Is Atheism the new way?

[Dameedna]

As to the OP, yes there is a significant decline in Mono-thiestic religions amonst western developed countries.

And there is an increase in religion amongst certain regions. Interestingly, South America is not one of them. As a particular region begins to develop, their religious beliefs tend to fade.

Science and Reason tends to replace superstition. And in an area that is peaceful and does not need to invoke a God, to give comfort for the poor and weak that region lets God go. There has been a resurgance in fundamentalism, especially in the US. This usually occurs when there is a general sense of fear and helplessness in a population, which came as a result of 9/11. America will sort itself out(hopefully) and that resurgance will fade.

Having said all that however, I do not think the reduction in followers of tradition religion indicates a lack of desire for meaning and spirituality. Quite the contrary. It just means that traditional religions are not fullfilling human desires for understand in the way they used to.

People aren’t so willing to believe that a God sends plauges down to earth to punish people, or support one particular tribes desire to take over another tribes town and slaughter them all.

The fact that people are struggling more and more with these concepts, isn’t an indication we are going backward, but one that we are going forward.

In Australia, 10 years ago our Anzac celebration may have pulled 500 or so pilgrims to the shores of Galipoli. This year, there were more than 10,000 and the Anzac celebration was huge, with many young people getting more and more involved.

To try and understand how many humans sacrificed their lives, for our lives today really touches people. It gives them meaning in their own lives…If some-one died for me, then I need to be grateful and live life as best I can. Sound familiar?

I think the resurgance of the Anzac tradition is a sign of changing times. Unfortunately there isn’t a religion that people feel they can accept and embrace, when along with that religion comes some pretty dreadful concepts.

I think you will see a greater and greater interest in Philosophy in the future, and there appears to be a rather large movement toward buddahism since it is more a philosophy for life rather than a specific religious belief.

As Spong indicated, Christianity must change or die. I see it slowly changing in some areas, but it still hasn’t changed enough. People just don’t believe in virgin births or people who get up and walk around after they die anymore. Well…at least most of the people I know

 

[Dameedna]

If they’re really saying that then they should be able to show through science and reason that God doesn’t exist. But they can’t do that and most of them know it.

Yes athiests realize that. They also realize they don’t “need” to prove it. The burden of proof is on the individual that presents a hypothesis. If you Hypothesis that God exists, then the burden of proof is on you.

An Athiest is not Hypothesizing anything. They also aren’t telling people how to live in accordance with an “idea” that has yet to be proven. They are most interested in facts and how our current understanding of human behaviour affects our lives than anything else.

I do not “need” to prove there isn’t a God, anymore than I need to prove there isn’t a “santa”. It’s meaningless.

 

[Minnie31]

I think it’s easier to prove that God exists than that he does not exist, and proofs do indeed exist for the existence of God. Whether or not one accepts the proofs or arguments is entirely up to them.

Really? Show me what proof you have.

 

[Pier]

Atheism is a way that is far older than religion because there has always been people who don’t believe in God. It is in fact, older than religion itself. Religion grew out of atheism because people wanted to believe in something more than what they were. Religion also grew out of humanity’s search for answers in the way the world worked.

So it is not the “new” way.

God has made it clear more than once throughout history, that He does not want us worshipping false gods…

That includes the god of self worship, aka atheism - but He does leave the choice up to us.

 

[Minnie31]

That includes the god of self worship, aka atheism

Atheism is not self worship. Here is a link to the definitions of atheism.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

 

[Dameedna]

That includes the god of self worship, aka atheism - but He does leave the choice up to us.

Why do people insist on turning atheism into something it is not? What is so threatening about athiesm that people need to lie and decieve themselves, when a simple opening of a dictionary can at least give you valid definition.

What is so threatening about athiesm? Why do people say such contemptuous things about it, and why are they so angry about it?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Why do people insist on turning atheism into something it is not? What is so threatening about athiesm that people need to lie and decieve themselves, when a simple opening of a dictionary can at least give you valid definition.

What is so threatening about athiesm? Why do people say such contemptuous things about it, and why are they so angry about it?

You know I ask that question a lot myself. I am a believer, but I fail to see what is all the hullabaloo about atheism. I know a good many, they are all just like everyone else. They work, play and raise families just like anyone else. They just don’t find God a concept they can agree to.

One is not in control of what one believes. One can only do the best one can to learn as much as one can and then the mind chooses what it will to accept. Some things, of which evolution seems to be one are denegrated simply because atheists believe in it. Under that hypothesis, I guess we should deny gravity, since I’m sure atheists believe in that too.

