Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Which has more power at the moment: atheism/secularism or religion? Watch

    • Offline

      16
      (Original post by JCC-MGS)
      My belief that unicorns do not exist means that I am somewhat resentful of the Church to the Unicorn down the road which I see as intellectually enslaving people on a faulty premise.

      I think I'll go and burn it down to free the people from such delusions. See? I've become an extremist and I haven't mentioned thy neighbour once, because your nonsense redefinition of what constitutes a belief is just that, nonsense. I'll put it in a diagram for you since you're obviously having trouble.
      Bull****.

      You say: “My belief that unicorns do not exist means that I am somewhat resentful of the Church to the Unicorn down the road”. Syllogistically, this is horsesh*t? What don’t you try thinking for a second. You obviously need another premise here.

      As I said, again-and-again, you’re making links where none exist. I thought I made this plain, alas you continue to post your drivel. So, you can continue – by all means – giving me more examples (of unicorns and whatever pops into your head), and I’ll continue showing you how there is no causal link

      Belief that there is no God -> belief that religion is illegitimate and as a result is undeserving of its influence -> belief that agents of said illegitimate belief system should be dealt with
      Atheism says absolutely nothing about religion. You obviously don’t know what the term means. It is about the existence of God, and its truth.

      You’re fumbling once-again because you just don’t understand what the term means. Go back to my previous posts and read them slowly.

      There you go, atheist extremism in three easy steps with historical examples to boot. Feel free to lazily link some Wiki articles of logical fallacies which are only vaguely appropriate though, that **** makes you look real pro.
      Give me your historical examples and I’ll refute, just I refute your “logic”.
      • Offline

        16
        (Original post by MrGuillotine)
        Why can't you keep consistent?

        No religion claims that terrorist bombings and the killing of innocents is God's work. Their followers may erroneously believe that it's the work of God, but it is not something religion sanctions. And therefore, you're back to square one.
        You’re mistaken.

        Who are you to tell people which version of God’s word is the “right” one? Could it be because you happen to have been brought-up in a secular environment, and therefore you happen to respect certain secular values? What about the people who have been brought-up in different environments? Is their interpretation, therefore, “wrong”? Who are you to go around & arrogantly declaring that people have “erroneous” beliefs on something as contentious as the word of God! You have a single frame of interpretation, out of a potential infinite list.

        Religion doesn’t sanction anything. Religion says what people think it says. Don’t you understand that religion is all about interpretation? The people who use violence as a means to spreading Allah’s word (Jihad) genuinely believe that that is the correct interpretation. For them, that is God’s wish.

        The problem is not on my part, in terms of consistency or whatever …
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by boromir9111)
        I honestly don't care.
        Would you care enough to answer this question. What is the numerical error of a 2ml pipette error. Good Stuff.
        • Offline

          16
          (Original post by gladders)
          Speaking as an atheist myself, I think any philosophical viewpoint, be it a religion or absence thereof, or otherwise, can be hijacked by extremists and used to justifies great evils.

          There are examples of religion being used like this in the past, but then there are also ample examples of people doing amazingly selfless things, inspired by their belief in a God. It can be used to cause great pain and great relief.

          I see atheism as no less vulnerable to being hijacked by extremists.
          You have to explain to me how you get from the definition of the beliefs of an "extreme atheist" to how that very belief encourages violence.

          What does an extreme atheist mean? Surely, it means extreme scepticism over the existence of God.

          I have yet to hear anyone on this thread make the link.
          Offline

          15
          ReputationRep:
          I'd say religion is still a very powerful force and is still just as popular in the developing world.
          Offline

          3
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by blah_blah2345)
          Would you care enough to answer this question. What is the numerical error of a 2ml pipette error. Good Stuff.
          Depends on the little lines in between the big ones what they are measured up to.....e.g. +or- 0.5mm etc etc I think.
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
          Give me your historical examples and I’ll refute, just I refute your “logic”.
          Aight I'm going to skip the rest of your post because it's like I'm talking to a wall. A wall made of breeze blocks of stupid all layered on top of one another like a post-structural monument to the banality of Lord Hysteria. Explain to me how the Cult of Reason was not a group which was compelled by its atheism to violence.
          • Offline

            16
            (Original post by JCC-MGS)
            Aight I'm going to skip the rest of your post because it's like I'm talking to a wall. A wall made of breeze blocks of stupid all layered on top of one another like a post-structural monument to the banality of Lord Hysteria. Explain to me how the Cult of Reason was not a group which was compelled by its atheism to violence.
            Oh so I have the burden of proof, despite the fact that you made repeated claims to those historical examples.

