Several questions for Atheists.

Atheists tend to argue are follows:

<<The world is evolving toward an atheistic future. Religions are dying out.

Religions are "superstition nonesense" and as we learn more about the universe from science the less we need of religion to "explain" the world. Therefore, atheism is the future and people will gradually become less and less religious, except of course those in need of a crutch or "feel-good" experience.

The spread of atheism will be for the better. There will be less wars and greater socio-economic development than would otherwise be possible. Survival of the fitest seems to dictate that atheism is the future.>>

This appears to capture some of the main argument of atheists. I have two questions:

As an atheist, how do you support these views?

What are the implications of the spread of atheism for social and economic development?

P.S.
Scholarly references would be greatly appreciated.

Human beings of all persuasions make decisions on social and economic development. Atheism is not a religion and religion (other than tax advantages) has not influenced economic policy for a long time under a secular government. And we are doing better for it with a more reduced class system and a universal social welfare network.

Why do people ask these questions of atheists. Atheists don't accept an unproven belief in the supernatural. End of story.

The plethora of different religions and sects within, suggest that people are not all the same.

Asking only atheists about social and economic development is a pointless exercise and I feel an agenda coming on.

If you are religious you are not a realist. If we were all realists there would not be any wars. The biggest argument would be ,who is going to win the final of footy. Religion has structured the world, and is something that has got to come down. World peace will never exist while there is people who believe in imaterial beings, who have power over them. To openly say you do not believe in who ever it is that your church says is the almighty, is to be a realist. It is about time religious folowers faced the facts of life, when you die you became compost and fertilizer, there is no heaven or hell.

I'm sure that you have some answers that you prepared earlier, grateful.

But in the spirit of cooperation with those of a religious persuasion, here goes.

>>As an atheist, how do you support these views?<<

As an atheist I do not believe that there is a divine being interacting with our lives, nor one that is responsible for the creation of our universe.

As such, I can "share" some of the views you have set out, but have absolutely no interest in setting them up as some form of goal, objective or outcome. While people have free will, they will either choose or reject religion.

I'm all for that.

I don't necessarily believe that religion will "die out". The very arguments you put forward - "as we learn more about the universe from science" could be exactly the reason that someone turns to religion. It is not necessarily comforting, to some people, to know that you are an unbelievably tiny speck in the corner of an enormously large, and complex, universe.

My sole objection is when religious people use their beliefs as a weapon against people who do not share them. Strangely, most religions actually instruct their adherents against this. But that's just a problem with being human, I guess.

"What are the implications of the spread of atheism for social and economic development?"

Absolutely none.

However, the spread of religion could, if taken too far, have profound effects on social and economic development. You only have to look at the extremists, in any religion, to see what might be the result of rampant religious supremacy.

Fortunately, I think this is as unlikely as the world turning completely atheist. There will always be individuals, with their individual needs, and they will either need the solace of an imaginary deity, or they will not.

579,

First, let me say, I am not religious. However, I don't believe that the absence of religion will stop mankind fighting. Wars are fought primarily for territory and economic gain. Religion is merely an ideological tool in the service of such undertakings - an extra psychological spur to help the population along the road to doing the bidding of those in power.

All of the social benifits in any society have arisen from religious convictions, based in the welfare of others. This record has thousands of years of history. Atheism is not the lack of a view of the World, just a lack that there is any mind higher than the human that has designed or formed the universe.

Current Western atheists have adopted much of the social programes introduced by people of belief in a higher power than man; to whom we are accountable. Unless one's primary motive is love for the ideal moral standards that are god like and for the welfare of our fellow man, society is then based in individual selfishness and the rising to the top by social controllers. Recent examples are North Korea, the old USSR, China; all of whose attempt to operate outside of recognising God led them to persecute people of faith of all religion, and the adoption of inhumane practises upon these people in an attempt to eradicate religion. These examples of atheistic States demonstrate their economic decline.

Compare the economic growth of South Korea whose population is now currently 30+% Christian by confession compared to their Northern relatives. I have friends visiting North Korean orphanages; in three orphanages of 1,500 children they sleep on brick floors and are fed a broth of whole corn for every meal. My Christian friends are endeavouring to bring about change to this situation at the risk of their own lives being terminated. Why? Because they believe the message of Christ,"He who cares for the least of these little ones does it as care of me". "He who gives away his life for my sake will find life."

Greatful,
I am unsure of your motivations. You will find that your point, "<<The world is evolving toward an atheistic future. Religions are dying out." is far from reality. In some parts of society church going faithful are on the increase, the continuing collapse of the congregations of the more traditional church's is more to do with the irrelevant nature of the organisations and their inability to change or accept responsibility for their actions. A recent article about the popes visit to the UK and comments made by Geoffrey Robertson QC are a good example of the crumble of these church's, Only an article but a start.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/16/3013313.htm?section=justin

As an Atheist i have no real interest in the church, i also have no opinion either way about their existence. I do not appreciate the idea that they have some right to try and push their ideology onto other people through missions, RE in schools, door knocking and taking advantage of the desperate and unfortunate.
Separate to this is a deep distrust in the church system, after growing up in a very strick religion that people generally think of as a wonderful organisation i saw so many people claim to be christians but very few that lived it. They used their faith as an avenue to the high morale ground while ignoring the abuse and lies that were around them.
I don't care what religions do so long as they keep it to themselves. If someone wants to know they will come to you, but no religion has an automatic right to brainwash the population of certain belief, we have seen throughout history where that ends and continues to take us.
Atheists don't deny people the right to believe what they like, they simply ask that we teach things based on fact. What an adult wishes to believe is their business but to intentionally misinform someone based on belief not fact is dangerous and fraudulent. The shift in community attitude is not away from faith to atheism but away from the church.

