Support NeoGAF

[Stoney Mason]

Why would people "worship" the state, by the way?

Extreme Nationalism?

Not sure who your question is aimed at.

 

[Kipz]

The number of atheists is going to increase continuously worldwide (except for maybe the middle east). People in the younger age group are especially turning away from religion and I will be very very happy on the day the church loses their power to influence politics on any level.

 

[hateradio]

Nationalism is a secular religion of sorts, anyone read Durkheim?



I've been god-free for 12+ years, where's my token?

 

[Stoney Mason]

Just according to keikaku.*

* Note: keikaku means Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[JayDubya]

Another problem, I fear, is that the postulation that many need religion to be ethical rings quite true.

I mean, look at you bastards.

 

[Fusebox]

That would still be a state religion.

Not quite, I see Unitarian Universalist as a living tradition, and in terms of religious make-up, it's hard to use the word 'State' when referring to such a wide mix of different beliefs...

...in a survey, Unitarian Universalists in the United States were asked which provided term or set of terms best describe their belief. Many respondents chose more than one term to describe their beliefs. The top choices were:

* Humanist – 54%
* Agnostic – 33%
* Earth-centered – 31%
* Atheist – 18%
* Buddhist – 16.5%
* Christian – 13.1%
* Pagan – 13.1%

 

[Aurora]

What an atheistic country is needs more explanation. Is it simply secular? Does it forbid belief in god?

Only the former. The state and all political affairs would be conducted with the belief that no God exists, and would not allow religion to have any influence in politics.

This inevitably leads to some problems though. For example, if a Muslim man wanted his wife to wear the veil, what would happen? Under the secular state he would have no legal right to enforce this on her, and so in effect the state would have indirectly curbed his belief, in that he would not be allowed to follow his religious obligations.

 

[ChoklitReign]

The world is gonna end if we don't throw off ancient superstitions and replace them with science.

Great, let's make science the new religion!

I want people to look at things as they are and see that science has benefited mankind more than religion.

HIGHLY debatable. They've both influenced in different ways. You're falling for the fallacy that there can only be one.

Religion has served a very useful purpose during our societies infancy. But we are outgrowing it a bit and it can be dangerous when we now have such destructive power in the form of WMDs and pollution. It doesn't need to go away, just become less dangerous.

And what would that purpose be, now that science has settled that purpose? Explanations for the material world? Science is never going to explain the metaphysical world; that's philosophy's job, which religion is a particular take on.

We need to stop people from thinking that being a suicide bomber will get you and your family into heaven.

Suicide bombings aren't Islam's fault. Political and economic factors account more for the existence of SBs more than religion.

 

[Kipz]

Another problem, I fear, is that the postulation that many need religion to be ethical rings quite true.

I mean, look at you bastards.

In a godless world who gets to determine what is ethical and what is not? There is no such thing as objective morality.

 

[Fusebox]

Still, if we're going to play the loose association of religion to unjust deaths, rather than attributing them to Monarchy or Communism or whatnot, even if you give all of Hitler's to Christianity, "Atheism" still wins.

Atheism still wins? How did we manage such a high-scoring game? Did you count all the people God killed in the Bible?

 

[JayDubya]

In a godless world who gets to determine what is ethical and what is not? There is no such thing as objective morality.

Exactly my point. For you, "there is no God" => "there is no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong.'"

I am a weak atheist, but I'd disagree with you entirely on that last point.

 

[perryfarrell]

Atheism is on the march, yet atheists still whine and complain about being bullied & victimized. That's because the new religion is the religion of victimization where every group blames the rest for setting them back. No progress really.

 

[Kipz]

Exactly my point.

Then, by whose definition are we bastards? God's? The leprechaun's? Are the leprechauns judging us?

 

[speculawyer]

That was an awesome analogy and I do believe I'm going to use it.

Meh . . . it needs some work, but there is something to it.

 

[JayDubya]

Then, by whose definition are we bastards? God's? The leprechaun's? Are the leprechauns judging us?

Leprechauns, totally.

But then, the leprechauns have always been judgmental pricks. I think it's because they're Irish. I'm glad I'm not bigoted like those fucking Irish.

Wait, what were we talking about?

 

[Stoney Mason]

Atheism is on the march, yet atheists still whine and complain about being bullied & victimized. That's because the new religion is the religion of victimization where every group blames the rest for setting them back. No progress really.

And this is my notice to leave the thread because we've entered stupid land. Later dudes.

 

[Aurora]

Exactly my point. For you, "there is no God" => "there is no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong.'"

I am a weak atheist, but I'd disagree with you entirely on that last point.

How can you disagree? Without a source for morality (God), we cannot make absolute moral statements.

