SecularFuture

Wildernesse,
Secularists are growing with the world around them. We are not locked into ancient, outdated, magical, concepts.

And yes – “religionist” is a real word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religionist

Not all, but many.

You make a good point. I forgot about that when I made the thread. Secular religions are the only acceptable ones though.

Think about it. If our thinking was more realistic and critical in it’s approach, imagine all that we would be able to accomplish and develop.

Only because we choose to be. We are afraid of reality (chaos). This is one of the many reasons we invented gods to begin with.

And what’s wrong with secular thinking? Not a damn thing.

Restoring an old car is a productive (non-destructive) act. Believing in the supernatural is a destructive act. Nothing satisfying can come from believing in unfounded supernatural concepts.

You’re right. To me it all adds up to how much time you use or waste. Watching TV isn’t ½ as bad as believing in a magical god concept.

Sane people of intelligence and status.

I only want theism to go away. It is ruining our minds, and holding us back from true progress.

There would still be a variety.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Old Man
Humanism is a belief in all humanity as humanity, not gods.

No there doesn’t need to always be a god. We only need government and law enforcement.

And why not? Happiness, and rational thought, would both increase if the god concept(s) went away. Take a look at the U.S.A., for example. Some of the officials may blab from their religious scripture once in awhile, but, overall, the U.S.A. is a secular nation. It is run by a government, and not a church. Think about it.

wildernesse

Growing with the world around them. Ok. I'm not quite sure what that means.

Any word that conveys meaning is a real word. I just think its funny.

To you. I don't know that I find your ideas at all valid. What do you consider a secular religion and what makes you think that it would be less dogmatic than theistic religions.

I doubt it would be much different.

Who chose to invent the first god? This is like choosing to evolve. People don't choose to react irrationally or emotionally. Most people have to make a concerted effort to control their emotions and evaluate situations rationally. Even people who have always been atheists have emotional attachments. I think that rational thought is chosen and learned, but that our default humanity is irrational and emotional.

I didn't say anything was wrong with secular thinking--I just don't think that it is naturally superior to non-secular thinking.

Restoring an old car is stupid--go buy a new one that is more efficient and less likely to need continual maintenance. Overall it is not productive compared to the alternatives. I find great satisfaction in my beliefs, so I find your second statement false. Please show me how my personal beliefs are destroying your world.

In your opinion.

I'm sure.


In your opinion, again. What is "true progress"?


--tibac

SecularFuture

wildernesse
Secularists, typically, accept new concepts quicker than those attached to theistic religions like Christianity. There are still many Christians today who refuse to accept macroevolution and big bang theories because they contradict their unfounded beliefs. I’m sorry – but – that just sounds a bit crazy to me. To hold to an idea that is without evidence or reason, and to deny an idea that is with evidence and reason does not seem very logical or intelligent. (And if my grammar is bad, please forgive me. I’m kind of in a rush. Lots of work to finish.)

Yeah. It is a funny word, isn’t it? I don’t like using it [religionist] too much.

Okay – okay... Maybe I was talking out of my ass when I made that statement. What I meant to say was: “The world would be better without superstition and theism. The world would be better if our thoughts were not locked into ancient concepts.”

It wasn’t a decision. The concept evolved, long ago, before we were able to give naturalistic explanation to the things we couldn’t explain. I explain a lot of this in a report I wrote. You can find it here if you’re interested.
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/search_for_god.html

I know – I know. My wording was messed up. I’m doing better this time around.

Theistic thinking can never be considered logical. Without evidence or reason, theistic thinking is, by default, devoid of logic.

You make a point. But to some people there is a kind of artistic satisfaction that comes from restoring an old car. It’s art. It’s not a religion.

By holding back progress. Without theism our thinking would become more critical and logical, and through critical analysis and logic we would be able to find more efficient solutions to our everyday problems. Instead of wasting time praying for help, we would have the confidence to act for ourselves.

Everyone has their own definition.

wildernesse

Early adapters are not necessarily adapting the best overall technology.


I disagree. In fact, I like being locked into some ancient concepts like democracy and the alphabet.


[quote][b]It wasn’t a decision. The concept evolved, long ago, before we were able to give naturalistic explanation to the things we couldn’t explain. I explain a lot of this in a report I wrote. You can find it here if you’re interested.
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/search_for_god.html[b][quote]


I don't know that you can "invent" something on accident. You can discover something accidently--even while intentionally trying to invent something else, but I don't think that you can invent anything unintentionally. So you're right, it wasn't a decision neither can you call it an invention.

If there is a supernatural, why should it be a logical entity. Why should logic be necessary outside of this natural world.


How? I am a theist. How do my particular views hold back progress. Can you tell me? If you can't enumerate anything, isn't it illogical to continue to assert that I am holding back progress without proof.

Critical thinking and logic must be taught. It does not follow that no religion means more education for all to be taught these skills. Show me how the benevolent actions of believers cancel the much smaller time they might spend praying/meditating.


Then how can you say that theists are stopping true progress if you have no definition.

--tibac

SecularFuture

wildernesse
I thought you were talking about happiness for some reason. I haven’t slept in awhile. After this response I’m going to bed. I will return tomorrow morning.

I go by the dictionary’s definition of progress:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=progress

Early adapters are closer to advanced solutions than the late adapters.

There is reason and evidence to support the efficiency of our alphabet. There is no evidence or reason to support any of the god(s) concepts. Another plus for our alphabet – we can see it.

Is there evidence or reason to believe in the supernatural? No. You can only believe in the supernatural through a religious faith.

