Canadian Women leaving Christianity

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by llama64

I don't disagree with you in that the reduction of faith based political action is worthy of cheering. Religion, belief and politics should never be connected in the same action.

All I'm saying is that to be atheist, one shouldn't really care what other people believe. Doing so is perpetrating the exact behaviour that most atheists find other religions at fault for.

I don't consider Atheisim a religion though.

I care very much what others believe because the ignorance pushed by most (not all) church groups leads to the hate and small world views that are causing many of the worlds most serious problems. Iraq, Afganistan, Yugoslavia, Chechnya, etc.

When people start caring for people because they are people, not because someone told them to (or not to) or it gets them into heaven or whatever, the world will be a better place IMO.



Claeren.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Muta

This reminds me of prophecies where the Believers will suddenly dissapear from the Earth, and the Non-Believers will be left to suffer through the Four Horsemen of the Apocolypse (apprx. seven years, I think?), and the devil will rise to global power as a revered figure in a guise that fools everybody until its too late.

After which, the survivors of the Non-Believers will become Believers, Jesus will rise again, and the world will experience salvation.

....Or something along the lines of that. I haven't been drunk in a long time.

The entirety of the Book of Revelations is specific to the context of the time in which it was written. It's symbolism cannot be directly applied to current times.

It's been included in the Bible as a method to scare people into staying Christian. Plus, what good is a religion without a good apocalyptic story?

[Tyler]

It's not so much caring what other people believe, its moreso the belief that the world would be better off without religion, and that we can finally move forward as a society without the constraints of a pre-intellectual, pre-industrial ideology dictating the core values and beliefs of a vast majority of the population

[DESS]

Originally Posted by llama64

I don't disagree with you in that the reduction of faith based political action is worthy of cheering. Religion, belief and politics should never be connected in the same action.

All I'm saying is that to be atheist, one shouldn't really care what other people believe. Doing so is perpetrating the exact behaviour that most atheists find other religions at fault for.

Why do you think it goes against the worldview of an atheist to take an interest in the decline of organized religion? I'm an atheist and find the trend talked about by the OP heartening.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Claeren

I don't consider Atheisim a religion though.

By default it's not. It becomes so when atheists get organized. Sort of like the difference between Liberals and liberals.

I care very much what others believe because the ignorance pushed by most (not all) church groups leads to the hate and small world views that are causing many of the worlds most serious problems. Iraq, Afganistan, Yugoslavia, Cechynia, etc.

Would you advocate pushing an atheist world view upon the population? Or would you rather foster an environment in which an individual is given the opportunity to make up their own mind?

My understanding of the psychology of atheism leads me to suspect the later.

When people start caring for people because they are people, not because someone told them to or it gets them into heaven or whatever, the world will be a better place IMO.
Claeren.

It would be a better place. Although humanism can be practised by Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindu's, and atheists equally. Religious beliefs don't have to factor into the equation at all. And in their absence, tyrants would just find another vector with which to perpetrate their inhumanity.

I do wonder though, without a religious system, what social mechanism will take up the charge of providing the moral standard for society.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by llama64

By default it's not. It becomes so when atheists get organized. Sort of like the difference between Liberals and liberals.



Would you advocate pushing an atheist world view upon the population? Or would you rather foster an environment in which an individual is given the opportunity to make up their own mind?

My understanding of the psychology of atheism leads me to suspect the later.



It would be a better place. Although humanism can be practised by Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindu's, and atheists equally. Religious beliefs don't have to factor into the equation at all. And in their absence, tyrants would just find another vector with which to perpetrate their inhumanity.

I do wonder though, without a religious system, what social mechanism will take up the charge of providing the moral standard for society.

If an Atheist viewpoint starts with science then yes. Other than that there is nothing specific about Atheism that would create a singular viewpoint.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Cheese

If an Atheist viewpoint starts with science then yes. Other than that there is nothing specific about Atheism that would create a singular viewpoint.

Why do you capitalise "Atheism"?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by llama64

Why do you capitalise "Atheism"?

LOL...well I use two fingers to Type and I cant control what they do at all.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by The Goon

Those British Columbians are heathens.

I prefer the term "god-less hippies".

I personally consider atheism to be a religion, but then again my definition of religion is pretty loose.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Russic

I prefer the term "god-less hippies".

I personally consider atheism to be a religion, but then again my definition of religion is pretty loose.

Wouldn't it be more of a belief system?

I generally view religion and "organized religion" as the same thing. Which may explain my previous posts...

Pushing beliefs on others is bad, regardless of what those beliefs are. (or "non-beliefs" in the atheist case )

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by llama64

Why do you capitalise "Atheism"?

