NOTE: This thread does not flame against Atheism, but it does criticise it. It displays my definition of Atheism which seems to be not for the general public. If you can't deal with criticism towards Atheism you are in the wrong discussion.
Additionally the fear of extremism is directly linked to very seemingly possible distant futures NOT THE NEXT 2 YEARS.
First of all I would like to say I am mostly against all sorts of organized religions, but in fact I am agnostic. (meaning I dont admit defeat to any superpower untill there is enough evidence to support it)
In my opnion there is a big issue that does not tend to be adressed with religion in the right way. People always complain about how close minded religion really is and that most of their followers are just blindly pusuing the herd. Though how much "better" is atheism really?
Atheism is by my language's definition a religion itself. The translated definition of religion in German and Dutch state that a belief turns into a religion once the belief itself sets an definition of how the world works.
People think atheism is about the "we dont know" factor, but it is not. Atheism preeches the "We know YOU are wrong" factor.
I absolutely agree with the fact that atheism not being an organized religion (yet) gives it a higher level logical acceptance, but where is it going?
Atheism used to be the outcast lunatics hanged to death. Now there are groups forming all over the world with "logical leaders" behind it. I honestly think atheistm is goign in the same direction as all other religions are going right now. How far do you think you are of having atheism's jehovas whitnesses at your door? I have listened to my lesser educated/informed friends rampage about religion after having seen one biased documentary (Religulous). They were making statements such as, "I am gonna kill all those who believe in religion" etc. This is nothing more than atheist extremism. Even on this webiste it seems that some topics are purely places here ase a response to rage/anger against religious people.
This brings you to the discussion that should be here, maybe even istead of this entire website (not hating at the website, this place is great), "Are we too unintelligent?"
The reason people follow blindly what is set right infront of them is because they are uninformed and scared of complecated explanations that undermine the value of their own existence in this universe.
Religion is part of the problem, but education is in an infinitely worse state.
(Again I am not hating at atheism, as I am far more happy with it that even Buddism, but merely pointing out a more pressing issue. Next year Ill be attending univesity where I hope to find more who have brought themselves up to date with the real issues)
*EDIT: removed the word absolute from the definition of atheism, this is not correct.
A human is incapable of not having faith in anything,
It does not sound like you require any faith for the statement above.
Ok, some how this slipped by me, your view on faith to be specific.
What puzzles me is that no one (unless I missed it of course) has requested clarification, while responding to your faith claim.
What do you mean by the term faith? Your other posts use the term and provide context to partially take in what is being meant. There is still a mismatch going on though.
I think that I can assist you and others by simply providing the lovely response from Sam Harris to the exact same claim you made.
p 232-233 from The End of Faith by Sam Harris
2. We need faith to do almost anything. It is absurd to think that we could ever do without it. One e-mail I received on this subject began: "I like your writing style but you are an idiot." Fair enough. My correspondent then went on to point out, as many have, that each of us has to get out of bed in the morning and live his life, and we do this in a context of uncertainty, and in the context of terrible certainties, like the certainty of death. This positive disposition, this willingness to set a course in life without any assurance that things will go one's way, is occasionally called "faith." Thus, one may prop up a disconsolate friend with the words "have faith in yourself." Such words are almost never facetious, even on the forked tongue of an atheist. Let me state for the record that I see nothing wrong with this kind of "faith."
But this is not the faith that has given us religion. It would be rather remarkable if a positive attitude in the face of uncertainty led inevitably to ludicrous convictions about the divine origin of certain books, to bizarre cultural taboos, to the abject hatred of homosexuals, and to the diminished status of women. Adopt too positive an outlook, and the next thing you know architects and engineers may start flying planes into buildings. As I do my best to spell out over the course of the book, religious faith is the belief in historical and metaphysical propositions without sufficient evidence. When the evidence for a religious proposition is thin or nonexistent, or there is compelling evidence against it, people invoke faith. Otherwise, they simply cite the reasons for their beliefs (e.g., "the New Testament confirms Old Testament prophecy," "I saw the face of Jesus in a window," "We prayed, and our daughter's cancer went into remission"). Such reasons are generally inadequate, but they are better than no reasons at all. People of faith naturally recognize the primacy of reasons and resort to reasoning whenever they possibly can. Faith is simply the license they give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail. When rational inquiry supports the creed it is championed; when it poses a threat, it is derided; sometimes in the same sentence. Faith is the mortar that fills the cracks in the evidence and the gaps in the logic, and thus it is faith that keeps the whole terrible edifice of religious certainty still looming dangerously over our world.
Would you please define what you mean by delusion?
The Evolution of Love by Ada Lampert
So, I do not entirely agree with you. I do agree that the need for community, identity and stability and all the other factors connected to highly social animals is used as you say.
My research, which goes into the psychology, biology, neurological, neuropsychological, blah blah blah brought me to conclude it primary stems as one of the most potent addictions that we can experience (to endogenous chemicals in this case, triggered in various ways) and there are variances to which some people are inclined towards in terms of what gets their fix.
There are stages of love, different kinds and what not, there are different motivations for seeking to be in love and want to be loved.