Somehow they feel that atheists are some danger to them and their beliefs. As Jefferson and Madison taught us, good religious stands up in the marketplace of ideas, bad religion does not. And that is how it should be.

I fail to understand this phenomenon. IF you can believe it, there is actually a thread that asks whether atheism should be allowed? As if we lived in N. Korea or something. It’s disgusting and disheartening that people can live in a free society and yet adhere to such bizarre and archaic ideas.

 

[Starwynd]

Atheists are people who deny God and therefore can not be saved. It is a Christians duty to save souls for the worshiop of God. That is why they are angry that atheists deny God.

All souls must be saved, and it simply saddens and angers many Christians that atheists simply do not want to be saved. A person must live their life for God, not themselves, for only then can they know true peace and true freedom.

 

[MindOverMatter]

What is so threatening about athiesm? Why do people say such contemptuous things about it, and why are they so angry about it?

I do not condone lies, but make no mistake. Atheism, as a state of mind, is a threat. The consequence of atheism is naturalism, and if naturalism is true, then our existence is objectively meaningless. There is no objective value, purpose, destiny or moral law. Sure; we can fantasize about our value, and make up lies about right and wrong; but ultimately we our reduced to a bag of cells–we just happen to be aware of it.

For some people this doesn’t matter, because they have found something to numb the reality of naturalism; a buzz, a drug, a women, a man, sex, companionship, power, or an artistic venture of sorts. Some thrive of the idea of being rational; some get their kicks from being sophisticated and popular; naturalism is perceived in some popular circles as rational sophistication. So for them, atheism might seem like a pretty good deal. But ultimately, humanity is reduced to the level of a parasitic organism which lives of the energy and pleasure of other organisms. We exploit our environment for the sake of our own pleasure like every other animal; there is no right or wrong, there is just the “human-ego”. Survival of the fittest. There is a war of ideas, and rather then there being a search for truth, we are instead caught up in a power struggle for mental dominance.

I for one, can certainly see why Atheism is a threat. However, i do sense that people have an irrational fear of it. Everybody i know, is more or less atheist.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Atheists are people who deny God and therefore can not be saved. It is a Christians duty to save souls for the worshiop of God. That is why they are angry that atheists deny God.

All souls must be saved, and it simply saddens and angers many Christians that atheists simply do not want to be saved. A person must live their life for God, not themselves, for only then can they know true peace and true freedom.

1. It’s best to not speak for God as to who is saved and who not. We teach that Jesus showed us the way to God. God may have his own means of reaching others. It is not our province to speak to it, nor exclude anyone. Such statements are furthermore entirely counterproductive of your stated intention, if indeed it is your intention to “save” souls rather than arrogantly claim your supposed superior position. I don’t presume to know of course.
2. It is the duty of every Christian when asked, to defend their beliefs by spreading the Word as they understand it. Recall that Jesus instructed his disciples to leave any town that was not interested in the message. He did not say, call them names and berate them. He said leave them alone.
3. Your personal opinion on what brings peace and freedom is laudable, but it is your opinion, nonetheless and others have every right to believe they are happy and peaceful in their own beliefs. Telling others they are wrong because they don’t believe in God is as I said counterproductive. You make people angry by your anger at them for not believing as yuou believe they should. That is not going to convince anyone.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I do not condone lies, but make no mistake. Atheism, as a state of mind, is a threat. The consequence of atheism is naturalism, and if naturalism is true, then our existence is objectively meaningless. There is no objective value, purpose, destiny or moral law. Sure; we can fantasize about our value, and make up lies about right and wrong; but ultimately we our reduced to a bag of cells–we just happen to be aware of it.

At least you have the sense to say “if it is true.” The fact is you believe it is not, but cannot prove that it is not. You also cannot speak for all those who don’t believe that their lives are meaningless and bereft of moral right and wrong. You may well feel that life with God is that. I tend to too, but it does no good to lay that on atheists. They obviously disagree, and you don’t have the right I submit to claim that they are wrong. You can claim that you believe that they are wrong. It is faith after all.

For some people this doesn’t matter, because they have found something to numb the reality of naturalism; a buzz, a drug, a women, a man, sex, companionship, power, or an artistic venture of sorts. Some thrive of the idea of being rational; some get their kicks from being sophisticated and popular; naturalism is perceived in some popular circles as rational sophistication. So for them, atheism might seem like a pretty good deal. But ultimately, humanity is reduced to the level of a parasitic organism which lives of the energy and pleasure of other organisms. We exploit our environment for the sake of our own pleasure like every other animal; there is no right or wrong, there is just the “human-ego”. Survival of the fittest. There is a war of ideas, and rather then there being a search for truth, we are instead caught up in a power struggle for mental dominance.

