I came across an interesting article yesterday that is related to this discussion. It discusses the need for religion in an evolutionary context and how early social and psychological development gave rise to the need for religion in the infancy of our species.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/18/opinion/la-oe-thompson-atheism-20110718/2


Not expecting everyone to agree with it or anything, but it might provide for some interesting thought. Even if you disagree, you should still be willing to consider alternative view points and opinions, regardless of whether you are religious or atheist. To shut out dissenting views is the height of intellectual cowardice and gives rise to unyielding dogmatic views.

http://www.xkcd.com/774/

As I said, it's not the monkeys that are delusional. The monkeys don't invent invisible sky daddies.

I came across an interesting article yesterday that is related to this discussion. It discusses the need for religion in an evolutionary context and how early social and psychological development gave rise to the need for religion in the infancy of our species.

http://articles.lati...eism-20110718/2


Not expecting everyone to agree with it or anything, but it might provide for some interesting thought. Even if you disagree, you should still be willing to consider alternative view points and opinions, regardless of whether you are religious or atheist. To shut out dissenting views is the height of intellectual cowardice and gives rise to unyielding dogmatic views.

The problem with presenting interesting arguments for the fact that religion is an invention is that religions are purposefully constructed to fight this kind of logic. They have build-in mechanisms such as "God doesn't have to prove anything to me, because I owe it to him to simply have faith" and "Any evidence against the validity of my religion was placed on the earth by Satan."

Statements like these render the beliefs of believers absolutely bullet-proof against the logic and reason that they use to guide every other aspect of their lives -- the very tools that they have evolved that separate them from less intelligent animals.

I can't understand why people don't think about it and ask themselves something like, "You know, none of the bases for my beliefs are falsifiable. Could I be believing in some embarrassing fairytale simply because my parents told it to me? Is God just another Santa or Easter Bunny?"

I don't understand why people don't realize that their worldview is built on a foundation of sand, to paraphrase Jesus. If any Christian or Muslim or religious Jew or believer in any other religion was born in a town where they worshiped the unicorn god named Charlie, who shits skittles on believers and will gore the nonbelievers with his flaming horn in end-times, they'd be just as adherent worshipers of Charlie as they are of their current God. How can this sit well with people, to show such poor critical thinking skills and integrity?

[quote name='Roots' timestamp='1311217365' post='4838263']
I came across an interesting article yesterday that is related to this discussion. It discusses the need for religion in an evolutionary context and how early social and psychological development gave rise to the need for religion in the infancy of our species.

http://articles.lati...eism-20110718/2


Not expecting everyone to agree with it or anything, but it might provide for some interesting thought. Even if you disagree, you should still be willing to consider alternative view points and opinions, regardless of whether you are religious or atheist. To shut out dissenting views is the height of intellectual cowardice and gives rise to unyielding dogmatic views.

The problem with presenting interesting arguments for the fact that religion is an invention is that religions are purposefully constructed to fight this kind of logic. They have build-in mechanisms such as "God doesn't have to prove anything to me, because I owe it to him to simply have faith" and "Any evidence against the validity of my religion was placed on the earth by Satan."

Statements like these render the beliefs of believers absolutely bullet-proof against the logic and reason that they use to guide every other aspect of their lives -- the very tools that they have evolved that separate them from less intelligent animals.

I can't understand why people don't think about it and ask themselves something like, "You know, none of the bases for my beliefs are falsifiable. Could I be believing in some embarrassing fairytale simply because my parents told it to me? Is God just another Santa or Easter Bunny?"

I don't understand why people don't realize that their worldview is built on a foundation of sand, to paraphrase Jesus. If any Christian or Muslim or religious Jew or believer in any other religion was born in a town where they worshiped the unicorn god named Charlie, who shits skittles on believers and will gore the nonbelievers with his flaming horn in end-times, they'd be just as adherent worshipers of Charlie as they are of their current God. How can this sit well with people, to show such poor critical thinking skills and integrity?
[/quote]

And the question is: What do you care? You judge people based on their beliefs("poor critical thinking skills and integrity"). If religion provides a moral backbone to people, what's the harm? What exactly do you disagree Jesus with, that you should love your neighbour, that you should not judge others? That you should strive for peace and justice? That you should not boast for your good works? That you should forgive? What exactly is the problem?

The so-called communists that once controlled 1/3 of the globe were strong atheists, and they never brought forth the Shining and Luminary Epoch of Allmighty Logic and Reason that you envision. Not even inside the party itself. Not by a long shot.

And believing in a single Creator that designed the physics laws is hardly the same as believing in a "unicorn god named Charlie".

We all make choices. If you will, I choose the stupidity of believing in that Creator, you choose the stupidity of believing that the material universe just popped into existance out of nothing. So quit feeling so superior, atheism is not a one-way ticket to smartness.

You call yourself agnostic because you misunderstand the meaning of the word "atheist."

I think you might be misunderstanding the term or maybe interpreting it in a different cultural context.

