Atheism

[rynner2]

I do think we're hard-wired to believe in something bigger than ourselves, outside of ourselves, that surrounds us, and is self-aware... because it's true for the first 9 months of our lives.

Longer than that, in fact. The human infant is totally reliant on family for food, protection, and comfort, for a year or more after birth, and only slowly does the child achieve some independence, as it learns to walk and talk, and becomes aware of itself as a (very junior) member of society.

 

[Cochise]

Actually, with a little bit more generosity, even handedness and humour, Thomas might be making a good point. I'm also deeply suspicious of the sort of research that might harbour the possibility of subjectivity on behalf of the researcher.

Also, although it may well be true that humans are 'hard-wired for belief', what it is exactly that we're hard-wired to believe in, is still up for debate. Probably more about the evolution of social cohesiveness in social beings, than it's about invisible deities. And if that's the case, then there's probably an argument that says if belief or disbelief in an invisible deity becomes more important than social cohesion, then extreme belief or disbelief is moving off the dial from healthy, into mania.

The thing that concerns me, whether we are talking about those with faith or those without, is people who cannot accept their own particular interpretation of existence might not be the right one. Science only starts with the big bang, and is limited to the so-far-known universe and dimensions, and even within that we are far from understanding everything. I happen to believe in a God, but I don't condemn those who believe something else as morons or naive children, as seems all-to-often to be the case with a certain kind of atheist (and religious extremists too, of course).

 

[Analogue Boy]

Once again we're in the land of the God-Shaped Hole.

When people talk about atheists, they always bring up science and its limits.
Science is not the 'opposite' of religion. It's just a different thing and to reach out to prove the point, there are many scientists who are religious. Science doesn't necessarily have to be the filler of the God-Shaped Hole...in fact there doesn't even have to be a hole in the first place. I guess it's just difficult for those who invest so much time and effort in their PARTICULAR* faith to work out what atheists do with their minds all the time.

*And here's where we find the hypocrisy. I love this quote from Ricky Gervais channelling Dawkins...

The dictionary definition of God is “a supernatural creator and overseer of the universe.” Included in this definition are all deities, goddesses and supernatural beings. Since the beginning of recorded history, which is defined by the invention of writing by the Sumerians around 6,000 years ago, historians have cataloged over 3700 supernatural beings, of which 2870 can be considered deities.

So next time someone tells me they believe in God, I’ll say “Oh which one? Zeus? Hades? Jupiter? Mars? Odin? Thor? Krishna? Vishnu? Ra?…” If they say “Just God. I only believe in the one God,” I’ll point out that they are nearly as atheistic as me. I don’t believe in 2,870 gods, and they don’t believe in 2,869.

 

[Gwenar]

Science is not the 'opposite' of religion.

I agree, but people feel differently when scientific discoveries contradict doctrine. For example, some religious people homeschool their kids specifically because the theory of evolution conflicts with literal readings of Genesis. They fear their kids will be led astray by science.

I think Cochise was talking about fear and how it affects belief. Some atheists fear that religious people are ruining the world for everyone else. Some religious people fear that atheists and people of different faiths or sects are ruining the world for everyone else. When people are really invested in their beliefs, it means they feel that beliefs alone have power to change the world.

I tend to think that most of us just muddle along doing what we do, and we subtly adjust our beliefs to suit our culture or circumstances. So, it's action that makes the change, and belief follows.

[edited for typo]

 

[Cochise]

I was talking about 'blind faith' and the dismissive attitude that causes towards other people's belief systems, not so much 'fear'. Science is cool, but it has little or nothing to do with proving or disproving the existence of a god or gods.

After all, someone or something powerful enough to create the universe from outside is quite capable of not being observed by the lower life forms inside - think scientist and Petri dish. On a stupendous scale.

 

[Analogue Boy]

Science is cool, but it has little or nothing to do with proving or disproving the existence of a god or gods.

If anything, the opposite of religion is history. All 4000 years of it.

After all, someone or something powerful enough to create the universe from outside is quite capable of not being observed by the lower life forms inside - think scientist and Petri dish.

so how much does a scientist love and protect the things in his petri dish?