Dear grateful,

As I've written in the past, for many years it
was widely felt that as science progressively
provided rational explanations for the mysteries
of the universe, religion would have less and less
of a role to play and would eventually disappear,
unmasked as nothing more than superstition.
But there are still gaps in our understanding that
science can never fill. On the ultimate important
questions - of the meaning and purpose of life
and the nature of morality - science is utterly
silent and, by its very nature, always will be.

Few people of modern societies would utterly deny
the possibility of some higher power in the universe,
some supernatural, transcendental realm that lies beyond
the boundaries of ordinary experience, and in this
fundamental sense religion is probably here to stay.

As for Atheism - from my understanding - Atheism is
not necessarily opposed to religion. Some forms of
religious mysticism can be considered atheistic
because they seek a kind of spiritual unity with the
universe instead of a supreme being. Some forms of
Buddhism are also sometimes described as atheistic.

However, to answer your questions I'd recommend you
read the book, "The God Delusion," by Richard Dawkins.
It won the Galaxy British Book Award - Author of the
Year 2007. It's the best "scholarly" work on the subject
that I know of - and is available in paperback from
any reputable bookshop. Worth a read.

I am an atheist but the views you ascribe to me are not mine at all.
I just do not find religion personally relevant.

I am also continually disappointed by the hypocrisy, intolerance, closed-mindedness,self-righteousness, destructiveness and hurt caused by many religious organisations. There are many good people connected with churches/mosques/etc, however they just seem to give the evil people cover. Most churches ISTM achieve the opposite of what they say they are about. Perhaps they are the work of the Devil? :)

Atheism is not a philosophy, is not a belief, is not a political affiliation, is not an opinion, is not a religion, is not a lifestyle, is not a philosophy.

What happens anywhere/anytime/in any universe is the result of nature being nature. That's atheism. Religious people say it's because of Godly design and intervention. Atheists think as they do because science has shown us the workings of nature, and because there is not one single shred of evidence of god existence. Religious belief is just that - - - "belief".

Keep in mind our species is only just coming out of the stone age; as a result we won't be able to conclusively "prove" and explain everything in it's entirety, as we are still way too primitive. Come back in one or two million years, and if we are still here as a species then, maybe the full understanding and scientific dissemination of nature in it's entirety will be available.

It's a pity that atheism exists as a word, but I guess we need to call it something. It's a pity because people will continually try to twist it's meaning for their own agenda purposes. That's life. That's what people are like. I have a sneaky suspicion the topic starter is one of those people; I guess we'll soon find out.

It will have absolutely NO impact on social and economic development because ethgics are a world apeart from all the jazz religions throw up and divide people from one another. Sio there!!

siocratease

Yes thats what happens: Religion divides people. I can't get past the sort of people that go door knocking, trying to spread their imagionary beliefes, they must have a consience surely. If thats what they want to beleive, so be it, but don't push it on to anybody else. You tell electricity company's where to get off when they come door knocking. You do the same to bible bashers, but they are so much into the world of make beleive, they need laws to curtail their persistence. This puts people off-side and do not want to know any thing about it.
Sunshine and nature is god, and it didn't take no church to tell me that.

579,
So I suppose you ascribe your being to sunshine and nature as your creator and god. These are ancient religions found in ancient Egypt and among Island tribal people.

579,

"If you are religious you are not a realist. If we were all realists there would not be any wars."

You know it's all about resources, eh?. "Religion" is merely a recruiting tool. 'Realist', lol nice one.

I once spoke to an ardent evolutionist who lectures at a university and believes that mankind will one day evolve into gods. I could not help myself from laughing at such arrogance and stupidity.

The average person these days is so corrupt they can't keep their word, their marriage vows or pay the taxes they owe. If you look at the High Priests of the atheist/secular movement you would see it as an absolute joke to think these guys are going to somehow make us morally superior. It is as silly as thinking we could just give billions to African nations to eradicate poverty in those places.

Christ came to earth as the only incorruptible One because no one else was and is incorruptible. We live in a day where arrogance, pride and pseudo science dominates. More than ever we need the grace of God rather than the delusions of puffed up arrogant men who really are the blind leading the blind

My observation leads me to the conclusion that many secularist and atheist are becoming more and more militant in regards to their faith. Look at the likes of Gore/Dawkins and you can see this clearly.

Surely this thread seems to want to target those like me, none believers why?
Islam is growing so too that manufactured science group.
But in my view we can gain only by leaving all primitive beliefs behind.
I offer as evidence our Christians in this thread, who show little love for fellow man if he/she thinks different than them.

Jockey,
Since you claim that atheisn in none of the following- Why is it taught as philosophical dogma by the likes of Dawkins etc to be believed. In their opinion it is the reality of how we should view the universe and the world [philosophy]. You are deluded? or is it the professors of atheism that are deluded about their world view [philosophy]who constantly state there is no creator or mind behind reality?

You said "Atheism is not a philosophy, is not a belief, is not a political affiliation, is not an opinion, is not a religion, is not a lifestyle, is not a philosophy".

Since you do not hold an opinion on atheism or believe its philosophical dogma; maybe you have no right to give your opinion on the subject.

Philo,

Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of God. (atheos - without God.....a-not+theos-God) That is the absence of a belief in God
There is no philosophical dogma attached...it is what it is.
(Jockey has every right to give his opinion on anything he chooses - as do we all).