Theism implies belief in a god, atheism implies disbelief in a god. Most non-religious people here in North-Western Europe (Aardvajk is from the UK) are neither. We're just simply agnostics. We don't know if there is a god or not. Both possibilities are equally probable or improbable. The theism vs atheism axis is not really relevant. The relevant axis is the gnostic vs agnostic, and we are on the latter side - there is no possible way of knowing.

Personally I'm a pragmatic agnostic (or apathetic agnostic as Wikipedia calls it). I'm not an atheist. I don't know if there is a god or not. I don't have enough information to either believe or disbelieve in a god. I will never know (at least not during my lifetime) and as such I really don't care either way.

What I am indeed, and what most people in the US mistakenly label as a generalized atheist, is an "achristian". I don't know (nor care) if there is a god, but I don't believe that there is the God as described by Christianity. Not believing in the Christian God (or whatever other specific religion) doesn't automatically make you an atheist.

I think you might be misunderstanding the term or maybe interpreting it in a different cultural context.

Theism implies belief in a god, atheism implies disbelief in a god. Most non-religious people here in North-Western Europe (Aardvajk is from the UK) are neither. We're just simply agnostics. We don't know if there is a god or not. Both possibilities are equally probable or improbable. The theism vs atheism axis is not really relevant. The relevant axis is the gnostic vs agnostic, and we are on the latter side - there is no possible way of knowing.

Personally I'm a pragmatic agnostic (or apathetic agnostic as Wikipedia calls it). I'm not an atheist. I don't know if there is a god or not. I don't have enough information to either believe or disbelieve in a god. I will never know (at least not during my lifetime) and as such I really don't care either way.

What I am indeed, and what most people in the US mistakenly label as a generalized atheist, is an "achristian". I don't know (nor care) if there is a god, but I don't believe that there is the God as described by Christianity. Not believing in the Christian God (or whatever other specific religion) doesn't automatically make you an atheist.

This is the kind of muddled, illogical characterization of the word "atheist" and the very epistemological concepts of "knowledge" and "belief" that causes the confusion over this topic. In short, you don't seem to understand what the word "disbelieve" means.

first definitions:
merriam webster: to hold not worthy of belief
dictionary.com: to have no belief in

Belief is a binary variable, with true being "I believe" and false being "I disbelieve" or equivalently "I don't believe." It's not a choice between believe, don't believe, and don't care. Most dictionaries will define "belief" as "confidence in the truth or existence of something." Words such as "trust" and "conviction" are also used. Your apathetic shoulder shrugging clearly is a lack of confidence/trust/conviction in that truth. That clearly conforms to the definition of the word "disbelieve," which by your very admission is a part of the definition of the word "atheism." If you insist that North-Western Europe is somehow different, I urge you to look up "atheism" in the OED, or simply read this page:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html


Maybe it doesn't seem like a big deal to you to semantically shift the word "atheist" for your own purposes (which I can only imagine are centered around the perhaps unconscious typical reluctance to call one's self an atheist), but it certainly is a big deal to semantically shift the words "believe" and "disbelieve."

You're subscribing to a definition of "atheism" that is widely used, but only by the uninformed. Simply do a little research on what atheists have to stay about the matter. Or simply look up what the greco prefix a- means.

Yann, you're an agnostic atheist, which I would have guessed having for years read intelligent things you have to say. I'm glad you're in the club, notwithstanding your ignorance of the fact that you are.

And the question is: What do you care? You judge people based on their beliefs("poor critical thinking skills and integrity"). If religion provides a moral backbone to people, what's the harm? What exactly do you disagree Jesus with, that you should love your neighbour, that you should not judge others? That you should strive for peace and justice? That you should not boast for your good works? That you should forgive? What exactly is the problem?

Emphasis mine.

Why do I care?

Because people use it as an excuse to tell others what they should do (condoms, abortion, gay marriage).
Because it has held back the advancement of the human race for millennia (Galileo, evolution, stem cell research).
Because there have been countless, needless deaths over it (the crusades, the holocaust, 9/11).

Because I genuinely believe the world will be a better place once it's gone.

but mostly, I just like arguing on the internet

I was about explain why I care, but then ChaosEngine said everything I was going to write.

[quote name='mikeman' timestamp='1311219422' post='4838277']
And the question is: What do you care? You judge people based on their beliefs("poor critical thinking skills and integrity"). If religion provides a moral backbone to people, what's the harm? What exactly do you disagree Jesus with, that you should love your neighbour, that you should not judge others? That you should strive for peace and justice? That you should not boast for your good works? That you should forgive? What exactly is the problem?

Emphasis mine.

Why do I care?

Because people use it as an excuse to tell others what they should do (condoms, abortion, gay marriage).
Because it has held back the advancement of the human race for millennia (Galileo, evolution, stem cell research).
Because there have been countless, needless deaths over it (the crusades, the holocaust, 9/11).

Because I genuinely believe the world will be a better place once it's gone.

but mostly, I just like arguing on the internet
[/quote]


So, if those things didn't exist, and faith was regarded a personal thing, you would be okay with it? Because that would be my ideal world too.

For one, The Brain in a Vat proves that bigotry is not particular to religion.