 

[Cochise]

God doesn't have to 'love and protect'. He might, if certain of the religions are right about him. Or he might just be conducting an interesting experiment.

(For 'he', feel free to substitute 'she' or 'it' or 'they')

Only 4000 years? Been listening to Bishop Ussher?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

If God is just some kind of Super-Scientist, then what and Whose experiment is He part of? This kind of philosophical speculation always throws up the problem of infinite regression towards the vanishing point of some sort of Ur-Cause for Everything. It used to set my head spinning when I was a young kid - along with trying to imagine Infinity.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Only 4000 years? Been listening to Bishop Ussher?

jimv1 is referring to recorded history. Stuff about what happened in the past written down somewhere which we can read and interpret. As opposed to pre-history, where all we have to go by is the archaeological evidence without some sort of textual record.

 

[escargot]

Atheist presents alternative Thought for the Day, thanks to Tim Berners-Lee

The inventor of the world wide web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, has won a partial victory against the BBC by getting it to let an atheist present an alternative Thought for the Day on its flagship radio news programme – but not at the usual time.

As guest editor of Radio 4's Today programme, Berners-Lee, an active member of the Unitarian church, wanted an atheist to present the three-minute daily religious slot, broadcast at 7.45am.

This was overruled, but the minister Andrew Pakula, who describes himself as a non-theist, was allowed to present an alternative Boxing Day Thought for the Day an hour earlier.
etc

So there was an atheist Thought For The Day, presented by a nonbelieving church minister, but it had to be broadcast at a different time from usual because it wasn't religious, although it can be given at the normal time by atheist Buddhists. :lol:

 

[ramonmercado]

Irish atheists increase by 400 percent in ten years, survey shows
Islam will be Ireland’s second biggest religion inside the next 30 years
By PATRICK COUNIHAN, IrishCentral Staff Writer
Published Monday, December 30, 2013, 7:19 AM Updated Monday,

The numbers of agnostics and atheists in Ireland has risen by 400 percent
Photo by CatholicNewsAgency

The number of Irish people with no religion - atheists and agnostics - increased by 400 percent in Ireland between 1991 and 2011 to a total of 277,237.

The massive increase is due to a huge breakdown in trust between the Catholic Church and many of its traditional constituencies.

The sex scandals and cover-ups have deeply impacted the church with record numbers staying away and embracing atheism.

The latest figures confirm a 2011 a poll by Gallup International which showed Ireland now ranks among the top ten atheist nations worldwide, in a huge shift from the last poll in 2005. In the six years between polls, according to the results, one in five Irish people set aside religion.

The Gallup International Association poll, titled the Global Index of Religion and Atheism, asked 50,000 people in 57 countries: “Irrespective of whether you attend a place of worship or not, would you say you are a religious person, not a religious person or a convinced atheist?”

In 2011, 47% of Irish respondents said they considered themselves religious, 44% not religious, and 10% convinced atheists. The global average has 59% of respondents self-identifying as religious, 23% as not religious, and 13% as convinced atheists.

When the same poll was conducted in 2005, 69% of Irish respondents identified as religious, 25% as not religious, and 3% as convinced atheists. The 2011 poll results reflect a 22% drop in Irish identification as ‘religious’ in the six years between polls, with a corresponding increase in the ‘not religious’ and ‘convinced atheist’ categories. The United States saw a 13% drop in identification as religious over the same period.

Ireland is tied with Austria, Iceland and Australia with ten percent of respondents in the ‘convinced atheist’ category. That puts all four countries behind just seven others for the top percentages of convinced atheists. China was the least religious nation surveyed, with 14% identifying as religious, 30% as not religious and 47% as convinced atheists.

Also, Islam will become Ireland’s second religion in the next 30 years according to new figures released by the country’s Central Statistics Office.

The Irish Independent reports that dramatic population growth and immigration will lead to a surge in the number of followers of Islam resident in Ireland.

The data comes a year ahead of the construction of the country’s largest mosque on the north side of the city at a cost of over $50million.

