Atheism vs religion which bird is a better bird?

[David T]

Ah! I see! That settles it then!

Ha!!!

 

[predavlad]

Since all religions are pure bull**** when viewed from outside, the only defendable position is the lack of any religion (=atheism).

 

[David T]

Atheists view of religion. Old folks on old technology old science antiquated and dangerous.




View attachment 16202

Next, religions view of atheists as immoral science is God fanatics that do unnatural acts. Not natural for Harleys to do that so it must be immoral!! And unfriendly as well.
View attachment 16203 which is the correct bird?

Anyone noticing a trend in the thread?

 

[David T]

Since all religions are pure bull**** when viewed from outside, the only defendable position is the lack of any religion (=atheism).

What are you inside of if you are outside religion? What is your "I am inside "x"?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So religion is just a political philosophy.

Who made that claim?

Science is completelu shackled to the past the last I checked!!!

But yet science discards old ideas when proven wrong, and has gave us the framework for technology undreamed of even just 20 years ago.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Did science ever answer the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? Religion says God created the chicken so there was a chicken before there was an agg.

Yes, actually it did, and we know the egg was around way before the chicken.

 

[Dawnofhope]

So? It still stands there has never been a positive or negative correlation established between religiousness and IQ. As far as science is concerned, being religious or not has no bearing on your IQ.

That's fine, but it has little to do with the quote I provided at the beginning of this thread.

The link from the data I provided you which you have quoted back at me is based on the USA. Americans may believe in 'America first' but most of us who live elsewhere don't. I would want to see data that considers scientists globally rather than just America.

So what are you advocating in regards to new approaches towards spirituality.

 

[David T]

Who made that claim?
You did!! It's just political philosophy nothing more
But yet science discards old ideas when proven wrong, and has gave us the framework for technology undreamed of even just

Generally, for such a study, you ask what their religious views are. If they identify with a religion, you count them among the religious, and when they have no such affiliation or beliefs, you count them among the non-believers.

That's a just a political study.just replace the word religion with political is all. Not that hard.

 

[David T]

That's fine, but it has little to do with the quote I provided at the beginning of this thread.

The link from the data I provided you which you have quoted back at me is based on the USA. Americans may believe in 'America first' but most of us who live elsewhere don't. I would want to see data that considers scientists globally rather than just America.

So what are you advocating in regards to new approaches towards spirituality.

Only American scientists are valid!!!' There is no science in New Zealand just sheep and rugby, and Peter Jackson
Can you vouch for me as a decent fella inspire of being American seeking asylum in new zealand!!!! Lol.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

CRUD! Religion may be what you need to make you believe you are human, whatever that mean to you! There is ZERO biological/evolutionary reason why humans need to be religious.

Quit being ignorant:
Evolutionary origin of religions - Wikipedia
About religion: why it started and how it evolved
The Origins of Religion: How Supernatural Beliefs Evolved
Evolution of Religion

Edit: Oh, no one said humans "need" to be religious, only that there's evolutionary reasons why humans are religious and why it's not going anywhere.

When you really think about what you are saying, you are dehumanizing anyone that doesn't have any religious beliefs. According you you, someone that lacks religion is not a human, but a robot. I take offense at your opinions. Your religious beliefs do nothing to make you human, and my lack of religion does nothing to negatively impact my humanity.

I said "part of" what makes us human. (There is evidence that non-human animals have what can be called spiritual experiences, as well.) Read more carefully next time before flying off at the handle in offense.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Science is completelu shackled to the past the last I checked!!! The last I checked the dead past gives rise to the living present. I thought we do a spectacular job of pretending the present determines the past for some odd reason. Are you proposing a new detachment from the past to replace the old detachment from the past? And ovrr time wil your new detachment from the past just be seen as nonsense and replaced with more nonsense? One only has to look into religion to realize how disconnected it is from it's past. It has no sense of history except in its own internal reality separate from before it. The scientifically call it intelligent design or creationism. Is that what you are proposing a better intelligent design?

Science is a relatively easy thing to consider. religion much more difficult. I think we are very much disconnected from understanding our religious roots.

I posted this earlier on another thread:

"Throughout history, the primary agents of spiritual development have been the great religions. For the majority of the earth’s people, the scriptures of each of these systems of belief have served, in Bahá’u’lláh’s words, as “the City of God”, a source of a knowledge that totally embraces consciousness, one so compelling as to endow the sincere with “a new eye, a new ear, a new heart, and a new mind”. A vast literature, to which all religious cultures have contributed, records the experience of transcendence reported by generations of seekers. Down the millennia, the lives of those who responded to intimations of the Divine have inspired breathtaking achievements in music, architecture, and the other arts, endlessly replicating the soul’s experience for millions of their fellow believers. No other force in existence has been able to elicit from people comparable qualities of heroism, self-sacrifice and self-discipline. At the social level, the resulting moral principles have repeatedly translated themselves into universal codes of law, regulating and elevating human relationships. Viewed in perspective, the major religions emerge as the primary driving forces of the civilizing process. To argue otherwise is surely to ignore the evidence of history."

One Common Faith

Obviously a positive view!

On the other hand if religion is the cause of hate and disunity:

"Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth; it should give birth to spirituality, and bring light and life to every soul. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division it would be better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure, but if the remedy only aggravates the complaint, it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion." Abdu'l-Baha

 

[Dawnofhope]

Only American scientists are valid!!!' There is no science in New Zealand just sheep and rugby, and Peter Jackson
Can you vouch for me as a decent fella inspire of being American seeking asylum in new zealand!!!! Lol.