You have indicated why you fear it. You have not laid down any proof that they are wrong. As I said, i accept your conclusions because I happen to share them, but you cannot gain adherence ot your views by demeaning thinking people who are in every way moral and just, simply because you think they are wrong. Approach from what you believe. You cannot know anything.

 

[MindOverMatter]

At least you have the sense to say “if it is true.” The fact is you believe it is not, but cannot prove that it is not. You also cannot speak for all those who don’t believe that their lives are meaningless and bereft of moral right and wrong. You may well feel that life with God is that. I tend to too, but it does no good to lay that on atheists. They obviously disagree, and you don’t have the right I submit to claim that they are wrong. You can claim that you believe that they are wrong. It is faith after all.

You have indicated why you fear it. You have not laid down any proof that they are wrong. As I said, i accept your conclusions because I happen to share them, but you cannot gain adherence ot your views by demeaning thinking people who are in every way moral and just, simply because you think they are wrong. Approach from what you believe. You cannot know anything.

This is not about how i feel, or what i believe in; this is about logic. What i stated in my post is a neccesary concequence of believeing in naturalism. Whether people choose to accept it or not is irrelevent. If there is no God, then there is no objective good; there is only the subjective fantasies and lies that human beings made up in there heads in order to feel comfortable. If there is no good, then there is no evil. If you then call me evil, it neccesarily follows that you–my freind–are either decieved or your are a liar. One of the two.

If there is no objective purpose, then life is meaningless. You can invent your own value, purpose and morals as a person, but it remains only an invention. A fantasy. I am not trying to ridicule or put down anybody. They do that to themselves by accepting the atheistic world-veiw.
Thats just the cold reality of it, and i don’t see why the Christian should be the only one to face up to it, if it is true. In other words you can’t have your cake and eat. If you sacrfice God, then you sacrifice objective moral truth, value and meaning.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This is not about how i feel, or what i believe in; this is about logic. What i stated in my post is a neccesary concequence of believeing in naturalism. Whether people choose to accept it or not is irrelevent. If there is no God, then there is no objective good; there is only the subjective fantasies and lies that human beings made up in there heads in order to feel comfortable. If there is no good, then there is no evil. If you then call me evil, it neccesarily follows that you–my freind–are either decieved or your are a liar. One of the two.

If there is no objective purpose, then life is meaningless. You can invent your own value, purpose and morals as a person, but it remains only an invention. A fantasy. I am not trying to ridicule or put down anybody. They do that to themselves by accepting the atheistic world-veiw.
Thats just the cold reality of it, and i don’t see why the Christian should be the only one to face up to it, if it is true. In other words you can’t have your cake and eat. If you sacrfice God, then you sacrifice objective moral truth, value and meaning.

I never understand this type of argument. You can play all the games of logic you wish. Atheists have every right to believe they are moral creatures who know right from wrong. To suggest otherwise is simply inaccurate. Are you prepared to show that all atheists are locked up as criminals since they cannot know right from wrong? Again, if your purpose is to convince others that you are right, your manner does just the opposite and that is why I am so highly suspicious of such discussions. They seem more arrogant in their approach. I am better than you because …You convince no one, you convert no one, in fact you directly cause people to dig in their heels. Such could not be even in your thinking what God would want of you.

 

[Riley259]

Prominant atheists say that dwindling numbers of Christians in Europe and the West is proof that science and reason is triumphing over myth. That religion is being finally put in its place, that soon there will be no Christians (or other religious followers) and truth will be universal.

Is the falling numbers in Christanity and the growing atheism proof there is no God?

PLEASE HELP!

There’s just as many if not more believers in God than there ever was. Atheism remains a tiny minority of the population - they’ve just been successful lately at getting their message of despair out via various media channels. Don’t worry - an overwhelming amount of the population isn’t buying into it’s nihlistic philosophy.

 

[Starwynd]

Actually there are probably far more atheists than one would think. Most people who say they believe don’t really, truly believe and are just giving lip service to those who do.

 

[Riley259]

Actually there are probably far more atheists than one would think. Most people who say they believe don’t really, truly believe and are just giving lip service to those who do.

Any data to back up that assertion?