The three-storey Clongriffin center will be the largest Islamic religious complex in the State and will also boast a major cultural center.

The report says the mosque complex will be able to cater for more than 3,000 people and will feature two minarets, a prayer hall, a cultural center, offices, bookshop, a library, a mortuary, a crèche, a 600-seat events center, school, a state-of-the-art fitness center and apartment blocks.

The paper states that population statistics compiled by the Central Statistics Office confirm that Islam is now Ireland’s fastest-growing religion.

At current rate of expansion, Islam is set to become the second religion in Ireland after Catholicism by 2043.

In 1991, Islam accounted for just 0.1 percent of the Irish population and soared to 1.1 percent by 2011, when a total of 49,204 Muslims were resident in Ireland.

A strong birth rate and immigration will see Ireland’s Muslim population exceeding 100,000 by 2020.

Figures are not available for the population breakdown between the Shi’ite and Sunni branches of Islam.

The latest Census figures revealed that 84 percent of the Irish population describe themselves as Catholic, down from 91.6 percent in the 1991 census.

Orthodox Christianity is the second fastest growing religion in Ireland. Their numbers doubled in the space of five years, rising to 45,223 by 2011.

Protestants accounted for 5 percent of the population.



Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/-Irish ... z2oy8iGq1j
Follow us: @IrishCentral on Twitter | IrishCentral on Facebook

 

[ramonmercado]

Atheist Afghan granted religious asylum in UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25715736

The client, who was raised as a Muslim, requested to remain anonymous

An Afghan citizen has been granted asylum in the UK for religious reasons - because he is an atheist.

The man fled to the UK from a conflict involving his family in Afghanistan in 2007, aged 16, and was allowed to stay in the UK until 2013.

He was brought up a Muslim, but during his time in the UK became an atheist, his legal team said.

They said he would face persecution and possibly a death sentence if he was returned to Afghanistan.

The team was from the University of Kent's Law School which offers legal services through its Kent Law Clinic.

'Entitled to protection'
They believe it is the first time a person has been granted asylum in the UK on the basis of their atheism.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

The decision represents an important recognition that a lack of religious belief is in itself a thoughtful and seriously-held philosophical position”

Sheona York
Kent Law Clinic
Lawyers lodged a submission to the Home Office under the 1951 Refugee Convention which aims to protect people from persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

They said the man's return to Afghanistan could result in a death sentence under Sharia law as an apostate - someone who has abandoned their religious faith - unless he remained discreet about his atheist beliefs.

But because every aspect of daily life and culture in Afghanistan is permeated by Islam living discreetly would be virtually impossible, they said.

The case was prepared by second-year law student Claire Splawn under the supervision of clinic solicitor Sheona York.

Ms Splawn said: "We argued that an atheist should be entitled to protection from persecution on the grounds of their belief in the same way as a religious person is protected."

'Proud history'
Ms York added: "The decision represents an important recognition that a lack of religious belief is in itself a thoughtful and seriously-held philosophical position."

The British Humanist Association said the case may well have a claim to be a first in being based on non-religious beliefs.

Chief executive Andrew Copson said: "Freedom of belief for humanists, atheists and other non-religious people is as important as freedom of belief for the religious but it is too often neglected by Western governments who focus too narrowly on the rights of Christians abroad, as we have seen recently.

"It is great to see Britain showing a lead in defending the human rights of the non-religious in the same way.

"Increasingly in the last two years our Foreign Office is speaking up for the rights of non-religious people abroad - to now see the Home Office extending the UK's protection to non-religious refugees within our borders is something we can all be proud of."

The Home Office said: "The UK has a proud history of granting asylum to those who need it and we consider every application on a case-by-case basis."

 

[PeteByrdie]

Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In All UK Public Schools

In what's being heralded as a secular triumph, the UK government has banned the teaching of creationism as science in all existing and future academies and free schools.

The new clauses, which arrived with very little fanfare last week, state that the...

...requirement for every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.

So, if an academy or free school teaches creationism as scientifically valid, it's breaking the funding agreement to provide a "broad and balanced curriculum."