 

[KHarvey16]

Only the former. The state and all political affairs would be conducted with the belief that no God exists, and would not allow religion to have any influence in politics.

This inevitably leads to some problems though. For example, if a Muslim man wanted his wife to wear the veil, what would happen? Under the secular state he would have no legal right to enforce this on her, and so in effect the state would have indirectly curbed his belief, in that he would not be allowed to follow his religious obligations.

I'm not sure I understand. Having the legal right to force your spouse to wear a veil is not present in almost any country. That isn't a religious issue really, but a basic human rights issue. The woman has a right to not be forced to wear a veil. I guess I don't see what the problem is exactly, or why it's related to an atheistic government.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Well I don't think atheism as an intellectual concept works like a Jewish state where we up and move and form a nation. And not all non-believers fall into the grouping of atheist. Personally while I identify as an atheist it's always been a rather moot point with me outside of intellectual discussion and debate. Secularism is the only real battle worth fighting imo.

OK, let me be clear. The question that I'm asking is just exactly what "true atheism" is? If replacing the worship of God with the worship of a leader, such as in a cult of personality, is not true atheism, then is true atheism possible? Because, I believe, humanity will always praise something, as if it were a "God". Whether it's money or power, or an idol, or anything really. People have the capability to become fanatical and kill on a massive scale over anything. Money being the primary example.

 

[JayDubya]

How can you disagree? Without a source for morality (God), we cannot make absolute moral statements.

Here's a couple:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Aggression is wrong.


No God required.

No theistic belief is required to be ethical. But the concept certainly helps some people.

 

[Cyan]

Just according to keikaku.*

* Note: keikaku means Flying Spaghetti Monster.

:lol

Without a source for morality (God), we cannot make absolute moral statements.

Watch me.

 

[Kipz]

Leprechauns, totally.

But then, the leprechauns have always been judgmental pricks. I think it's because they're Irish. I'm glad I'm not bigoted like those fucking Irish.

Wait, what were we talking about?

We were talking about how you believe getting your morality from a fictitious book is better than using reasoning and logic.

 

[KHarvey16]

Atheism is on the march, yet atheists still whine and complain about being bullied & victimized. That's because the new religion is the religion of victimization where every group blames the rest for setting them back. No progress really.

I knew this streak of intelligent posters couldn't last much longer.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

Yes, it's very relevant if you want to understand and have a discussion about it. It wouldn't obligate me to anything, but I haven't said that it would either.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing anymore, nor am I sure you even know, but it seems to me that you're suggesting that both sides of any discussion have to have equal weight. If I say "Chickens come from eggs" and you say "No, chickens come from Cluck, the magical chicken god," your end of the discussion very obviously carries less weight than mine does, and you should expect that, despite the fact that I very well understand your thoughts on the matter, you're going to be ridiculed.

I think you may be confusing the terms "discussion" and "argument". In an argument, or a debate, I should be able to clearly refute your points with counterpoints and avoid simple ridicule. In a discussion, I'm not trying to change your mind, so it's perfectly acceptable for me to suggest that you're ridiculous for believing in your magical fairy space god.

I know you're going to say something to the effect that in an intelligent discussion, I wouldn't mock you for your point of view, but please understand that any discussion where one half of it is "Yes, there is indeed an invisible man in the sky that hears my thoughts and loves me as long as I'm not gay" is not going to be an intelligent one.

I don't know if you actually believe in god or any of that, so please understand that I'm using a general "you" there.

 

[JayDubya]

We were talking about how you believe getting your morality from a fictitious book is better than using reasoning and logic.

We were?

Which fictitious book were we talking about?

 

[soul creator]

In a godless world who gets to determine what is ethical and what is not? There is no such thing as objective morality.

There already is a "godless" world, and we determine what's ethical just like human beings always have: sociology, communication, and a few wars every so often.

Of course, none of this is "absolute" in the sense that you're probably thinking of, but it isn't supposed to be. "Morals" aren't some object floating out in the ether, waiting to be found by someone. Almost by definition, they're simply just things a sentient being personally thinks other sentient beings should do. If you find a bunch of other sentient beings that agree with you, you form a society, and go from there.

 

[itsinmyveins]

Extreme Nationalism?

Not sure who your question is aimed at.

I totally misread what Fusebox wrote and thought he meant that a country with no god would mean that the state would, for some reason, be worshipped

 

[Kano on the Phone]

How can you disagree? Without a source for morality (God), we cannot make absolute moral statements.

Genesis, Chapter 19, Verse 8:
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

 

[Always-honest]

lol, god is so pissed right now.

 

[Cyan]

We were?

Which fictitious book were we talking about?

Lord of the Rings, I'm pretty sure.