Philo and runner,
Atheism is not a religion...... see the full stops. so stop trying to make it one. The facets of human thought, philosophy and the ability to reason and apply that knowledge without defaulting to a completely unprovable faith when the answer is to hard or just not available are some of the things that make an atheist. I agree about Dawkins, i spent time with his site discussing the various issues but in the end it became clear they were not any different to the sannyasins i spent time with in India. They had become blinded by the concepts and were developing as a religion.
I will develop at my own pace and progress by what i learn and experience. This may not make me the sharpest tool in the shed but it makes me content in my life and hungry for knowledge.
runner your comment " More than ever we need the grace of God rather than the delusions of puffed up arrogant men who really are the blind leading the blind" i find to be your usual blindness as the interference of religion for thousands of years has always been the problem. I would say that you obviously have no interest in history and the lessons that are there for us all, but i am no expert and you are probably a history major that is blinded by his faith.
Ones atheism is a personal thing and will be different for everyone. But to address the subject of this thread, it will make no more or less difference as it has always been there as have most other concepts in one regard or another. The mix will continue to roll around but atheists are unlikely to be seen as a threat to the vice like grip that religion has over man kind because it is not an organisation, it is individual and personal.

The topic was inspired by the following article:

Religion and Economic Development: by Rachel M. McCleary
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5729#nogo

and related articles quoted in the bibliography. For those who do have the time and inclination i'm sure you'll find it stimulating and i'd be interested in your responses.

One aspect of the research, based on growth studies involving Robert Barro (short-listed for the Nobel prize for his work in the field of economic growth and development), involves the interaction between economics and religion.

The detail empirical work can be found here: http://eco.isu.ac.ir/EDU/dlc/2rd/08/instructor/Religion%20and%20Economic%20Growth.pdf

A summary follows (from http://www.nber.org/digest/nov03/w9682.html)

Religion and Economic Growth
"For given religious beliefs, increases in church attendance tend to reduce economic growth. In contrast, for given church attendance, increases in some religious beliefs -- notably heaven, hell, and an afterlife -- tend to increase economic growth."

Some researchers argue that explanations for economic growth should be broadened to include cultural determinants. Culture may influence economic outcomes by affecting such personal traits as honesty, thrift, willingness to work hard, and openness to strangers. Although religion is an important dimension of culture, economists to date have paid little attention to its role in economic growth.

But in Religion and Economic Growth (NBER Working Paper No. 9682), authors Robert Barro and Rachel McCleary analyze the influences of religious participation and beliefs on a country’s rate of economic progress. The authors use six international surveys conducted between 1981 and 1999 to measure religiosity -- church attendance and religious beliefs -- for 59 countries. There is more information available about rich countries than poor ones and about countries that are primarily Christian. Barro and McCleary consider first how religiosity responds to economic development, government influences on religion, and the composition of religious adherence. They find that their measures of religiosity are positively related to education, negatively related to urbanization, and positively related to the presence of children. Overall, religiosity tends to decline with economic development.

The presence of a state religion is positively related to religiosity, probably because of the subsidies that flow to established religions in those countries. However, religiosity declines with greater government regulation of religion and with the religious oppression associated with Communism. Greater diversity of religions -- that is, religious pluralism -- is associated with higher church attendance and stronger religious beliefs. Countries in the sample that had low levels of pluralism include some that are predominantly Catholic (Spain, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, Ireland, and much of Latin America), as well as Protestant Scandinavia, Orthodox Greece, and Muslim Pakistan and Turkey. Countries studied that exhibit high levels of pluralism include the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, and South Africa.

cont...

cont..

The authors turn next to the assessment of how differences in religiosity affect economic growth. For given religious beliefs, increases in church attendance tend to reduce economic growth. In contrast, for given church attendance, increases in some religious beliefs -- notably heaven, hell, and an afterlife -- tend to increase economic growth. In other words, economic growth depends mainly on the extent of believing relative to belonging. The authors also find some indication that the fear of hell is more potent for economic growth than the prospect of heaven. Their statistical analysis allows them to argue that these estimates reflect causal influences from religion to economic growth and not the reverse.

Barro and McCleary suggest that higher rates of religious beliefs stimulate growth because they help to sustain aspects of individual behavior that enhance productivity. They believe that higher church attendance depresses growth because it signifies a greater use of resources by the religion sector. However, that suppression of growth is tempered by the extent to which church attendance leads to greater religious beliefs, which in turn encourages economic growth

Well atheism is definitely on a steep increase in the West, and quite frankly, that's good enough for me.

The future (or more specifically present) will be quite interesting; in the past (as far as general awareness goes), extreme religious groups had only defectors, heretics and other extreme religious groups to worry about;
Now they're looking at a considerable outright atheistic community, and everyone must re-evaluate their place in the world, and their stance towards everyone else;

It also puts a gigantic damper on everyone who would normally speak of 'we' towards a general society in terms of our place in our world, and really mean a religious subgroup only half, or even a quarter of the nation belongs to.
-This is especially true when talking about another non/religious community.

Personally, I predict a major movement of subdividing existing nations and communities as fundamentalist Christians, secularists, fundamentalist Muslims, and other religions- among each of different persuasions- start to become truly distinct.
It is becoming clear the disappearing common ground between the fundamentalist Baptists and the strongly liberal secularists in the United States, finding no agreement on policies and what values society should uphold. The rise of the Spaghetti Monster lobbyists opposing creationism in Schools shows this quite well.

Atheists are just as bad as theists.They think they all the answers.Just face it,we really don't know.If we knew for certain either way,life would lose it's edge.Time to move on.

And only a few posts after Poirot’s valid point, Arjay comes in with a misconception that is hard to fathom considering how long he’s been posting here.

Theism and atheism are two parts of a true dichotomy - you are either a theist, or you are not.

<<Atheists are just as bad as theists.They think they all the answers.>>

So Arjay, do you mean to say that you're not a theist, and you're not not a theist (pardon the double negative)?

How does that make any sense?

<<Just face it,we really don't know...>>

No, we don’t. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t form a reasoned opinion based on what we do already know.

Try naming one other belief that could possibly be held without the slightest shred of evidence, for hundreds and hundreds of years, and yet still have some claim that, well, we can’t REALLY be sure one way or the other in regards to that claim?

There isn’t one, and yet - for no good reason - we afford religious belief this luxury.

It’s absurd!