In the UK, state-funded academies are basically equivalent to charter schools in the United States, and are primarily comprised of high schools. Free schools, which were introduced in 2010, are non-profit making, independent, state-funded schools which are not controlled by a local authority, but are subject to the School Admissions Code. Free schools make it possible for parents, teachers, charities, and business to set up their own schools.

In addition to the new clauses, the UK government clarified the meaning of creationism, reminding everyone that it's a minority view even within the Church of England and the Catholic Church.

Back in 2012, the UK government banned all future free schools from teaching creationism as science, requiring them to teach natural selection. At the time, however, it didn't extend those requirement to academies, nor did the changes apply to existing free schools. The new verbiage changes this, precluding all public-funded schools — present or future — from teaching creationism as evidence-based theory.

The new church academies clauses require that "pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching 'creationism' as scientific fact." And by "creationism" they mean:

[A]ny doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution. The parties acknowledge that creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream churches and religious traditions, including the major providers of state funded schools such as the [Anglican] [Catholic] Churches, as well as the scientific community. It does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory.

And in regards to protecting religious beliefs, the clauses acknowledge that the funding agreement does...

...not prevent discussion of beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things, such as creationism, in Religious Education, as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory.

Seems fair and reasonable to me.

The British Humanist Association, which has been advocating for the change since 2011 via its "Teach Evolution, Not Creationism" campaign, is celebrating the move.

"[We] believe that... the objectives of the campaign are largely met," noted BHA Head of Public Affairs Pavan Dhaliwal in a statement. "We congratulate the Government on its robust stance on this issue." He added: "However, there are other ongoing areas of concern, for example the large number of state financed creationist nurseries, or the inadequate inspection of private creationist schools, and continued vigilance is needed in the state-funded sector. We will continue to work for reform in the remaining areas, but are pleased that the vast majority of issues are now dealt with."

This move by the UK government stands in stark contrast to what's happening in the United States. In Missouri, for example, a proposed bill would require schools to "alert" parents when evolution is taught.

As a Pastafarianism, this is great news to me. Obviously, spiritual interpretations of the world's origin should be taught, such as the idea that the world was created by a flying spaghetti monster or other deity or emerged from chaos. But those beliefs, however true (such as that The Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything with His Noodley Caress), should not be mixed with those crazy notions of astrophysics and evolution that arise from logical conjecture based on observable evidence.

 

[MercuryCrest]

As a discordian, I completely agree with this ruling.

 

[ramonmercado]

Atheist declared mentally ill in Nigeria

Mubarak Bala in his bed at a hospital in Kano state, Nigeria - 24 June 2014

A Nigerian man has been sent to a mental institute in Kano state after he declared that he did not believe in God, according to a humanist charity.

Mubarak Bala, 29, is said to have been forcibly medicated by his Muslim relatives, despite being given a clean bill of health by a doctor.

The International Humanist and Ethical Union say a Lagos-based group has asked a lawyer to take up his case.

Kano is a mainly Muslim state and adopted Sharia (Islamic law) in 2000.

The IHEU says that when Mr Bala told relatives he did not believe in God, they asked a doctor if he was mentally ill.

Despite being told that he was not unwell, Mr Bala's family then went to a second doctor, who declared that his atheism was a side-effect of suffering a personality change, the group says.

Mr Bala, a chemical engineering graduate, was forcibly committed to a mental institution, but was able to contact activists using a smuggled phone.

IHEU spokesman Bob Churchill said the group was concerned about his "deteriorating condition" and called for his "swift release".
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28010234

 

[Mythopoeika]

On the contrary, he is the only one who has no mental illness!

 

[skinny]

Exactly. Guess he's the Boko Haramist version of a commie bastard. The more of the open-eyed they send away, the more African shopping centres and innocent residents will be liquidated by the blind ... oop there goes another one. :cry:

 

[rynner2]

Atheism gets its own TV channel in the US – a shot in the dark of a sign changing times?
[Should that be 'a shot in the dark, or a sign of changing times?']
By Peter Foster
Last updated: July 23rd, 2014

It is a fact of American life that even though far fewer than half the adult population attend church on a weekly basis, atheism remains an outright taboo in many corners of the country.

