I think.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Rickdog
correcting

[Sisyphus]

I know they're not "in favor of overpopulation." That's not what anyone is saying. I'm saying the same thing you are, that they ignore it. And that what they do encourage exacerbates the problem.

[StrontiDog]

I set an atheist challenge. The atheists must prove that animals have religion or else they need to concede that atheist lack something, since they descended from the apes, and apes don't have religion. I don't have to do any work, just keep harping until proof is supplied by the atheist. I will then discredit any offering of proof, using the atheist template.*

 

*Bold type supplied by Strontidog (with waaaay too much time on my hands. . .)

 

I have to respect the coda where you perfectly define faith. Excellent, and I'm very likely to quote you. . .

 

 

First of all, only apes descended from apes. Humans didn't.

 

As an ardent evolutionist, apes and humans (and whales and mice and cats and any mammal you can think of) share a common ancestor. Some more recently than others, but nonetheless, we share a common ancestor with a freakin' sperm whale! But we didn't descend from apes any more than they descended from humans.

 

Creation: Because one old book is a lot easier to read than a bunch of hard books.

 

And I really do think you already know this. Many anti-evolutionists don't, but you do.

 

Besides, I've read this whole thread, and nobody said animals had religion, but several have opined that we don't know that they don't. Doctor Doolittle isn't here to say, so the rest of us can't converse with anyone but humans, not in an abstract way, anyway.

 

So as an atheist, I don't accept your challenge. Largely because it is based on false premises.

 

Nice try, though.

 

Bill Wolfe

[LimbicLoser]

I'll respond here in a 'first-in, first-out' manner (this thread was chronologically prior to that on what 'religion offers.' Also, I'll by-pass the somewhat 'off-topic' matter of non-Homo sapiens brain states.

 

Now, let me please clarify my person position as well, so as to simply prevent any possible misunderstandings; even though this much also is slightly 'off-topic.' I hold myself to be more of a non-theist agnostic camp member (perhaps along with Dr. Shermer of the Skeptic Society?), yet strive to hold a difference (in, perhaps, the face of preexisting pressure against such) between what we would label a 'religion' on the one hand, and what we might be better off seeing as a 'theist-based religious belief-system.' The results of such a policy will hopefully be seen through later developed argumentation.

 

 

Atheism offers the same thing theism offers; an response to a metaphysical proposition. Neither offer any more or any less.

 

I would hope to see an example or two, to get a better bearing on just what the process is. For example, if we were to present the concept of 'creation as an act by some supernatural being' as a metaphysical proposition, then we would seemingly be faced with the prior assumption of a theos (using the Greek term simply due to its being the root of 'theism, etc.) In that case, I wonder if it would not be more accurate to interpret the flow in the opposite manner--a metaphysical position offers a response to theistic proposition. It might only be that I need further clarification here.

 

Neither offer hope, freedom, love, morality, etc. Neither offer a framework for belief; They only offer a metaphysical proposition that informs a framework that the (a)theist may adopt.

 

I would tend to assert that we can find 'offers' within the religions (using plural here due to how I hold the term religion in opposition to the more narrowly defined 'theist-based religious belief-system'), but would then have to weight them against each other in an empirical, pragmatic manner to determine their viable weights and values.

 

However, once again, I'd like to ask for a little more expounding on the concept of 'a proposition informing a framework' here; please.

[John Cuthber]

Re

"In regards to the position of the Catholic church on birth control, is that it must be done within marriage and by responsible means, that is by the use of a natural method of misconception. "

Here's an old joke.

Q What do you call couples who use the rhythm method of contraception?

A parents.

 

BTW, you might want to look up the meaning of misconception.

[Rickdog]

Yikes !!! (),.....

 

John Cuthber, my friend, you got me there.

(awful translation on my part, I applaude you for understanding what I meant)

 

Sorry to all, who had a bad time trying to understand what I posted.

[Syntho-sis]

It doesn't offer anything except for the absence of something (religion)..

 

Essentially it is nothing therefore it offers nothing.

 

imo

[pioneer]

If one is not allowed to use birth control, one is placed in a position that requires more will power. One has less options to act like an unconscious animal. There is a natural cause and effect when it comes to sex, with certain extrapolated consequences. With birth control, this natural cause and effect is made synthetic, such that the natural cause and effect no longer applies. This synthetic state requires less will power and allows more impulse. This is easier for the branch of the human species that came from the apes.

 

One has to think logically, which atheist can do. Sex has a natural cause and effect. Knowing this cause and effect and the potential future implications, without birth control, one has to figure out how to express sexuality within the confines of the natural cause and effect and its future consequences. It takes a little extra brain power to meet the needs of these conditions and its implication. With birth control, one needs less brain power, which may be better for those closer to animals. I don't blame the descendants of the apes. The way of the religious human branch, may have overloaded the ape brain. One size does not fit all.