Probably the same reason you misspell capitalize.

[troutman]

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...l_religion.htm

For some strange reason, many people keep getting the idea that atheism is itself some sort of religion. It's an assertion which I keep hearing in newsgroups, in private email, and in this site's chat room. Maybe it is because these people are so caught up in their own religious beliefs that they cannot imagine any person living without religion of some sort. Maybe it is due to some persistent misunderstanding of what atheism is. And maybe they just don't care that what they are saying really doesn't make any sense.

Does atheism have anything approaching "clearly defined rules?" Not in the least. There is only one "rule," and that is the rule of the definition of "atheism" - not having any belief in any gods.

Does atheism have an "eschatology? Eschatology is a "belief about the end of the world or the last things." There is absolutely, positively nothing inherent in the disbelief in gods that leads one to any opinions about the end of the world.

Does atheism contain "...a philosophy by which to live?" There is nothing inherent in the disbelief in god(s) which leads a person to any philosophy of life.

As the term is normally used, atheism means not believing in any gods. That's as far as "understanding existence" goes with atheism. Other than gods, there's a lot of room for differences among atheists as to what they think about existence. Thus, atheism itself is not an "understanding", but a single commonality.

Atheism is a disbelief, not a philosophy.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Probably the same reason you misspell capitalize.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by llama64

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by llama64

snip/

I do wonder though, without a religious system, what social mechanism will take up the charge of providing the moral standard for society.

The judiciary and legislative bodies seem to be quite willing to step forward into this void, and that just might be scarier than organized religion doing it. Other than fear and guilt, organized religions don't have much of an enforcement mechanism. The state on the other hand has a very large, complex system and resource pool at their disposal ... and tasers too! It's kind of like being between the devil and the deep blue.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I've just realized how dependant I've become on the Firefox spell-checker, and exactly how insufficient said spell-checker is.

/offtopic

[metal_geek]

Originally Posted by llama64

I don't disagree with you in that the reduction of faith based political action is worthy of cheering. Religion, belief and politics should never be connected in the same action.

All I'm saying is that to be atheist, one shouldn't really care what other people believe. Doing so is perpetrating the exact behavior that most atheists find other religions at fault for.

You're exactly right... Personally I don't really care what other people believe, unless they start preaching then they make their beliefs my business.....

Stats like these are good news for lowering the political power of those lobby groups. The only problem is it seems the lower the general numbers the louder the fundamentalists voice.
________
Ketamine Rehab Forums

[troutman]

Originally Posted by llama64

I do wonder though, without a religious system, what social mechanism will take up the charge of providing the moral standard for society.

My oft-cited quote:

Sam Harris in The End of Faith:

The pervasive idea that religion is somehow the source of our deepest ethical intuitions is absurd. We no more get our sense that cruelty is wrong from the pages of the Bible than we get our sense that two plus two equals four from the pages of a textbook on mathematics. Anyone who does not harbor some rudiementary sense that cruelty is wrong is unlikely to learn that it is by reading - and, indeed most scripture offers rather equivocal testimony to this fact in many cases. Our ethical intuitions must have their precursors in the natural world . . . concern for others was not the invention of any prophet. [Harris, p. 172]

http://www.penguin.ca/nf/Book/BookDi...051275,00.html

CAN WE BE GOOD WITHOUT GOD

Behaviour, Belonging and the Need to Believe
Dr. Robert Buckman - Author

Buckman also examines the relationship between beliefs and ethics. Many of us use rules set by our religion to guide our behavior, yet now, more than ever, religious doctrine can seem out of alignment with our sense of ethical conduct. If you don't believe in God, can you still behave decently and ethically?

[Flashpoint]

Fantastic news! The sooner western society expunges itself of the many lies of organized religion, (invisible man who lives in the sky etc) the sooner we'll be able to deal with real issues.

Like "take care of the environment because your 70 odd years here are all you and your kids and their kids are getting. No afterparty beyond the rainbow folks. So lets all pick up some trash and tidy up the place."

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

The judiciary and legislative bodies seem to be quite willing to step forward into this void, and that just might be scarier than organized religion doing it.

Agreed

What happens when you throw in a formerly Christian-secular majority with a dogmatic ferver to respect every other culture above their own together with a smattering of people from all four corners of the world, all with their own unique religious and non-religious belief systems? Well you get an environment where there isn't a common sense of morality. Without a common sense of morality everyday interactions can only peacefully occur with a common set of contrived rules and laws created and overseen by politicians and judges and you're only help to navigate such a minefield is a costly lawyer. I think it's pretty clear who benefits most from the decline of Christianity in Canada. Tyranny from those who make the rules, enforce them, and understand them fully.