<<If we knew for certain either way,life would lose it's edge.>>

What part of atheism says anything about certainty?

The more hope one has in life and personal security of its worthy purpose - the more productive one would be. Personal insecurity breeds hopelessness, a characteristic of much of modern Western youth. Atheism breeds insecurity about the purpose of life itself - it lacks a positive philosophy. It is based in the obsession of the negative.

AJ just espoused that atheist principle.

Poirot,
You state that atheism is “what is”; you stated as fact "There is no philosophical dogma attached...it is what it is".

Please define for me - what is philosophy? Philosophy has a set of paradigms that draw conclusions. Is the absence of a creator not a taught paradigm of atheism – Then it is part of atheistic dogma? Equally we are just what is by evolution from no purposeful cause or design, is part of atheistic dogma.

philo,
It's amazing how you attack atheism for the lost and disaffected youth of our society. Do tell,

what religion claims their values to be what our society is built on?
Which religious organisations are given open slather at our children to indoctrinate them through our school system?
What is the stated faith of the lower socio-economic groups from which these disaffected youth predominately come from?

Stop blaming others for your own failures. The church has systematically abused, used and ripped off it followers for 2000 years and now that it's flock is deserting it you look to blame others, what a laugh. If you are concerned that more and more people identify as atheist in the sensus then ask yourselves why. Atheists don't have lobby groups, churches, clergy and a fairytale to justify it's existence. As i said earlier it is not a religion stop trying to make it one. Being atheist is not to belong to a club but to be content within your own life. It is christians i have always found to be insecure, this is why they need to fight wars, oppress populations, brainwash children and accumulate large amounts of wealth for their god. Oh and ask their god for forgiveness every week because they can not take responsibility for their own actions.

nairbe,
Obviously you have no knowledge of what happens in Church. You may have attended Church but were not practising the teachings of Christ. I can proudly say the youth of my church are caring for their community in medicine, physiotherapy, School teaching, supporting programmes to overcom poverty and disease in overseas countries etc.

The youth in my street are into binge drinking, fast cars, noise annoyance at night, stirring up the police, sex orgies, and graffetti etc. They do not believe life has purpose or meaning - we are just here for what pleases us. They believe there is no accountability for life to any God. Observing them attending the recent election they do not give a stuff about Government.

Philo, you would be surprised at how many of them are the same 'youth'.

Reading all the various comments on this and other threads it seems apparent that there is a lot of ignorance about what it means to be an atheist. I wonder at times if the tendency to manufacture atheism into a homogenous movement is based on genuine belief or intentional distraction from other issues.

Either way, whether theist or non-theist, we should respect the other's rights to believe with interference only when harm is done or laws broken or when an individual is forced to submit against their will whether it be wearing a head-dress or submitting to beatings.

I like being an atheist and I am sure a Catholic or a Muslim likes being religious and having contentment in finding their God.

It is only when one group starts killing or persecuting another group for failure to conform that we have real evil and it has nothing to do with the teachings of any God but the failings of people.

@Pelican, @Pericles & @Poirot…well said, P-P-People. (How come there’s so many names starting with “P”?)

I would like to add, the view that there would be less wars is fallacious. Wars are about information and disinformation, and it requires no religion for this to occur. It’s just that our history has a litany of examples of religion being the tool of that disinformation. But it is only a tool, not actually a cause. It’s made out to be a cause by those that wish it, but the “cause” in any war is the acquisition of a resource of some sort. We just give the populace reasons to fight, and religion has been a common one. But religion or not, we will fight. The absence of religion may be one less tool, but not one less cause for war.

@grateful, the views you have espoused are not supported by the atheists here. Would you like to try another tack? We all know you have a message to deliver, so deliver it.

@grateful, sorry about my last comment, I hadn’t noticed there were more pages and that you had elaborated.

Read what you had to say, and this is simple…the authors presume that religiosity drives capitalism, whereas I would suggest that it is reflective of economic and political times. Fear is a well-known driver, and requires no belief in a heaven of hell to exist or be created. The Cold War is an excellent example of that, with everyone’s fear of nuclear destruction. Plus, the authors, from what you have described, seem to have ignored the existence of atheists within the economic environment. We’re in the economy too, ya know, and there are a lot of us. Not as many, granted, but a lot.

The reports I’ve seen, say that religion has been on the increase since the GFC, and that there were increases in attendance after 9/11…there is always increases in religious attendance during times of fear from economic or political turmoil.

Morality also requires no belief in the supernatural. It requires the belief in morality. Morality and religion are NOT synonymous, but they most commonly are equated together. Fallacy, for the two are completely different things.

Ergo, religion does not drive economic growth, but religious attendance is a reflection of economic and political activity. People seek solace in bad times…go figure!

Dear Philo,

Ah, I see what you are getting at - perhaps I should rephrase that..."It isn't what it isn't" (ie, a belief in God) - there we go.
Put it this way - choosing to reject a particular religious philosophy doesn't automatically furnish you with an alternative.

The fact that the youth in your street are acting in such a debauched fashion has more to do with the corruption accompanying our capitalist culture than it does their lack of religious instruction.

Dear Philo,

Referring back to an earlier post by you:

Both Yahweh and Mars were gods of war to their believers. One can compare especially the OT God to the Kohlberg scale of morality. The OT's reward & punishment and law & order profiles would not rate all that well for a divine entity. Compassion, forgiveness and empathy is above war and punishment: e.g., smiting townships or understanding human limitations.

Economic development has to do with knowing how to learn. This occurred largely in in the eighteenth century and has little to with religion. Rather, advances were achioeved by taking science away from religion. Moreover, the degree of the religionism; herein, the ex-colonies of Catholic European powers have progressed by slowly than the colonies of Protestant England.

Albeit, between the fifteen to mid-Eighteen centuries, one economic activity supported by the Bible and also some Islamic traders was very profitable - slavery. Yet, perhaps we should look more towards neutral Industrialisation rather religion or atheism, to find how that evilwas overcome.

