If atheism is a worldwide phenomena on the rise - I wonder why it's so necessary to jump onto forums to provoke the religious.

Surely they'll just peter out from natural attrition.

Strange.....

Poirot,

I’d rather you read what I say before commenting. Non-religion is a worldwide phenomenon. Atheism just happens to be one of the groups spearheading it. Social change does not happen without people pointing out problems with the existing system, atheists are doing this.

Do I need to supply other examples where radical change has happened by groups becoming vocal about absurdity?

No one is suggesting that people will not have a choice in choosing religion when they are mature. Can you give me an argument that says such a choice without indoctrination of the young is not a good idea?

David

mhaze writes: "Just as a thought exercise I'll just put this out. Every time democracy has arisen organically (ie not been imposed) it has been in a highly religiously devout society. We have no examples of how a democracy would work in an atheistic society (ie Athens, Rome, USA, Britain).

On the other hand we have some very good examples of how government and society works when it is dominated by atheists - Germany 1933-45, Soviet Russia, Maoist China. The most murderous regimes of all time."

Er... Yeah. Because those claims haven't been debunked over and over again on OLO, have they. 

You don't frequent OLO very often, do you, mhaze?

<<I think anyone who knows their history would be rather circumspect about living in an atheistic society.>>

And anyone who knows their philosophy realises just how asinine this argument is since there is nothing within atheism to support what those regimes did.

David,

I notice that you keep instructing people to read this or that. Perhaps you ought to practice what you preach...or is preach a swear-word in your circles?

I mention a few prominent theists. You immediately assume I'm trying to prove the existence of a deity through an "argument from authority" DESPITE the fact that I specifically said why I was mentioning those names....it was to show that believing in a deity doesn't necessarily devolve from being irrational or uneducated or brainwashed or infantile or ignorant. But instead of addressing that point, you run off on some silly tangent.
Then you assert that I'm making a "argument ad populum"! Where I'm supposed to have made such an argument is anyone's guess but anything to avoid the actual point, heh?

So let me (again) make the actual point.I am agnostic on the question of the deity. There may be one (or more), there may not be. We'll never know until after we leave this mortal coil and then, if there is indeed a soul, we'll each have our answer, or not. In the meantime I'll remain agnostic.

But others have made that decision one way or t'other and that's fine with me. I don't consider them ignorant or brainwashed or irrational. Likewise, as regards atheists, I don't consider them to be overly simplistic in their thinking. Each of us has to look at the issue in their own way and come to their own conclusion. And no particular conclusion is better or worse than another since none can be shown to be right or wrong.

/cont

/cont

As a libertarian, I am content, even anxious, that people be allowed to live their lives as they want, provided it doesn't interfere with those same rights of others. If people want to live a religious life that's fine with me. Equally if they want to raise their children in a religious life, that's also fine with me. I am opposed to any attempts to impose outside views on a parent who is raising their child in a loving, caring environment. I view all your scare-mongering about kids being traumatised about the after-life as so much bunkum. Apart from quoting a few disgruntled converts, you have no evidence for that. It is merely an excuse to try impose your wishes on others- in this case to impose your views on how kids should be raised on others. And that in my view is wrong. I note your rather comical schizophrenia on this point. On the one hand you want to tell us about all those poor kids being damaged by hell stories and that the indoctrination of the church is so very successful. Then on the the other, you want to tell us about the growing masses who are rejecting the churches indoctrination. Double-think lives.

As regards the issue of atheistic regimes, I specifically wasn't saying that all atheistic societies would be like Stalin's Russia. But in the same way that a religious societies are sometimes less than admirable, equally atheistic societies are not always as you'd imaging them. But you immediately leap to the conclusion that I'm saying all atheist societies would lead to the gulag. Its that famed absolutism again - `he's saying its not white so he must think its black. But the world is indeed all shades of grey.

Finally I object to your smarmy view that your views are rational, educated and correct while others are irrational, infantile and plain wrong. From what we've seen here, rational isn't one of the words that pops into one's mind when describing our David.

mhaze,

Can you name the contemporary persons I have called "ignorant or brainwashed or irrational"? Possibly the word irrational has entered my lexicon as religion can cause that. And I agree, religion is not the only reason for irrationality.

Religious indoctrination is not an individual accusation against the intelligence of a person, although statistically that is possibly correct, it is a fact for the reasons I have given and repeated needlessly.

As I have stated, a survey of top scientists at the Academy of Sciences only had 7% who believed in any kind of god. One would have to assume these are intelligent people.

Using Occam's razor, what is the best explanation for a particular person claiming that a particular god/religion (Or sect of a particular religion)is true. Make of that as you will.

There is no way to work out which god/religion is true, if any or if the person proclaiming such internal 'proof' is telling the truth as she/he sees it, is deluded (Humans can be deluded as many religions demonstrates) or is lying.

Internal 'proof' is okay for an individual. It is not OK for that internal 'proof' to be foisted onto the malleable minds of children by government or used in policy making by parliamentarians.

This is all very simple stuff.

David