As we discovered on a reporting trip to Virginia earlier, non-belief is something that many Americans are too afraid to even admit to their parents, friend and teachers. Many fear alienation from the communities they grew up in, or even active discrimination from employers and teachers for their non-belief.

But in what is a sign of changing times, perhaps, next week sees the launch of America's first dedicated TV channel for non-believers. Atheist TV launches in New York and will broadcast 24 hours a day via Roku, the internet streaming service that allows people to watch internet-based channels on their TVs. Roku only has seven million subscribers, but anyone can watch it streamed online at www.atheists.tv

Free-thinkers, as atheists style themselves, remain almost bizarrely under-represented in American public life and discourse. There is not a single openly declared atheist among the 535 members of Congress, and it is conventional electoral wisdom that the President of the United States has to be a believer.

The profile of atheism is very slowly starting to change, with an increasingly vocal atheist community, including high-profile adherents like Brad Pitt and Mark Zuckerberg. Even so, non-belief, is still a very long way from acceptance.

You can see the bombastic trailer for the station here, which features Richard Dawkins among other prominent atheists, talking about striking a blow for free thought, casting off the "monkey" of religious belief and the joy of "coming out" as an atheist to the world.

The channel is backed by American Atheists, the civil rights organisation founded in 1963 that takes a pretty confrontational approach to defending separation of church and state, including fighting a legal battle against the "9/11 miracle cross" being placed in the museum commemorating the September 11 attacks – which, as I've written before, is not a fight I would have personally picked.

The organisers tell me the channel will broadcast 24 hours, mostly with licenses and pre-recorded content, such as documentaries by the Richard Dawkins Foundation as well as a talk show titled "Atheist Viewpoint" and a call-in show, "Atheist Experience". There's more here.

As I've written before, America is secularising faster than many people realise, with the latest data analysis by Mark Chaves at Duke University indicating that even the Evangelical movement – after two decades of bucking the secularisation trend – is starting to lose traction among young people at almost the same rate as traditional churches.

So will this channel make a difference? Not immediately, since the station will initially be preaching to the (unbelieving) choir. But if it catches on, it might yet play a role in breaking the unfair link in the American public mind between not believing in God and immorality and social irresponsibility.

Depending on where you draw the line between militant atheist and "fuzzy faithful", about 20 per cent of Americans are practically speaking non-believers – that means there should, proportionally speaking, be 107 members of Congress to represent their beliefs, or lack of it.

By that measure, that America's atheists have a long way to go. But as has been seen in attitudes to the gay and lesbian world over the last decade, things can change quickly, and in the case of non-belief there is a latent pressure out there just waiting for recognition.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peter ... ing-times/

 

[Analogue Boy]

But what DO YOU THINK RYN?
It's not really enough to post page after page of the internet.
The Internet already does that.

 

[rynner2]

But what DO YOU THINK RYN?

I'm flattered that you think the opinions of some random nobody are of more interest than the details of a story promulgated by the media!

There are millions of twats out there only too willing to give the world their knee-jerk responses, and I'm not sure I want to be lumped in with them.

But since you ask, I think a TV channel about atheism would be boring, a nothingness about another nothingness. I'd almost rather watch a political channel, with a load of half-wits telling us how they'd make the world a better place, if only all the other half-wits would see sense!


There, feel better now?

 

[ramonmercado]

But what DO YOU THINK RYN?

I'm flattered that you think the opinions of some random nobody are of more interest than the details of a story promulgated by the media!

There are millions of twats out there only too willing to give the world their knee-jerk responses, and I'm not sure I want to be lumped in with them.

But since you ask, I think a TV channel about atheism would be boring, a nothingness about another nothingness. I'd almost rather watch a political channel, with a load of half-wits telling us how they'd make the world a better place, if only all the other half-wits would see sense!


There, feel better now?

If it showed atheists being hanged for converting to religion it might be a goer.

