Do Atheists need a church of their own?

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by matias

I'd rather base my unverifiable choice on verifiable data rather than the bible

some call it an unverifiable choice others call it faith.

[charlie brown]

fair enough - palin is still a terrible mother though

[BradH]

Originally Posted by clay donkey

That graph is obviously fake. If you were smart and understand statistics and what IQ really means you would understand why.

lol. There is plenty of research to suggest that the correlation between intelligence and religiosity is inversely proportional. That isn't to say that some smart people are not religious, but that they would not be the norm. And that isn't saying being an Atheist automatically means you have a higher IQ. However, higher intelligence usually means a non-belief in a higher power. Thankfully America is catching up on the trend set by the more intelligent Europeans.

The data from the graph is pulled from the Pew Global Attitudes project which surveyed the wealth of 44 countries versus the population who believe religion to be important.
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=167

Less wealthy nations are more religious. The US defies the norm here.

And the IQ data is from IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen.

[BradH]

One of the reasons I would argue that Atheists would be more "enlightened", as you say, is because presumably they have evaluated how religion - especially the major world religions - are not based on any proof or science, but faith. And compared how there are numerous religions and sects with so many different answers from many regions of the world, how they were in place to control society and many other things, and how none of them are any more correct than the next.... and in simple context: that would lead them to believe there is indeed no higher power and it is only a crutch for man to cope with their life.

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

some call it an unverifiable choice others call it faith.

While others call it delusion.

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by BradH

One of the reasons I would argue that Atheists would be more "enlightened", as you say, is because presumably they have evaluated how religion - especially the major world religions - are not based on any proof or science, but faith. And compared how there are numerous religions and sects with so many different answers from many regions of the world, how they were in place to control society and many other things, and how none of them are any more correct than the next.... and in simple context: that would lead them to believe there is indeed no higher power and it is only a crutch for man to cope with their life.

Socrates' argument that the gods can't be relative comes to mind whenever arguing that standpoint.

We're always discussing the Abrahamic tradition when discussing Atheism in the west as well. I feel that rejecting said god ultimately brings you to Atheism. Granted you're not swapping that god for another.

Certain theories and even religious traditions play around w/ the idea of some sort of impersonal consciousness though. I'm actually quite fond of the "unknowable" god.

[MC Twinkie]

The average IQ of people is defined as 100. So okay, people in china might be smarter than people in africa. So we have standard deviation, which is 15. That means the people with an IQ of less than 70 are dumber 97.6% of the people. If that doesn't set off an alarm that something isnt right, you clearly have more people below 100% than you do above. Now you could say a country like china or america makes up for greater peice of the population, but these are both semi religious countries. So I think you have some sampling errors in there, because if you only pic non religious people in the US, and then pick very religious people in south america, its fucked up because you didn't sample the religious people in north america.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. That's pretty much where religion went wrong too. People just believe what a preacher tells them without question. You believe those graphs without question. I think you have a lot in common with religion.

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by Keith P

While others call it delusion.

Yeah, it's much less delusional to think the universe sprang into existence from some yet to be discovered membrane from the nth dimension floating around in some other undiscovered void of dimensions which came from who knows where...I'm not making this shit up, it's string theory's attempt to explain existence (if you can call it that) outside our universe. If you have faith that man can figure out a higher power doesn't play a part in the universe you're just as "delusional" as the ones who do think there is a higher power out there.

[Scott Phrenetik]

Originally Posted by matias

for me it is not just the measurements that have helped in my realization that god is a fabrication of humans. it also the countless times the church has had to retract their "facts" because science completely disproved them.

Do you have examples of these facts and where science has disproved them? And, are you talking about "the church" in terms of the pope/Catholicism or the Bible?

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

Yeah, it's much less delusional to think the universe sprang into existence from some yet to be discovered membrane from the nth dimension floating around in some other undiscovered void of dimensions which came from who knows where...I'm not making this shit up, it's string theory's attempt to explain existence (if you can call it that) outside our universe. If you have faith that man can figure out a higher power doesn't play a part in the universe you're just as "delusional" as the ones who do think there is a higher power out there.

I'll take it over genesis. Noone said existence or its explanation should be simplistic.

Once again there's no fucking faith in atheism. Its a rejection of faith.

[J. Fees]

well, if you really believe in science, they you have faith in science, just like religion. How many times has science been disproven over the last 50 years? remember, science never proves anything it disproves. What science knows maybe in some way a repeatable process, but the amount that we know is so miniscule, that it would be impossible to ever disprove religion or its tenants.

atheism is just another religion.