By holding to a belief in a god you are not holding firm to a belief in realism. Without realism we only have soft ideas without any true / hard significance.

The further a philosophy is from humanism, the further it is from contributing to the well being of humankind. That’s, essentially, a fact.

Fiach

I am an unbeliever. I am not sure whether I qualify as Atheist or Agnostic. Christianity and Islam are very evil systems in my opinion.

But religion which includes superstition and myth in a combined system is so prevalent, 80% of today’s world population as to suggest a genetic basis. Why? The fact that is seems to be genetic, and so widespread, suggests that it has been at least in the past an evolutionary adaptive process that aided survival of humans and their out competition of the other near-humans.

Religion satisfies certain needs. Humans are insecure if we don't know something. Early man was "mystified" by fresh water springs, volcanoes, rainfall, wind, flowing rivers, how we think, and the phenomena of our traveling elsewhere during sleep (dreaming.) Science was far into the future yet. So man needed a hypothesis as a world view. Spirits. That is it. Spirits make springs, wind, volcanoes, and operate animal and human bodies. They escape our body in sleep and travel to other places and past times. It made some primitive sense. Gradually spirits merged into gods. Over time gods merged into fewer bigger gods, then one God. God to the mediaeval peasant explained all mysteries. "God did it" or "God created it."

A side effect was that groups tended toward conformity. It wasn't good for everyone to believe in different gods and spirits. So social pressures led to conformity. Gradually social evolution selected out genetic traits to conformists. Non-conformists couldn't marry Ogh's daughter, so a conformist did, and those genes were passed on. Eventually these socio-psychological trends led to enforced, strict conformity of belief. This led to a class of enforcers, Priests/Shamans, to interpret the correct beliefs and rituals. Tribal chieftains had more authority if they were approved by the shamans.

Authority and conformity of these evolving religious tribal Mesolithic groups concentrated certain traits. These included willing submission to authority. The Chieftains liked this, and the shamans did as well. People became more obedient, more cohesive, more accepting of authority figures. Deviation was likely to bring disfavour of the gods and their shamans. Heresy was likely to face capital punishment or the equivalent of banishment. Again the genes became concentrated. Tribes with the most obedient, cohesive, organised, and angry at heretics/infidels would have a psychological advantage and strategic advantage in wars against less disciplined less organised, less obedient, less religious tribes who might well be exterminated. (Example: triumphs of the Monotheistic rigid, obedient Israelites over the polytheistic, more tolerant Canaanites.)

It might be that without myth/superstition (religion) in an organised system, many may not have progressed from H. erectus or palaeolithic cultures to more advanced ones. Other humans like H. habilis, H. erectus, and H. neanderthalis might still be around along with small groups of H. sapiens. Maybe we would still be chipping stones today.

This system worked well up through the onset of civilisation to modern civilisation. Then conditions themselves changed. The behaviour of the religious tribe has become destructive, and the leading cause of bloody wars.

There were always recessive children born without the religious gene. I am one of them. In the past we either kept quiet or were killed by the religious people. Now secular societies have permitted more of us to survive and even admit our unbelief with only limited risk. Today, the world would definitely be better if sceptics and freethinkers were the majority. We might have more scientific advancement, social justice, freedom, and artistic advancement if there were no more religion/superstition/myth.

Having said that, I point out that we may not have evolved, and eliminated our rivals, and survived in pre-technological societies in a dangerous world of predators, if not for the traits accompanying religion. Many have even noted a sexual connection of sexuality and religion. Religiosity is associated with higher birth rates. They were more disciplined, obedient, cohesive, and motivated to kill infidel’s tribes leading eventually to one race of humans surviving.

Conclusion: Organised Myth/superstition = Religion may have been critical in human pre-industrial evolution. But now it is a force of war, hatred, killing, and intolerance. It is a foe of knowledge and inquiry. It belittles rational thinking. Once adaptive, it is now a threat to our continued existence unless we have time for evolution to select it out and eliminate it


Fiach

SecularFuture

Before I go for the day, I want to leave you all with one simple question.

Do you think it would be healthy for an adult, 21+, to hold to a firm belief in Santa Clause and/or The Tooth Fairy? If yes, why? If no, why?

Dr Rick

Religion and theism impart an illogical way of thinking that carries over into everyday life for many people; it impedes rational inquiry. People might replace religion and theism with something just as irrational, but without religion & theism, humans would have one less set or irrational thoughts to befuddle their minds.

Irrational beliefs do make life interesting, but not in a good way. People with irrational beliefs sometimes tend to go at eachother in very violent ways over differences in their irrational beliefs. Without religion and theism, humans would have one less set of reasons to hurt others.

Rick

sourdough

without religion there could be Heaven on Earth long time ago.
religion stood in the way of every modern thinking,progress and improvement of life,it makes people stupid by teaching lies and superstitious nonsense.
if it wasn't for free thinkers/atheists,we would still be living in caves praying over sick and thinking that the world is flat.
religions only purpose is to enslave/control peoples minds and exploit them financialy,thats why it won't disapear any time soon.

wildernesse

So, what is the goal? Elimination of theistic thought? Yes, then I guess I am stopping progress. But I thought we were talking about something real--like world hunger or public health.

They're still ancient concepts--which you seem very much against.

Really? This is another one of those "growing with the world around them" statements. It doesn't make much sense. You haven't proven that soft ideas prohibit progress (and progress towards what goal?). I'm looking for concrete ways that I prohibit the greater good of humanity.


How does this relate to the benevolent actions of theists? I would think that those actions support humanistic ideals. I don't see how praying detracts from benevolent actions anymore than bathing does.

--tibac