 

[Valke2]

Prominant atheists say that dwindling numbers of Christians in Europe and the West is proof that science and reason is triumphing over myth. That religion is being finally put in its place, that soon there will be no Christians (or other religious followers) and truth will be universal.

Is the falling numbers in Christanity and the growing atheism proof there is no God?

PLEASE HELP!

If every person in the world were to wake up an atheist tomorrow, that wouldn’t change the reality of God.

 

[Nullasalus]

Any data to back up that assertion?

Considering it amounts to mindreading, I doubt it.

Even in secular Europe, atheism isn’t the majority according to polls. Eurobarometer (I believe that’s the name) shows that there’s still quite a large number of people who believe either in God, or ‘some spirit or life force’ (the second one being a distinct category). Meanwhile there’s a rapidly growing number of Christians in China of all places.

I don’t think, for all the wishing on the part of its adherents, that atheism is ‘the new way’. I think confusion and uncertainty is, at least in the west. People aren’t sure what to believe, and have a dim view of the traditional answers for a variety of reasons - in my view, largely cultural or personal.

 

[bogeydogg]

I think its a more constructive conversation with atheists (which BTW my pops is an atheist) to discuss the proposition of the theist position versus the atheist position. The reason, I think, is because as Dame pointed out the atheist position does lead toward nihilism and hopelessness. I think it is much more interesting to discuss how the atheist deals with hopelessness rather than trying to bludgeon them with my ideas and convince them to conform. After all, if there is a God, and I certainly believe there is, then that truth will ultimately win out and therefore name calling and lashing out is totally useless.

One more thought, in the same way the atheist must answer some tough questions about his worldview, the theist must answer tough questions about things like evil, determinism/ fatalism, etc.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I never understand this type of argument. You can play all the games of logic you wish. Atheists have every right to believe they are moral creatures who know right from wrong. To suggest otherwise is simply inaccurate. Are you prepared to show that all atheists are locked up as criminals since they cannot know right from wrong? Again, if your purpose is to convince others that you are right, your manner does just the opposite and that is why I am so highly suspicious of such discussions. They seem more arrogant in their approach. I am better than you because …You convince no one, you convert no one, in fact you directly cause people to dig in their heels. Such could not be even in your thinking what God would want of you.

First of all; I never judged you. My only interest is the truth, and if I said it in an arrogant way, then I apologize. Secondly; I never said that atheists are incapable of knowing right from wrong or practicing law as they see it. You alone said that. And neither did i say that I can prove morality as being “objectively true” and morally binding on all humans. Objectivity and “truth” is the issue at hand. Atheists reject God because they do not think that God and his words are “objectively true”. I am merely exposing the hypocracy and thearrogance of their beliefs as Atheists. I have every right to do that.

One can certainly practice “legalism”, and say somebody is wrong according to some “invented law”, but to say that it is “objectively true” that somebody is immoral according to your personal feelings or philosophy, rather then according to God as the objective foundation of all truth, is a fallacy.

If the root of objective reality is **objective perfection **and love, then it is possible to say that something is wrong, and that it is objectively “true” that it is wrong; since you are being measured by an objective reality. A universal truth is just as true as a mathematical law, such as 2+2=4. It is always true, whether you agree with it or not; even if human beings did not exist, it would still be true. It is eternal. If there is nothing at the root of reality, “but nature”, then it is a fallacy to say that anything is wrong or that some behavior is “morally” better or abnormal in comparison to another kind of behavior, since any attempt to do so would only be an expression of you personal feeling toward reality. It is subjective. Reality itself is neutral to you intentions or emotional expressions. It is perfectly natural for people to rape kill steal and do what ever the hell they want. To say that somebody ought not to kill that old lady, is meaningless as less you are talking about some kind of trancendent objective law. It is not “wrong” to live a selfish life if God does not exist, and it is not my fault that you don’t understand my reasoning.

I guarantee you; I would not say it if I didn’t think that it followed reason. Please study this issue for you self. I for one, believe that you have value, because I believe that it is objectively true that you have value; it’s not just a personal opinion or fantasy that I made up in my head. God is not a fantasy. Objectivity far outweighs subjectivity; and to view God as just a person who merely has an opinion, desire or philosophy, is the wrong view of God as far as reason is concerned. God is not a “legalist”; God is truly “Love” and “Perfection”, and that is why we feel and know of guilt and can know of right and wrong through the gift of conscience. As a Christian, that is the only way I can understand it. Otherwise, I would find it very difficult to rationalise my belief; especailly in respect of subjects such as “Eternal hell”.