Grateful is making assumptions.

Most Atheists don't hold the views he claims they do.

There will always be a place for religion and superstition, from Christianity, Islam, Astrology, to the ancient Roman and Greek gods, to the dream time, even to the pre occupation with vampires and other nonsense.

Most of it is harmless, only when it pretends to be the arbiter or morals, and tries to inflict its values on others is any harm done.

Co existence within the secular allows one to follow one's calling whether it is religion or knitting without any impact on the society or economy.

I find it interesting that we're arguing
the pros and cons of Atheism versus
religion.

Emile Durkheim, one of the first sociologists
believed that the origins of religion were
social, not supernatural. He pointed out that,
whatever their source, the rituals enacted in
any religion enhance the solidarity of the
community as well as its faith. Consider such
religious rituals as - Baptism, Bar Mitzvah,
Weddings, Sabbath Services, Christmas Mass,
funerals, and so on. Rituals like these serve
to bring people together: to remind them of
their common group membership, to reaffirm
their traditional values; to maintain prohibitions
and taboos; to offer comfort in times of crisis:
and, in general, to help transmit the cultural
heritage from one generation to the next.

In fact, Durkheim argued, shared religious beliefs
and the rituals that go with them are so important that
every society needs a religion, or at least some belief
system that serves the same functions.

The cause of much of the social disorder in modern
societies, he contended, is that "the old gods are
growing old or are already dead, and others are not yet
born."

In other words, people no longer believe deeply in
traditional religion, but they have found no
satisfying substitute.

Atheists however, seem to have done precisely that.
They may not believe in God but they believe in people,
and as Richard Dawkins says, " People when given the
right encouragement to think for themselves about
all the information now available, very often turn out
not to believe in God and to lead fulfilled and satisfied,
indeed, liberated - lives."

Foxy,
The revelation of the character of God happens precicely through people. A belief that - the spirit of a person reflect the character of the God they believe in, and exhibit in attitude and action.

Believe the character of Christ is the exact revelation of the character of God identifies one as Christian. It however is not just a mental assent to ideas but living as a follower in action. Such an emulation of his character identifies one as godly. Such a character is not merely a philosopher, but an action person improving the lives of the sick, unholy and poor. Blessing those that would reject and curse you. Take a look at your teachers personal life, it it worth following?

Grateful wrote:

>>Atheists tend to argue are follows:

<<The world is evolving toward an atheistic future. Religions are dying out.<<

I don’t think that at all. On the contrary I think we atheists are an endangered species.

The reason is quite simple. Believers have more babies. Atheists have few to none.

Now that used not to matter. The children of believers often gravitated towards atheism as education levels improved. But this is no longer the case. “Retention levels” within religions are improving. More and more people born into religious families remain religious. Usually they stick with some variant of their own religion.

One pundit who documents these trends rather well is Eric Kaufmann. See:

Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century

http://www.amazon.com/Shall-Religious-Inherit-Earth-Twenty-First/dp/1846681448/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1285042955&sr=1-1

See also “Breeding for God” by the same author.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/11/breedingforgod/

Interestingly atheists find Kaufmann’s analysis as hard to swallow as fundamentalist Christians and Muslims find Darwin

Dear Philo,

Many religions don't recognise a supreme being,
and a number do not believe in gods at all.
Several religions ignore questions about the
origins of the universe and life, leaving these
problems to be dealt with instead by nonreligious
myth. Many religions assume that the gods take
little interest in human affairs. Some have almost
nothing to say about life after death, and many -
perhaps most-do not link our earthly morality
with our fate beyond the grave. Obviously,
religion can't be defined in terms of the Western
religious tradition alone.

As for my own personal beliefs - well I think you
already know what those are. I've stated them often
enough on this Forum. I shall be a Catholic who
follows her conscience, struggles to find herself,
to love my fellow human beings, and try to be a decent
person.

Philo,
I had more than my share of church when growing up. My parents were ministers, grandparents and two aunties were missionaries. Don't bother telling me about religion, i get it. The very beautiful scene you paint is common when one stands there and views a congregation. It is what festers under that calm which had such a dramatic impact on me that religious organisations were set aside in my life.
Bugsy got it perfectly. "you would be surprised at how many of them are the same 'youth'."
I apologies if i get over involved in these discussions when religion is raised. I try not to but often don't succeed. My disillusionment with the church does cloud my objectivity when trying to clearly explain the total pleasure of being able to do the right thing by or for someone just because it is a good act not because hell is hanging over my head.

The crutch that man invented to sleep soundly at night is no longer needed.
Even now in our lifetime new reildgions are being invented.
Ones most alive today know are false but tomorrows followers will believe.
If we must have a God let us invent one.
Lets put our heads together and have one for all humanity.
After all most of humanity follow the three so very alike but so very different born in the middle east.
Start there change it so those three for one Gods become the new all encompassing
How can Christians Muslims and Jews not see their God was in their minds the creator of us all, why fight?
Leave us non believers out of it look at the world biggest Christian church today, the child rape the cover up just here in OLO we have put thousands of words in to telling of this horror from within the heart of Christianity.

What does atheism mean for social and economic development?

Absolutely nothing.

Atheism is simply a non belief in the supernatural, a non belief in a god or gods. It is nothing more than that.

The detractors of atheism like to assign all sorts of conspiracy theories to it, all sorts of inaccurate descriptions of it: If an atheist is a communist, the detractors say atheism supports communism. If an atheist supports contraception, it's detractors say atheism supports contraception. If an atheist supports euthanasia, the detractors say atheism supports euthanasia. All these "assumptions" are of course total hogwash. Atheism is only what it is, and no more - - - - it's merely a non belief in God. Other than that, athiests encompass the whole raft of opinions, philosophies, politics and behaviours that ALL the rest of society practices.