[BradH]

It is impossible to disprove something fantastically fictional such as a higher power. I'm pretty sure even Dawkins admits this. But the burden doesn't lie on atheists to disprove god... we only acknowledge there is no proof of a god, therefore one does not exist. Fantastic miracles like the "big bang" are not proof of a higher power at work, only that we do not fully understand such scenarios at this point in time. How many times in history has science advanced the prior beliefs of the church? How many times in history has the church been a detriment to scientific advancement? [And still is?]

It's funny that while people disregard evolution or a scientific explanation of the big bang, while on the other hand believe in a creationism story and Adam and Eve and all the other bullshit. And that we communicate telepathically to our creator overlord, hoping for his grace as we accept him into our hearts! OHHH WE WORSHIP YOU GREAT BEING! That shit is way more nuts to me than an evolutionary cycle over millions of years.

Religion had its time and place and that was thousands of years ago. In a modern society we need to grasp there is no supernatural being making the sun rise, or making it rain, or healing our sickness, granting us food on the table, or having some master plan for our lives. Your life is not "Gods will" -- its your fucking own. Religion and the afterlife are just to make you not feel so insignificant. Yes, it is a complete mindfuck to think about what happens when you die and that you are very very insignificant... even if you make an impact on someone or society... so what -- you're dead!

But wait, the big pearly gates and streets of gold await! As I bow down at the thrown of jesus and dance with angels, or fuck 72 virgins, or....

Edit:
For the world to ever unify as "one" nation religion will have to not be present. Religion is holding back our progress of science and exploration of space. To ever get past our warring regional conflicts and looming apocalyptic World War, every country must unite in a global union. But the day will never come when muslims will be working with the west, or the jews, or whatever. And a bunch of other stupid shit.

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

well, if you really believe in science, they you have faith in science, just like religion. How many times has science been disproven over the last 50 years? remember, science never proves anything it disproves. What science knows maybe in some way a repeatable process, but the amount that we know is so miniscule, that it would be impossible to ever disprove religion or its tenants.

And how many times has religion been disproven since we came out of the dark ages? Since its rise just think about how much we've come to understand as opposed to what we don't know. In a couple hundred years we've risen out complete ignorance of the natural world. In a couple hundred more years we'll know even more and a couple hundred after that etc.

atheism is just another religion.

By definition religion focuses on the worship of a god. It could never classify as a religion bc there is no supernatural being and no dogma.

Many of you are confusing religion with idealism or philosophy.

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by BradH

It is impossible to disprove something fantastically fictional such as a higher power. I'm pretty sure even Dawkins admits this. But the burden doesn't lie on atheists to disprove god... we only acknowledge there is no proof of a god, therefore one does not exist. Fantastic miracles like the "big bang" are not proof of a higher power at work, only that we do not fully understand such scenarios at this point in time. How many times in history has science advanced the prior beliefs of the church? How many times in history has the church been a detriment to scientific advancement? [And still is?]

It's funny that while people disregard evolution or a scientific explanation of the big bang, while on the other hand believe in a creationism story and Adam and Eve and all the other bullshit. And that we communicate telepathically to our creator overlord, hoping for his grace as we accept him into our hearts! OHHH WE WORSHIP YOU GREAT BEING! That shit is way more nuts to me than an evolutionary cycle over millions of years.

Religion had its time and place and that was thousands of years ago. In a modern society we need to grasp there is no supernatural being making the sun rise, or making it rain, or healing our sickness, granting us food on the table, or having some master plan for our lives. Your life is not "Gods will" -- its your fucking own. Religion and the afterlife are just to make you not feel so insignificant. Yes, it is a complete mindfuck to think about what happens when you die and that you are very very insignificant... even if you make an impact on someone or society... so what -- you're dead!

But wait, the big pearly gates and streets of gold await! As I bow down at the thrown of jesus and dance with angels, or fuck 72 virgins, or....

I don't know if insignificant is the word but it certainly insulates and saves people from accepting reality.

While many scientists will tell you that we're a speck on a speck on a speck, we're a pretty rare little speck.

[J. Fees]

Originally Posted by Keith P

And how many times has religion been disproven since we came out of the dark ages? Since its rise just think about how much we've come to understand as opposed to what we don't know. In a couple hundred years we've risen out complete ignorance of the natural world. In a couple hundred more years we'll know even more and a couple hundred after that etc.



By definition religion focuses on the worship of a god. It could never classify as a religion bc there is no supernatural being and no dogma.

Many of you are confusing religion with idealism or philosophy.

how many times has science been disproven over the years?

the def of religion from wiki(which i know is not the best source)-

A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

the bolded seems like it could fit atheism.