Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumedhopper
(34,723 posts)he doesn't exist.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)No one can say anything unless they can absolutely prove their statement and disprove all others!
For the uninitiated:
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)I tell them it's not a "on the one hand, on the other hand" type of situation. It's not 50-50 maybe a god exists, maybe it doesn't. Start with no assumptions, and then if you have evidence you can begin to draw conclusions. Until then -- they've got zippadeedoodah.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)OK... how about...
gods are completely superfluous. As Victor J. Stenger says (paraphrasing) "The universe looks and acts exactly the way it should without a god."
RussBLib
(9,665 posts)....what would it take for a believer to become an atheist?
I have been asked a few times, "What would it take for you to become a believer?" and the answer is pretty simple: irrefutable evidence.
I think I'll start taking a poll at work to see.
edhopper
(34,723 posts)for starts.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)And ask why they don't believe in Zeus. And if they shrug that one off, I ask them if they worry about being wrong, and shouldn't they worry about pissing off Zeus?
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)to DU. Your posts have been very entertaining. This one didn't let me down either.
WillParkinson
(16,866 posts)Thank you very much.
lindysalsagal
(22,352 posts)And no longer need the big daddy in the sky. Besides, God likes me best.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)RussBLib
(9,665 posts)WillParkinson
(16,866 posts)We REALLY need like buttons.
mountain grammy
(27,227 posts)Moostache
(10,136 posts)There was an evolutionary advantage to "religion" (when viewed for what it is - a strictly human convention of relationships to each other and to the wider world in the form of stories, fables and morality tales that build ties between otherwise disparate groupings) which was essentially nothing more than "in-group reinforced, social hierarchy feedback".
Those who "go along to get along", in a strictly evolutionary sense, increased the survivability of their genes by strengthening their bonds to the social group that gave them protection from the elements and predators and other humans in the "out-groups".
As society continues to geometrically advance and change through inter-connectedness and technological advances, the older, more primal instincts and survival mechanisms begin to be less useful and as with anything else, as something becomes less useful or less of a survival aide, it becomes less favored by evolution.
In today's world, the evolutionary advantages of technology are outpacing those of social integration. Its at the heart of many of our most intractable conflicts. The old world - traditional religions, societal 'norms' for roles of women, patriarchial domination - is slowly (too slowly in my mind) dying off. I believe it is a mathematical certainty that 2 things will happen in the next century - 1) human population will sharply decline, something on the order of a 2/3rds or more reduction and 2) the remaining human population that comes through the trials of climate change, resource depletion and social upheaval will be those who abandon the primeval views and methods and adapt technology to only serve survival advantages (instead of bastardizing it for entertainment and vanity at every possible turn).
Those who decide "prayer" is the answer to a field that is fallow and non-productive without massive petroleum inputs - (instead of learning from the centuries of available experience in agriculture and leverage crop rotations, mixed field production and non-chemical methods of pest control and irrigation) - are going to find survival impossible. All the praying to an invisible, non-responsive mental creation in the world won't produce an excess bushel of corn or soy to survive the winter.
Reality has a funny way of imposing itself on people whether they "believe" in it or not.
I do not "believe" in science or technology or theories of evolution or abiogenesis...I accept them.
I likewise do not "believe" in gods...I reject the concept as being self-refuting and logically incoherent.
There is no conflict for me. Just pity for those who refuse to use the tools humanity has that separate it from the rest of the natural world - reason and abstract thought. Either one without the other is a hopeless existence, as is an imbalance of too much of one and not enough of the other.
Accepting an all-knowing, all-controlling, all-powerful (except when it comes to evil) deity is to surrender the things that make humans interesting at all...otherwise, we may as well just be viewed as well-armed, paranoid Savanah apes that have gone bald!
lindysalsagal
(22,352 posts)Copying to my harddrive.
You think like I think, only more eloquently.