 

Things like ADD shows a movement back to atheist animals. This is less focus, will power, like the animals and much more compulsion. We may need to separate humanity into two overlapping species, with the behavior of each natural to each. One size may not fit all, but rather we need two basic sizes. one for each species.

[John Cuthber]

"Things like ADD shows a movement back to atheist animals."

LOL

[padren]

If one is not allowed to use birth control, one is placed in a position that requires more will power. One has less options to act like an unconscious animal. There is a natural cause and effect when it comes to sex, with certain extrapolated consequences. With birth control, this natural cause and effect is made synthetic, such that the natural cause and effect no longer applies. This synthetic state requires less will power and allows more impulse. This is easier for the branch of the human species that came from the apes.

Other synthetic states that allow for "less will power" among other things:

• Medicine
  
• Cooked food
  
• Preserved and refrigerated food
  
• Artificial "extra skin" for localized climates (ie, clothing)
  

It is not "natural" for humans to use fire, have food stockpiled that actually keeps, or bundle up in extra warm clothes. What criteria do you use to cherry pick the "good" synthetic states from from the ones that make us more like "unconscious animals" and thus are bad?

 

A secondary point of contention: "unconscious animals" are the ones that breed at every opportunity, fighting the natural instinct to reproduce and using artificial birth control is an act of will. It also creates more options as you can stop taking it and have children.

 

Without Birth Control:

[1] Have sex, probably have children

[2] Don't have sex, don't have children

 

With Birth Control

[1] Have sex without protection, probably have children

[2] Have sex with protection, probably don't have children

[3] Don't have sex, don't have children

 

Frankly, birth control increases your options. It's also worth noting that birth control doesn't mean "instantly no consequences" for sleeping with people. Depending on the method STDs are still a factor. If you or someone you are attracted to is in a monogamous relationship, then you still need will power and to figure out how to express yourself within the confines of that type of relationship.

 

One has to think logically, which atheist can do. Sex has a natural cause and effect. Knowing this cause and effect and the potential future implications, without birth control, one has to figure out how to express sexuality within the confines of the natural cause and effect and its future consequences. It takes a little extra brain power to meet the needs of these conditions and its implication. With birth control, one needs less brain power, which may be better for those closer to animals. I don't blame the descendants of the apes. The way of the religious human branch, may have overloaded the ape brain. One size does not fit all.

I already addressed the brain power issue but to side track... why do you refer to a "religious human branch" and then to "the ape descendants" like they are different groups? While atheism and "evolution proponents" aren't an exact overlap by any means (many religious people believe in evolution, and some atheists don't) I am pretty sure all evolutionary proponents and pretty much all conventional religions at least agree that all humans came from one place or another, but not a combination of the two.

 

It sounds like you are saying there are two "groups" coexisting, one going back to creationism and one going back to evolution.

Things like ADD shows a movement back to atheist animals. This is less focus, will power, like the animals and much more compulsion. We may need to separate humanity into two overlapping species, with the behavior of each natural to each. One size may not fit all, but rather we need two basic sizes. one for each species.

 

Could you please provide some material that demonstrates that atheists have higher rates of ADD? I'm pretty sure the disorder is equally common between people of all faiths and atheists who have been screened.

 

I am also pretty sure that critical thinking centers are pretty active in an atheist's brain. I think iNow posted some stuff on that awhile back with regard to the contrast with MRIs of religious people, but I can't recall the links. I'll ask him about that research if you do actually contend that atheists think less and act more like unconscious animals.

[mooeypoo]

It doesn't offer anything except for the absence of something (religion)..

 

Essentially it is nothing therefore it offers nothing.

 

imo

Really? So "Healthy", which is also the absence of something (sickness), is therefore offering nothing.

 

Is that your logic?

[pioneer]

Modern atheism offers us a look into our animal past, before a branch of humans evolved that something extra. That something extra was needed for modern civilization.

 

Faith in god implies a belief in something not seen and not proven. That also characterizes the conception of all innovation. Upon conception of an idea, nothing yet exists in reality. Yet the creator needs faith, it can be, even when everyone tells them it does not exist in reality. Since the atheist pre-humans could not perceive, what they could not see, they would fear the nebulous, until the nebulous becomes tangle enough to see. This slowed their progress.

 

Those with the extra, could more comfortably extrapolate, beyond the limits of the sensory systems. This gave the new branch an advantage. A group of such neo-humans with similar faith skills, could see the intangible, brain storm it, allowing them to develop the innovations (never seen in nature) needed for civilization. The atheist were good after the fact, when they can see it. They they can learn and copy.