Atheism is merely a non belief in the supernatural. It's nothing more than that.

I forgot to say - - - - There's even atheists who don't understand that atheism is only a non belief in the supernatural and nothing more. Some people form atheist associations/clubs/organizations and try to present attitudes/politics/philosophies as if they represent "atheism". That's about as stupid as it gets.

Atheists are just like everyone else: Some support homosexuality while some hate homosexuality, some support euthanasia while some disapprove of euthanasia, some can't stand the Pope while some admire the Pope, some vote Liberal while some vote Labor - - - etc etc etc.

Jockey

I think you're about 99% right.

Let me put something to you.

I do not know whether there exists some being or entity who could be described as the creator of the universe. I strongly doubt it. But I know of no way of settling the matter definitively. So in that sense I am what could be described as a sceptical, a VERY sceptical, agnostic.

However, of this I am certain. NONE of the "God Models" presented in humanity's various religions has any relation to this creator assuming he / she / it / they exist.

ALL humanity's "holy books" are compendia of legends, just so stories and taurine fertiliser. NONE are in any shape, manner or form messages from the creator of the universe.

So I am an atheist from Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism and so on.

I am CERTAIN the creator was not incarnated as an itinerant preacher in first century Israel.

I am CERTAIN the koran is not a direct message from the creator unless he is an absent-minded one who would flunk biology 101 and geology 101.

I suspect that this is the sense in which most atheists are atheistic. Our attitude is "show us the evidence and we'll change our minds."

nairbe
you said "when trying to clearly explain the total pleasure of being able to do the right thing by or for someone just because it is a good act not because not because hell is hanging over my head."

Hell represents the waste of a life lived outside of moral principles. The word Hell in the NT is Gehannah meaning the local dump outside Jerusalem where refuse was burnt. Jesus used this picture image to indicate a wasted life.

We do not live our lives in fear of moral rejection, but in the positive assurance of love, forgivness and acceptance by grace. That is the message of the gospel of Christ. You apparently rejecteed God on the basis of poor attitudes and behaviour by people not on the understanding of the gospel. Christians ought to act out of love for God and our fellow man despite facing anomosity and bad behaviour, and never out of fear of the consequence of being a failure. Christ came to reconcile enemies, to demonstrate love and forgivness to the morally lost and social outcast. The gospel is: "our failure is forgiven and overcome" because we no longer live under law; but acceptance by grace.

Examine the life, actions and attitudes of Christ not the failures of people who call themselves Christians. Ask, is his attitudes of grace worth emulating?

philo,
I did not reject the god delusion because of my church up bringing. I rejected religious organisations for their blind faith and contradictory behaviour. Your response to my attempt to be more objective, (something that i think is very important when debating) was responded to with that very blind faith. Try truly sitting back and objectively watch what is really going on around you, you may be surprised if you can be objective.
My rejection of the god delusion came much later after exploring many religions like buddism and meditating with masters in India. The one thing that never changed was the beautiful image that was projected but the problems were the same. So i began to read and study, i found the more of science i could understand the more i could reason maters out for myself, the better my understanding of history the more i realised what religion was, then one day it just becomes so obvious to me, i just could not continue in all good conscience to support the god delusion any more. Actually it was one of the most liberating realisations of my life and remains the turning point in my life from being a very unhappy and confused youth to a happy loving father and active community member.
All the best to you, i hope your life is as fulfilling for you as mine is for me as then we can all share this wonderful experience of life without prejudice or hate, nor the need to convert anyone.
I think it is great if your faith truly brings you the contentment you say, but don't blindly believe that nothing bad happens there. The whole of our society has problems and these are a whole of community problem. They are not caused by atheists or christians or muslims. The problem is us all, we must all work to help the disaffected youth, not feed their confusion and instability by blaming each other for the problems of our communities.

nairbe,
I agree totally! I just wonder if you have understood what I last wrote. I wonder how you reconcile your last statement with the behaviour of young persons you saw in the Church. I wonder how you reconcile your position of "no blame of each other" with your condemnation of God". Do believe in a code of acceptable behaviour you teach your children and do you correct them when they have violated such? Does society need a Police Force?

Philo,

<<Do believe in a code of acceptable behaviour you teach your children and do you correct them when they have violated such? Does society need a Police Force?>>

This has failed point of yours, that teaching children right from wrong requires superstition, has been discredited many times here on OLO...

“The point that non-religionists are making, Philo, over and over again, is that it is possible to teach children the ideals of character, behaviour and attitudes without mentioning God at all.” - Pericles
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1396#25638)

And yet you still make the same claim over and over.

Philo,
I got you just nicely. Reconciling the youth i saw in the church? Don't quite get you but never mind as i was one of those youth and many of the issues were never addressed by the adults in our church because they simply didn't see what was happening or didn't want to know. This is generally the problem for many of the youth they are either ignored or not believed. Maybe how they see things and feel about things does suffer from inexperience, but that does not make their point invalid.
Coming to the understanding that god is a delusion is not a rejection of god it is the rejection of the delusion as god does not exist. Don't get upset about that statement it is how it is for me and i only hope it helps you understand my position, not agree or like just understand.
I am what many would probably call a strict parent. I set boundaries and standards pretty high for work, responsibility and manners. We are very open and loving with no problems talking or showing affection. This is the result of my life's experiences and yes some of what i learned from my parents. These values have existed in civilisation much longer than has christianity so please don't claim the high moral ground.

AJ Philips,
Character, ethics and morality are non material and exhibits the true spirit of a man. The primary image one has of a higher mind to which man aspires and upon which the pure spirit of man was designed is the character of the highest mind we believe in. Do you have a vision of a character to which you; and you would hope your children aspire? Identify such an image. That is what belief in God is about>

That's nothing more than fancy footwork, Philo.