Pretty clear good and evil in there.

 

[Mash]

:lol


Watch me.

He's not saying you can't act moral, he's just saying morality is always going to be, in some way, relative given no fixed point on the horizon, i.e. God, to say THIS is good and THIS is bad. Norms and values have changed constantly anyway so this really isn't a problem. Some people just have a fetish for absolutes, including many atheists.

 

[speculawyer]

Why would people "worship" the state, by the way?

Because if they don't, they get killed.

 

[Always-honest]

In a godless world who gets to determine what is ethical and what is not? There is no such thing as objective morality.

WHAT??? in a GODLESS world?... you mean religion-less world perhaps.... all made up by mankind in the first place.

 

[Funky Papa]

And this is my notice to leave the thread because we've entered stupid land. Later dudes.

Wait for me!

 

[JayDubya]

WHAT??? in a GODLESS world?... you mean religion-less world perhaps.... all made up by mankind in the first place.

Holy shit, we made a world? Oh man, that's a lot of pressure. Well, at least that settles ownership.

 

[speculawyer]

The number of atheists is going to increase continuously worldwide (except for maybe the middle east). People in the younger age group are especially turning away from religion and I will be very very happy on the day the church loses their power to influence politics on any level.

It is more of a saw-tooth pattern . . . 60s & 70s had a religion drop off, but the 80's brought back religion with televangelism, but then dropped a bit again, and then 9/11/2001 seemed to bring about a bit of a religious revival, but there is now a bit of a backlash against it .

So I wouldn't expect it to continue dropping continuously. There will be a religious revival of some sort in a few years time.

We humans have an innate desire for gods. Some 95% of people believe in some god. Who knows why? Perhaps it is evolutionary adapted behavior to follow a group. Perhaps it is a way of reacting to the fact that we know we will die. But the fact is we humans just love us some religion.

 

[Shockgamer]

You don't need a religion to be a decent human being, and those who would turn to criminal acts due to the acceptance of agnostic/atheist ideas were never good people in the first place; just people going through the motions to get their cosmic reward at the end.

 

[Always-honest]

Holy shit, we made a world? Oh man, that's a lot of pressure. Well, at least that settles ownership.

mnjeh.. religion..smarty pants ;P

 

[itsinmyveins]

I'm not really sure what you're arguing anymore, nor am I sure you even know, but it seems to me that you're suggesting that both sides of any discussion have to have equal weight. If I say "Chickens come from eggs" and you say "No, chickens come from Cluck, the magical chicken god," your end of the discussion very obviously carries less weight than mine does, and you should expect that, despite the fact that I very well understand your thoughts on the matter, you're going to be ridiculed.

I think you may be confusing the terms "discussion" and "argument". In an argument, or a debate, I should be able to clearly refute your points with counterpoints and avoid simple ridicule. In a discussion, I'm not trying to change your mind, so it's perfectly acceptable for me to suggest that you're ridiculous for believing in your magical fairy space god.

I know you're going to say something to the effect that in an intelligent discussion, I wouldn't mock you for your point of view, but please understand that any discussion where one half of it is "Yes, there is indeed an invisible man in the sky that hears my thoughts and loves me as long as I'm not gay" is not going to be an intelligent one.

I don't know if you actually believe in god or any of that, so please understand that I'm using a general "you" there.

I know exactly what I'm arguing and I think I've stated that pretty clearly in this thread: if you don't want to distance people you shouldn't ridicule them. That's pretty much it.

I have not said that or implied that both sides of any discussion have to have equal weight.

 

[Mash]

It is more of a saw-tooth pattern . . . 60s & 70s had a religion drop off, but the 80's brought back religion with televangelism, but then dropped a bit again, and then 9/11/2001 seemed to bring about a bit of a religious revival, but there is now a bit of a backlash against it .

So I wouldn't expect it to continue dropping continuously. There will be a religious revival of some sort in a few years time.

We humans have an innate desire for gods. Some 95% of people believe in some god. Who knows why? Perhaps it is evolutionary adapted behavior to follow a group. Perhaps it is a way of reacting to the fact that we know we will die. But the fact is we humans just love us some religion.

It makes people feel good Speculawyer. There's nothing more to it. That doesn't mean it bears truth mind.

I know exactly what I'm arguing and I think I've stated that pretty clearly in this thread: if you don't want to distance people you shouldn't ridicule them. That's pretty much it.

Don't worry about it, he's just another "LOL INVISIBLE MAGIC MANIN SKY" guy, albeit an articulate one. He's just regurgitating shit.

 

[Verano]

Without a source for morality (God), we cannot make absolute moral statements.

Humans aren't that retarded to be socially controlled.