 

In the bible, the story of Cain and Abel tells of the atheist majority of humans of that time. After Cain kills Abel, Cain is sent away. Cain fears, "whoever shall come upon me shall kill me". If Adam, Eve and Cain were the only three neo-humans at that time, who were these "whomever", whom Cain was afraid of? It was the the atheist branch of the humans, which were the vast majority at that time.

 

Cain is given a sign for protection. That would suggest something that Cain possessed that would spook the atheist. Maybe a talisman. Something the atheist could see, and know was real, but since it was not natural, it spooked them. This sign caused the atheists to avoid Cain, unless Cain initiated contact.

 

I would guess Cain bred with the atheist females. The atheist females liked the bad boy with the bling. While the atheist males, who descended from the apes, were into gay stuff, since this is what animals do, according to modern science. The neo-humans, who could extrapolate to the future, avoided that and began to increase their population.

 

History according to pioneer.

[mooeypoo]

History according to pioneer.

And according to no one else.

[Syntho-sis]

Really? So "Healthy", which is also the absence of something (sickness), is therefore offering nothing.

 

Is that your logic?

 

Why you people so friggin uptight all the time?

[John Cuthber]

Why you people so friggin uptight all the time?

 

Do you plan to answer the question?

 

"I would guess Cain bred with the atheist females. The atheist females liked the bad boy with the bling. While the atheist males, who descended from the apes, were into gay stuff, since this is what animals do, according to modern science. The neo-humans, who could extrapolate to the future, avoided that and began to increase their population."

 

LOL

[Rickdog]

Pioneer, my friend. Very interesting story of how humans evolved.

 

The only problem I see in all of this, its that after "God" got mad of how these ape-humans beings, behaved, he made earth rain and ordered to the "human" full of faith and religious man, known as Noah, to build an Ark, where he gathered all the species in couples, male and female, who happened to be the only survivors to that Universal rain God created.

Are you suggesting that among the couples gathered there were also a couple of these atheist ape-men ?.

Then why make rain to kill everybody else from existence, if he was suposed to save a couple of non believers atheists ? It doesn`t make no sence.

Unless of course, that God is falible and imperfect and also very stupid, so if the believers were made at his own image, then they should also be as foolish as God himself.

 

Very interesting and entertaining story about the bible, indeed.

[Syntho-sis]

Do you plan to answer the question?

 

"I would guess Cain bred with the atheist females. The atheist females liked the bad boy with the bling. While the atheist males, who descended from the apes, were into gay stuff, since this is what animals do, according to modern science. The neo-humans, who could extrapolate to the future, avoided that and began to increase their population."

 

LOL

 

Maybe I was a bit short. I apologize.

 

I would like to say that it is a bit hard to learn anything when people attack everything you say. It is annoying because it's not about explaining concepts, it is about tearing other people's arguments apart so you can stimulate your own intellectual ego. I find that extremely irritating..

 

It's kinda sad that such intelligent people fall victim to the same facets of human nature that everyone else does...

 

Every single thread on this website there is at least one person attacking another.

 

They are either being a smart-alec or they are just being generally rude.

 

Maybe the person is confused about something..Why not try explaining it to them instead of making them feel like they are partially retarded?

 

Then when they go to ask a serious question they are given crappy sources like Wikipedia or they are attacked even more..

 

Discussions aren't won or lost. It's not about who has the most words or the most sarcastic remarks. It's supposed to be about teaching and learning..

 

I see it every day on here... It almost makes me wanna stop hanging out on here.

[Sisyphus]

Wikipedia isn't a crappy source if it has the answer to the question being asked.

[michel123456]

Modern atheism offers us a look into our animal past, before a branch of humans evolved that something extra. That something extra was needed for modern civilization.

 

So at least you are admitting you are an animal (with something extra). Like a male is a female (with something extra).

I guess you are a male*.

 

Civilization has nothing to do with religion. Civilization has to do with people living in cities.

 

Atheism you encounter today is not so old as you may think. Certainly not so old as Adam and Eve. Today's atheism is mainly a reaction to Catholic Church, and has evolved as an autonom philosophic current only those last hundred years.

 

Atheism does not offer much. No relief when in pain, no hope. Nobody to talk to when alone, nobody to give you benediction. No explanation for your feelings, your love, your conscience. Nowhere to go after dying.

Most of atheism is emptyness, sadness, fear.

But it is also courage, because you have only your own resources.

It is also constant interrogation, because you are not feeded by stupid answers anymore. It is the heavy load of freedom.

 

Religion is the easy way. In my opinion, atheism is not for everybody. Not anyone can stand it all the way long.

 

* this can not be considered as an insult, I hope, being a male myself...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Discussions aren't won or lost. It's not about who has the most words or the most sarcastic remarks. It's supposed to be about teaching and learning..

I agree, and it bothers me too. It's so much easier to attack other people's opinions when you don't know them.