>> The primary image one has of a higher mind to which man aspires and upon which the pure spirit of man was designed is the character of the highest mind we believe in.<<

You are ascribing "character" to your God, and suggesting that this is what man should aspire to.

Yet when it comes to an analysis of the "character" of that God, you - a human being - carefully select only the good bits, and leave out all the evidence of wrath, vengeance and aggression that are also characteristic. The bits that don't actually look good, when you write them down.

"He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them. He made a way to his anger; he spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence; And smote all the firstborn in Egypt; the chief of their strength in the tabernacles of Ham" Psalms 78 48:51

Fair enough. Any competent marketing organization would do the same.

What you have done is to create in your own mind the Platonic ideal of what a perfect God should look like, and claim - somewhat dubiously, it has to be said - that yours conforms to the type.

There is absolutely no impediment to any human being creating the same set of ideals for themself, and aspiring to live up to them.

All that has happened is that he's bypassed the middle man

Pericles,
You said, "There is absolutely no impediment to any human being creating the same set of ideals for themself, and aspiring to live up to them." Exactly. What I have said is we live like the God we aspire to. This is the god each believes in. That is why I believe the life and character of Christ best describes how I view God.

You miss the point, Philo. Deliberately, I suspect.

>>What I have said is we live like the God we aspire to. This is the god each believes in.<<

There is literally no requirement for me to imagine into existence "the god each believes in". That's just you, playing with words.

You, on the other hand, need a definition of God for your system to work.

>>That is why I believe the life and character of Christ best describes how I view God.<<

Exactly.

And you have chosen to colour your version of God in a particular way, as "the life and character of Christ".

In doing so, you have chosen to whitewash out the claim that your religion makes, that he is supposed to represent - or is in fact somehow the same - God that wreaks vengeance on those who oppose him.

But that's all perfectly fine and understandable. You're just creating for yourself the image of the God that you prefer to model your life on.

I too can build a picture for myself of the moral values I wish to uphold, but without the need to imagine a God in between.

Completely superfluous.

Pericles,
That you prefer not to have an incarnation of the character you aspire to, leaves you without a model and teachable vision. God is incarnate in human character.

That you constantly prefer to paint god for me as a warring vicious ogre, is not my vision of God, in whose pure character we were designed.

Philo,

<<Do you have a vision of a character to which you; and you would hope your children aspire?>>

Sorry, I still don’t know why the “middle man” (as Pericles has put it) needs to be there.

You claim that we should/must “have an incarnation of the character [we] aspire to”, but you can’t seem to justify why this incarnation is absolutely essential.

But do I have any such character? Not any one particular one. I see good in many different people and sometimes the good I see inspires me to do the same if it’s in an area that I feel I’m lacking.

Having and an incarnation of a character is one thing, but to convince your children that this character is real and train them to believe, not only without evidence, but in the face of evidence to the contrary, is wrong in my books. So too is treating/teaching children as though they need the carrot-and-stick (Heaven and Hell) method.

I think a lot more of people in general than that.

Speaking of which, one aspect you’ve conveniently missed here is the 'original sin' aspect. Oh sure, it’s usually sugar-coated with talk of being special to Jesus ‘n’ all that, but no one can use the Christian form of the carrot-and-stick method of moral guidance without at least implicitly making their child feel as though they're filthy scum worthy of eternal torment and in need - yet undeserving - of god’s grace.

Just ask runner.

Another point is that this incarnated character can be whatever we want it to be - particularly if we use the Bible as a starting point. Why, I could raise a bunch of children that would make the Phelps children blush so long as I base my incarnated character of the right parts of the Bible. Every Christian builds their own slightly unique and customized version of god while finding Bible passages to support it.

It begs the question though: How can so many people have a personal relationship with god and yet disagree so often in regards to what he actually wants?

Nope Still not quite there, Philo.

>>That you prefer not to have an incarnation of the character you aspire to, leaves you without a model...<<

Only in the sense that a bunch of other people have already given some shape your "model". But realistically, absolutely any model you or I choose will have some jagged edges, some faults that you would need to either gloss over, or explain away.

As indeed you have done, with your own vision of your Christian God.

>>...and teachable vision.<<

No teachable vision? Certainly I have.

In fact, I'm in exactly the same situation as yourself. You have gussied up the image of your own God, in order to arrive at the Platonic Ideal. I can refer to the same virtues and characteristics, without the additional burden of explaining i) why you need to ignore the nasty bits and ii) why I chose that particular religious role model, over the multiplicity on offer.

>>That you constantly prefer to paint god for me as a warring vicious ogre, is not my vision of God, in whose pure character we were designed<<

Hey, hold on there.

I didn't write all that stuff in the Bible about God's wrathful vengeance.

Nor was it I who insisted that Jesus was in fact "one-and-the-same" with God, along with the Holy Ghost.

If the three are indeed "one", then you can't really get away with just picking the one of the trio example, without explaining away the actions, threats of violence and destruction etc. of one of the other two.

Just where the Holy Ghost fits, I haven't a clue.

Pericles,
God is spirit, and man is designed in the expression of that Spirit. God is not a physical entity. The Holy Spirit is the character and image of God that is manifest to and through the person living in the image of God. From the Holy Spirit we gain assurance, conviction, understanding of what attitude and action is like Christ.

The Old Testament is how God was revealed previously to Israel in their history. The New Testament states; that today that God is fully revealed in Christ, and the message is to all persons. For character and morality we are to follow Christ.

That doesn't solve the "if I'm talking to one, I'm talking to all three" position, does it Philo.

Or, more appropriately, the "who am I listening to right now" problem.

>>The New Testament states; that today that God is fully revealed in Christ, and the message is to all persons. For character and morality we are to follow Christ.<<

But is it, or is it not exactly the same God who appears in the Old Testament? If it is a different God, or the same God but in a different guise, which one should you believe in?