The other core piece that I think is in play is our NEED to not feel alone and incomplete.
A consequence of a species reaching somewhere around our level of consciousness and ego (sense of self, abstraction, etc) in conjunction with a reward center we have (I lack the imagination or knowledge to come up with anything all that different from our reward center, along with the impossibility to not be stuck with such a system through the processes of evolution) is that of feeling to be something other than what everything else is.
An absolute it can and does feel like, to always look from within to the without and perceiving forever alone, trapped as the concept of self (which is an illusion) with no rubicon in sight.
My energy is sputtering out so hmm
It has been shown and I could draw it out later, but, we seek oneness.
We seek WHOLENESS.
To feel complete.
Somewhere here, is also why the need for purpose, meaning and justice drives so many to yield reason and reality to escape the pain and uncertainty.
One way to not feel to be a prisoner forever trapped is to tune down or disable the ego, the sense of self. This is why certain meditations and psychotropics are so invaluable as tools for far more than this bit (it would take several books and lectures for this to be easily understood).
What happens when one is deeply in love with lets say another person?
One of the neurotransmitters that "Love" triggers the release of is dopamine, which is for brevity causing a procedural call of SEEK, over and over.
When we are SEEKING, it demands a whole lotta focus.
The more focus allocated to seeking works to reroute energy and effort to whom we love.
Visualize this as instead of the having the ego constantly obsessing, looking inward so to speak, having conscious thoughts and the working memory undulated with our anxieties (this part can get very complex and pesky) and proclivities, possibly us comparing ourselves to others over and over, finding ourselves lacking even if it ain't necessarily so (the grass is greener syndrome), the focus is on them and this either turns the volume of self down or in some cases I wager that either our brain does a thingy where it takes the processes that bring about the concept of self and modifies variables/parameters that now includes whom we love (the role of trust and willingness to be vulnerable could be what makes the rubicon possible) or umm
doh, reaching out of order status
I hope you get the gist of what I am saying.
Hugging a child or a puppy triggers the brain to produce opiate-like chemicals to positively enforce this survival behavior.
Oxytocin, which is what creates the bonding between us.
Stimulating a females nipple area, I think for 15 minutes also triggers oxytocin release for basically what you said, so we don't ditch the baby or eat it :)
All of us are suckers for affection, which is why many people experience anxiety when doubting their "faith."
I am unable to disagree with you here, since it sounds reasonable and I have not read any research specifically addressing it.
However, the ability to "doubt" or to even entertain the notion their religion (faith) could be false (realize there that TRUTH does matter to them in a twisted way, not that they have much choice) stems quite a bit from the anxiety from uncertainty.
This should help you understand what I mean:
Oh yea, is you have any interest with the addiction bit I recommend this as a starting point to increase your knowledge:
I am affraid to look at what I wrote, soo I hope some sense is contained above, beyond that of nonsense.
Adopt a dog with black fur to keep Allah's posse of angels away!
I don't believe in any deity at all, under any circumstances. I'm pretty sure no atheists have come knocking at your door "We'd like to talk to you about science & logic". I'm pretty sure there's no "atheist manifesto" in the drawers in your hotel room. I'm pretty sure atheists don't go to some sort of church praising the miracles of Darwin & Dawkins. And I'm pretty sure no one has been standing on the corner passing out "On the Origin of Species". It's a shame too.
Good luck at Uni - you're setting yourself up for failure since "education is in an infinitely worse state".
*edit for info already covered
Saying atheism is a religion is like saying bald is a hair color.
Atheism is a religion like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.
We shouldn't even have the need of the word "atheist". There is no special name needed for a person that doesn't believe is unicorns (Aunicornist). No special name for one doesn't believe in UFO's (Aufoist).
Rationalist or Realist would be better terms
Even so we are stuck with the term atheist.
Atheist- A term originally coined as a curse towards non-believers and other theists not believing in the "one true god" and grounds for torture and murder throughout most history.
Atheism/reality/science is infinitely better than believing in Woo/superstition/Bronze-age myths.
It's more mentally challenging and satisfying...
More questioning and knowledgable...
More intellectually honest, reliable, testable, repeatable...
And we can sleep in on Sundays and eat whatever we choose on any day of the week...
Very much agree with you. I think the problem is that atheist is another word to put different people into a different box.
This is when the discussion about box-minded comes out though.
I don't misunderstand. You're sorely misinformed.
Science evolves. "We think this." "We'll test this." "Did it work?" "Yes. Cool. Let's try it again just to make sure." or "No . So we have to rethink our position and try something new."
That isn't blind faith. There is no "higher power" involved. Religion doesn't change.
Religion constantly changes just rheir main things remain the same. Only recently the pope accepted birth control use under god.
Even religion has steady change.
And if you believe that science has no basis that relies purely on the faith of humanity in that being correct without them knowing for sure, then you are terribly missinformed.
Religion changes, IMHO, are only to make cafeteria christians happy. The bible remains the same. The doctrine stays the same. They still have to have faith in and pray to the oh holy one.
Science does not work that way. If you have examples of prominent scientists having "faith" directing their research, I'd like to hear about it. Pls & thx :)