Yes, look at the Americans who want to run for the hills now.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Since all religions are pure bull**** when viewed from outside, the only defendable position is the lack of any religion (=atheism).

Wrong. There's plenty of people who can defend their religious beliefs quite well.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You did!! It's just political philosophy nothing more

No, I never made that claim.

That's a just a political study.just replace the word religion with political is all. Not that hard.

No, it's not a political study but rather a model for a scientific study to examine any links between religiousness and IQ. There has never been such a correlation established. Yes, you could replace "religious beliefs" with "political views," but that would turn it into an entirely different study.

Edit: Oh, no one said humans "need" to be religious, only that there's evolutionary reasons why humans are religious and why it's not going anywhere.

Your own exact claim:

Religion is part of what makes us human. Unless you prefer us to be robots? There are biological and evolutionary reasons why humans have the need be religious.

We aren't robots without religion, and evolutionary purpose doesn't mean we need it (psychosomatic disorders evolved for a likely reason, but we don't need those to exist), and religion isn't what makes us human. If you ask some, such as Jane Goodall, we aren't even the only species to experience a concept of religion. If this were truly a need, it is doubtful we would see the widespread cross-generation even across multiple cultures increase in those not having any religious affiliation or beliefs

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Your own exact claim:

We aren't robots without religion, and evolutionary purpose doesn't mean we need it (psychosomatic disorders evolved for a likely reason, but we don't need those to exist), and religion isn't what makes us human. If you ask some, such as Jane Goodall, we aren't even the only species to experience a concept of religion. If this were truly a need, it is doubtful we would see the widespread cross-generation even across multiple cultures increase in those not having any religious affiliation or beliefs

I should've worded it better. Regardless, mythology, story telling, rituals, etc. are part of humanity and there is something that drives us towards those things.

Religion is not in decline globally. Religious demographics are just in flux. Christianity is in decline in the West, but it's growing in places like across Africa and China. Religion is going nowhere.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I should've worded it better. Regardless, mythology, story telling, rituals, etc. are part of humanity and there is something that drives us towards those things.

Religion is not in decline globally. Religious demographics are just in flux. Christianity is in decline in the West, but it's growing in places like across Africa and China. Religion is going nowhere.

Even in Japan people are increasingly identifying as atheist/agnostic rather than the tradition/norms of Buddhist or Shinto.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Even in Japan people are increasingly identifying as atheist/agnostic rather than the tradition/norms of Buddhist or Shinto.

Religion and atheism aren't mutually exclusive, so that's not saying much, or anything really.

There's also cultural differences of religious views and definitions to be taken in mind. In most non-Abrahamic world religions, it's not about what you believe in, but what you do. Ritual and social ethics are placed higher on the scale of priorities than whatever it is you may personally believe about the metaphysical. In that way, religion and secular life are so interwoven as to be indistinguishable. It is a cohesive whole and part of the fabric of society. The idea of religion vs. secularism is a Western post-Christian concept, since the Abrahamic religions are so obsessed with creeds, unlike the majority of religions in the world (hence, many indigenous people do not have a word for "religion" or a concept of it that matches the Western concept). That is how it is in religions like Hellenismos, Heathenry, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, etc. For example, that's part of the reason that Christians got into trouble with the ancient Romans - because they wouldn't take part in upholding the ancestral ways such as the religious duties, not because of what they personally believed. They didn't care if you personally believed in many deities, one or none- it was action that counted most.

This article touches on that:
Japan: The Most Religious Atheist Country

 

[Dinos]

We are all human beings in the struggle of life. Religion has divided rather than united us. You'd think if God has several "Omni" characteristics He could have helped us to unite.

Dinos

 

[siti]

"Throughout history, the primary agents of spiritual development have been the great religions. For the majority of the earth’s people, the scriptures of each of these systems of belief have served, in Bahá’u’lláh’s words, as “the City of God”, a source of a knowledge that totally embraces consciousness, one so compelling as to endow the sincere with “a new eye, a new ear, a new heart, and a new mind”. A vast literature, to which all religious cultures have contributed, records the experience of transcendence reported by generations of seekers. Down the millennia, the lives of those who responded to intimations of the Divine have inspired breathtaking achievements in music, architecture, and the other arts, endlessly replicating the soul’s experience for millions of their fellow believers. No other force in existence has been able to elicit from people comparable qualities of heroism, self-sacrifice and self-discipline. At the social level, the resulting moral principles have repeatedly translated themselves into universal codes of law, regulating and elevating human relationships. Viewed in perspective, the major religions emerge as the primary driving forces of the civilizing process."

"Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth; it should give birth to spirituality, and bring light and life to every soul. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division it would be better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure, but if the remedy only aggravates the complaint, it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion." Abdu'l-Baha

Am I seeing a rather obvious disconnect here? And is it not true to say that your second quote, rather than the first, much more accurately encapsulates religion's history? As your first quote had it: "To argue otherwise is surely to ignore the evidence of history".

 

[Dawnofhope]

Am I seeing a rather obvious disconnect here? And is it not true to say that your second quote, rather than the first, much more accurately encapsulates religion's history? As your first quote had it: "To argue otherwise is surely to ignore the evidence of history".

Religion is like a tree that bears fruit. As it grows old it no longer bears fruit.

If we were living at the pinnacle of a civilisation based on the one of the great religions we would be arguing in favour of the first quote and it would be much harder to consider the second.

However we are a critical cross over period in history. ALL the old religions are well past their prime as a new civilisation emerges. That's why the second quote appears accurate and the first irrelevant.