 

[Kipz]

It makes people feel good Speculawyer. There's nothing more to it. That doesn't mean it bears truth mind.

Plus there's the whole "indoctrination at a young age" thing.

 

[koam]

ONLY 15%?

 

[Always-honest]

ONLY 15%?

yeah, that's the sad part.

 

[SoulPlaya]

yeah, that's the sad part.

I got another question, what are the benefits of atheism in the US? Is it just gay marriage? I mean, as of today, we still have abortion and the ban on stem-cell research is gone. I guess what I'm asking is, why do you guys care? If someone wants to believe in a God or anything else for that matter, and they aren't bothering you, why do you want them to be atheist?

 

[Aurora]

I'm not sure I understand. Having the legal right to force your spouse to wear a veil is not present in almost any country. That isn't a religious issue really, but a basic human rights issue. The woman has a right to not be forced to wear a veil. I guess I don't see what the problem is exactly, or why it's related to an atheistic government.

I chose a bad example. I was trying to determine whether or not an atheistic government would mean having to forbid belief in God. At first I thought no, but then I figured there might be certain instances when somebody's religious obligations would have to be forfeited due to a conflict with the law. I suppose, then, that belief in God would be tolerated insofar as it did not conflict, challenge or otherwise interfere with the normal procedure of a country - which is essentially what exists now. But the problem I was trying to highlight is that if a secular state meant having no voice for religion, would a religious person be able to fully practice their faith? And if not, would that not essentially mean religion was out?

Watch me.

I'm watching. Make an absolute moral statement.

Here's a couple:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Aggression is wrong.


No God required.

No theistic belief is required to be ethical. But the concept certainly helps some people.

Well, for those to be absolute moral truths they must have a sovereign source. Who or what would that be? The problem is that many people might object to those moral statements, and who is to say they are wrong? Without being able to have a single source of authority on moral truths I don't see how any can be established.

 

[speculawyer]

Great, let's make science the new religion!

No . . . you obviously miss the whole point of science. It is evidence-based and it is always changing.

HIGHLY debatable. They've both influenced in different ways. You're falling for the fallacy that there can only be one.

Yeah, OK . . . which would people rather give up . . . cars, electricity, modern medicine, computer, TV, videogames . . . or religion.

And what would that purpose be, now that science has settled that purpose? Explanations for the material world?

Religion created societal order, some laws, structure, charity, crude psychology/counseling, (incorrect) answers to difficult questions, etc. However, secular laws are now better than the religious laws (the anti-pork stuff is arbitrary, the anti-women stuff is just plain misogyny, the anti-gay stuff is just plain discrimination based on an 'ewww' factor, etc.), charity does not require religion, science provides much better answers to the difficult questions, psychology provides better counseling (although it still needs a lot of work), etc.

Science is never going to explain the metaphysical world; that's philosophy's job, which religion is a particular take on.

What is 'the metaphysical world'? A reason for existence. Religions can provide answers but they are no better than ones I can make up. If they can provide some proof or evidence, they might be useful . . . but that would be science wouldn't it?

Suicide bombings aren't Islam's fault. Political and economic factors account more for the existence of SBs more than religion.

Sure. That is why there are so many Christian palestinian bombers (there are lots of Christian Palestinians you know). And all those abused Tibetan monks are blowing themselves up all the time. Clearly no link to Islam.

 

[KHarvey16]

I chose a bad example. I was trying to determine whether or not an atheistic government would mean having to forbid belief in God. At first I thought no, but then I figured there might be certain instances when somebody's religious obligations would have to be forfeited due to a conflict with the law. I suppose, then, that belief in God would be tolerated insofar as it did not conflict, challenge or otherwise interfere with the normal procedure of a country - which is essentially what exists now. But the problem I was trying to highlight is that if a secular state meant having no voice for religion, would a religious person be able to fully practice their faith? And if not, would that not essentially mean religion was out?

A religious person could fully practice there faith as long as it didn't infringe upon the rights of others or break some other law I might not be considering. These aren't restrictions that would be present only in an atheistic government, they're present now.

 

[chubigans]

I got another question, what are the benefits of atheism in the US? Is it just gay marriage? I mean, as of today, we still have abortion and the ban on stem-cell research is gone. I guess what I'm asking is, why do you guys care? If someone wants to believe in a God or anything else for that matter, and they aren't bothering you, why do you want them to be atheist?

Id like to know this as well.

 

[SoulPlaya]

A religious person could fully practice there faith as long as it didn't infringe upon the rights of others or break some other law I might not be considering. These aren't restrictions that would be present only in an atheistic government, they're present now.

Exactly right, what we should be striving for is secularism. Having a country where everyone doesn't believe in God doesn't necessarily mean that they're will be benefits.