Obviously, you'd choose the one with the "nice guy" image.

But how does that decision differ, in any principle or detail, from an individual making his own ethical and behavioural choices, without the need to decide upon a specific "someone else" to make those choices for him?

Pericles,
The human mind is part of the created universe and reflects the mind behind the created universe. It is the best gauge we have of creative intelligence and design and moral and ethical behaviour in the universe. The history of the man Christ Jesus has demonstrated that the best image of God incarnate is found in him. God is not three persons - God is one spirit. That spirit is found in Christ Jesus.

That you prefer to have no God is your choice there is no absolute moral standard, no intelligent purpose or design in the universe. That some propose God is violent and vengeful may come from their view of life as warriers and their reactive natural instincts. That others see the human mind is just the result of pure evolutionary chance.

I prefer to have demonstrated values in character we can admire and emulate. One who by his actions to bring human unity can demonstrate forgiveness and grace even to enemies and to his detractors and enemies.

Philo

>>> I prefer to have demonstrated values in character we can admire and emulate. One who by his actions to bring human unity can demonstrate forgiveness and grace even to enemies and to his detractors and enemies. <<<

Right on. Look at what these values have done for Runner, the Exclusive Brethren, Hillsong, Jerry Falwell and the KKK.

Severin,
Are you ignorant or blind? If you are not blind read the New Testament, especially the examples of Christ life and teachings and see if their lives agrees with his life and teachings. It is all very well to amplify the grose sins of some; but I suppose you have offended no one?

The problem is, Philo, we disagree on your very first premise.

>>The human mind is part of the created universe and reflects the mind behind the created universe.<<

Only if you are already predisposed to believe it.

If there is no "mind" to reflect, it would not be possible to complete the sentence, would it?

However, you and I can agree that the human mind:

>>is the best gauge we have of creative intelligence and design and moral and ethical behaviour<<

But if the mind is indeed the best gauge etc. etc., why would you need to invent a God as an intermediary?

>>That you prefer to have no God is your choice there is no absolute moral standard, no intelligent purpose or design in the universe.<<

Philo, I hate to break it to you, but even among theists there is a wide range of "moral standards" - it has nothing to do with "having no God". Your theist's moral standards depend entirely upon which God, and which subset of godly instructions, is chosen.

And you are being just a little obtuse here:

>>God is not three persons - God is one spirit. That spirit is found in Christ Jesus.<<

Let's look at the "not three persons" part.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Trinity turns out to be:

"...the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another."

The key here would be, whom did Jesus represent when he was on earth? Was it the same God of the Old Testament, or a different one? Or maybe one who had matured a little, and was no longer quite so absolute?

But whichever way you cut it, it surely cannot be ascribed to personal preference, as you suggest here:

>>That some propose God is violent and vengeful may come from their view of life...<<

It is not that "some" propose this, Philo.

The Bible says so.

What does atheism do for social and economic development?
Dont worry about what atheists may do for sociual and economic development, we all know what God-fearing people of all persuasions have done...which is catastrophic! God save us from God botherers. Now there's an original prayer, surely.

An atheist is a tax-paying citizen with the same rights and tons of more moral and ethical weight to bring on such issues.
No. I am not an atheist. Call me a probablian.

All that a politician, like anyone else, needs is a sound moral character and a dedicated ethical strength. He is a person who has got up off his knees and does not take dictation from his local bishop. He is also quite clear in his mind that the problems humans face are in this world, not in heaven, wherever that is, or if ever that is. The answers we need are to be found here in this world. This alone rules Tony Abbot out. What an apology for a lawmaker he is.

socratease

Philo.
Please. No more of that New Testament stuff.
It gives most of us the yipps. We know all about it, really.
Socratease

<<What does atheism mean for social and economic development?

Absolutely nothing.

Posted by Jockey, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 7:31:33 PM>>

Thanks Jockey for addressing the issue. The evidence i presented ( from leading economists) indicates that a commitment to religious beliefs "sustains individual behavior that enhance productivity".

<<Barro and McCleary suggest that higher rates of religious beliefs stimulate growth because they help to sustain aspects of individual behavior that enhance productivity. They believe that higher church attendance depresses growth because it signifies a greater use of resources by the religion sector. However, that suppression of growth is tempered by the extent to which church attendance leads to greater religious beliefs, which in turn encourages economic growth>>
http://www.nber.org/digest/nov03/w9682.html

So in so far as atheism results in a breaking down of belief it is deterimental to economic development.

Here are the references i provided earlier:
Religion and Economic Development: by Rachel M. McCleary
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5729#nogo

Religion and Economic Growth, Robert J. Barro and Rachel M. McCleary
(Harvard University,April 8, 2003) http://eco.isu.ac.ir/EDU/dlc/2rd/08/instructor/Religion%20and%20Economic%20Growth.pdf
Robert Barro is short-listed for the Nobel prize for his work in the field of economic growth and development

What does atheism really stand for?

It's too easy and a cliche to merely say thatit means the non-belief in God. It is more important to realise that it means it is a stop gap situation in the evolution of human experience of ineffability;it is an impatience with all sorts of present beliefs in "-isms"; it is a rejection of all present day positions taken by those who espouse the cause and contents of any form of theism. It is a question of "All tried and untrue. The search must go on" and as it goes on so too does our understanding of consciousness and evolotion. It is the outgrowth of experiencing transcendence.

socratease

So socratease you are the teacher / definer of the doctrine of mumbo-jumbo nonsense.

The view that man is merely a complex organism that evolved without intentional thought and puropse and is over consuming the resources of this planet fails to recognise the true dignity of the human spirit. It denies divine aspirations of intelligence and creative adaptability that reflects the nature of intelligent design within the universe. Man is much more than a chemical organism - he is a spirit that reflects the divine creator and his intended purpose to survive. These passionate motives create nurture, industry and food.