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.

*EDITEDIT:Updated description

Views: 156

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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

Problem is not university education but primary and middle. Thanks for the input.
That is because people are missing the point and thinking that I am trying to define their religion. I am thrying to get people to think in what places atheism is doing right adn in what places it could do better. Atheism has only been accepted legally unpunishable for a few hundred years.
yes but now ask yourself, how much better (if at all) does it make my personality for being of thios belief that science is the one with teh higher base?

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...

More fun...

More open...

More intellectual...

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 :)

Your thread title?  I don't know what information you want. Complete sentences would be helpful.

"You don't know" isn't atheism, it's agnosticism, something you should know as a person who claims to be one. If you want to believe there's a possibility, you're an agnostic.  If you want to stay in the dark & discount science, that's fine.  But you're wrong.

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". 

-_-

 

Pretty much every single scientific break through came from a belief or a hunch that somethign could be true. Famous people who had faith in their works? Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton?

 

Fact is that science is still in early stages of development and you are already starting to see that the large baseline for science hasnt been moving for a long time. The bible had, over the course of hundreds of years, several new baselines added to it until it was deamed finished.

 

Even today if someone bring out a rediculous claim in science they are first the laughing stock. The world was round? Most scientists laughed. Quatum physics enables teleportation and the multiverional view of existance itself? Other scientists laughed.

 

What i disagree with in other people, even other agnostics like me, is the pretty blind faith people have in science now. learn it understand it, but never take ANYTHING for absolute.

Pretty much every single scientific break through came from a belief or a hunch that somethign could be true. Famous people who had faith in their works? Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton?

 

True.  But it's not a "breakthrough" until it's verifiable through evidence and predictive capability.  For example, the scientific community didn't fully accept general relativity until it was proven by experiment in 1919 (14 years after Einstein published it).

 

Fact is that science is still in early stages of development and you are already starting to see that the large baseline for science hasnt been moving for a long time. The bible had, over the course of hundreds of years, several new baselines added to it until it was deamed finished.

 

What do you mean by "baseline".  I think you would be in the vast minority if you are claiming that Science hasn't progressed as quickly as religion.

 

Even today if someone bring out a rediculous claim in science they are first the laughing stock. The world was round? Most scientists laughed. Quatum physics enables teleportation and the multiverional view of existance itself? Other scientists laughed.

 

Scientists are skeptic by nature.  In other words, we require evidence to support claims that our intuition cannot handle.

 

What i disagree with in other people, even other agnostics like me, is the pretty blind faith people have in science now. learn it understand it, but never take ANYTHING for absolute.

 

I think you're addressing scientific literacy here rather than any problems with Science itself or Atheism.  Science does not, nor will ever, require blind faith.  The whole system is based on evidence.  Maybe some people choose to believe whatever they're told, but the evidence (or lack thereof) is out there for anyone.

1. You are correct, but since whne is a religion not a religion if it requires evidence that the religion is correct that varies from system to sytem

 

2. You are not looking at things in a relative perspective. I am merely explaining 2 key stages. one where the basis of science and the basis of religion was written/"discovered" (dont even get me started on scince being discovered or defined) and the other were bits and pieces are added to the beliefs of the individual

 

3. I never said otherwise, if you are arguing the quoted statement clarify more.

 

4. Again I never claimed it did, but still do I see too many less educated people who do blindly "preech the word of the scientific bible"

RSS

Blog Posts

The tale of the twelve officers

Posted by Davis Goodman on August 27, 2014 at 3:04am 4 Comments

Birthday Present

Posted by Caila Rowe on August 26, 2014 at 1:29am 12 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service