 

[tastyintestines]

But what DO YOU THINK RYN?

I'm flattered that you think the opinions of some random nobody are of more interest than the details of a story promulgated by the media!

There are millions of twats out there only too willing to give the world their knee-jerk responses, and I'm not sure I want to be lumped in with them.

But since you ask, I think a TV channel about atheism would be boring, a nothingness about another nothingness. I'd almost rather watch a political channel, with a load of half-wits telling us how they'd make the world a better place, if only all the other half-wits would see sense!


There, feel better now?

Why would you post about something you find boring? oh yeah it's not about quality it's about quantity. Your pile of shit is bigger. We get it! Anyways it is not a actual channel on a legit network. It is on a hack device that steals peoples work.

 

[rynner2]

Why would you post about something you find boring?

I didn't say atheism is boring, I said:
"I think a TV channel about atheism would be boring, a nothingness about another nothingness."

This is why I prefer to keep my comments to a minimum - there's usually someone who will jump in with a knee-jerk reply reply to what they think I meant.

As for my 'pile of shit', that comment is getting close to an ad hom.

 

[Analogue Boy]

Ryn.... Personally I'd rather hear your take on a news story than just pasting a link and a section of transcript, which is in my opinion, a weak contribution to a community forum.
Sure we get people that disagree with us and are trolls and are ignorant and lazy and hold other opinions opposed to ours - but if the internet is to be a record of human experience that will be referred to in the future, wouldn't you prefer to leave your own footprints in the sand rather than leave it to a recommend of some monkeyjourno?

 

[Analogue Boy]

Why would you post about something you find boring?

I didn't say atheism is boring, I said:
"I think a TV channel about atheism would be boring, a nothingness about another nothingness."

This is why I prefer to keep my comments to a minimum - there's usually someone who will jump in with a knee-jerk reply reply to what they think I meant.

As for my 'pile of shit', that comment is getting close to an ad hom.

Rarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!

Like.

 

[tastyintestines]

Um Am I missing something?

But since you ask, I think a TV channel about atheism would be boring, a nothingness about another nothingness. I'd almost rather watch a political channel, with a load of half-wits telling us how they'd make the world a better place, if only all the other half-wits would see sense!

You posted an article about that channel. If you post about a channel you find about a subject you think would be boring to broadcast then why would you post on a thread that discusses a subject that you would find boring if broadcast?

 

[MercuryCrest]

You just answered your own question, sir....

 

[tastyintestines]

hmm Guess it's just spam then. carry on

 

[ramonmercado]

GOP candidate urges Christians to ‘rise up’ against Atheists
July 30, 2014 by Michael Stone 101 Comments

A Republican candidate for Congress claims Satan is to blame for legal efforts to separate church and state, and is urging Christians to rise up against any atheist seeking elected office.

Jody Hice, a right-wing Baptist pastor and the GOP nominee for an open U.S. House seat in Georgia, argues America must follow God’s law, and campaigns to place copies of the Ten Commandments throughout public buildings as part of his spiritual battle to save America.

Hice made his offensive and derogatory comments on atheist lawmakers during an interview with the Trinity Broadcasting Network. During that interview, Hice said:

“Are we going to be a nation that is led by people who acknowledge God? Who acknowledge God’s law and acknowledge the role of God’s law in our society and the founding of our country? Or are we going to be led by people who totally reject God. It’s a frightening thing if we don’t rise up.”
Hice claims if we don’t elect Christians to Congress, the results will be “disastrous.”

Hice is well known for his Biblically based rants. Hice blamed the Sandy Hook shooting on America’s “kicking God out of the public square.” Hice has also warned that homosexuality “enslaves” people, and has compared being gay to alcoholism, drug addiction, “tendencies to lie,” and “tendencies to be violent.” No surprise, Hice is also a sexist, and claims he has no problem with women entering politics – as long as they ask their husbands first. ...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressiv ... -atheists/

 

[Analogue Boy]

Surely if Satan is to blame for congressional misdoings, the simple answer is not to vote for him.
Now where would you look for him?
Atheists? I think you can all leave the room.