            At least, you can pat yourself on the back, in being consistent with theistic logic!
            Offline

            2
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by JCC-MGS)
            Explain to me how the Cult of Reason was not a group which was compelled by its atheism to violence.
            Give the political, social and cultural turmoil rife at the time it wasn't solely it's atheistic beliefs (I always like that little oxymoron) which led to violence. Indeed, it could be argued that its leaders were just opportunistic in using the cult to further personal power and influence. In fact it could be claimed they were theistic, they in essence worshipped logic and reasoning, parallels can be drawn between the actions they took against church's and the actions the church took against Islam and even other sects of Christianity throughout history.

            However, I am no expert on the subject and the ins and outs of how the Cult of Reason justified it's 'worship' and congregation.
            Offline

            0
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
            Oh so I have the burden of proof, despite the fact that you made repeated claims to those historical examples.

            At least, you can pat yourself on the back, in being consistent with theistic logic!
            Ahahahahahahaha, so you've gone from 'I will refute any historical example you give' to 'please leave me alone'. Excellent form there brah, you're making yourself look real clever. I'm not a theist anyway.

            (Original post by Keckers)
            Give the political, social and cultural turmoil rife at the time it wasn't solely it's atheistic beliefs (I always like that little oxymoron) which led to violence. Indeed, it could be argued that its leaders were just opportunistic in using the cult to further personal power and influence. In fact it could be claimed they were theistic, they in essence worshipped logic and reasoning, parallels can be drawn between the actions they took against church's and the actions the church took against Islam and even other sects of Christianity throughout history.
            I don't know, the leaders of the Cult of Reason never exerted much political influence beyond the Hébertists so I think that any attempts to further their personal power and influence by taking up such extreme anti-clericalism would have been fairly short-sighted considering that their views had always put them somewhat on the fringes of the revolutionary movement. I don't think that you can really call their 'worship' of Reason a religious practice either, since it was only ever a worship of an aspect of themselves and to be honest I think that it was more symbolic than anything.
            • Offline

              16
              (Original post by JCC-MGS)
              Ahahahahahahaha, so you've gone from 'I will refute any historical example you give' to 'please leave me alone'. Excellent form there brah, you're making yourself look real clever.
              What? So, do you have anything for me to refute?

              If you do, then go ahead and make your case ... otherwise, go back and crawl under the stone from whence you came ...
              Offline

              0
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
              What? So, do you have anything for me to refute?

              If you do, then go ahead and make your case ... otherwise, go back and crawl under the stone from whence you came ...
              Yes, refute the claim that the Cult of Reason was driven by its atheism to violence. Do it without gleaning Keckers' post for information you had no prior knowledge of, too.
              Offline

              2
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by JCC-MGS)


              I don't know, the leaders of the Cult of Reason never exerted much political influence beyond the Hébertists so I think that any attempts to further their personal power and influence by taking up such extreme anti-clericalism would have been fairly short-sighted considering that their views had always put them somewhat on the fringes of the revolutionary movement. I don't think that you can really call their 'worship' of Reason a religious practice either, since it was only ever a worship of an aspect of themselves and to be honest I think that it was more symbolic than anything.
              I guess the issue here if whether you would class the worship of anything as theism. I'd argue that they cared far too much about the power and potential of people to be classed as Atheist. Sure they didn't believe in God, but they basically elevated themselves to the position of a deity which had the potential to exist.

              To me it's basically humanist agnosticism, if that isn't too much of a contradiction of terms.

              Back to the actual issue raised in the thread, I think that religion is starting to shout louder than it has for a good few decades in order to compete with the growing prevalence of secularism. I think that now almost everyone has a viewpoint on the limitations of both science and religion and not enough people are sitting back and asking if it all really matters that much. Sure, extremism may be on the rise (then again stories of this sort could easily just be sensationalism) but on the whole it seems as if this is because we are letting extremism become an issue.
              Offline

              1
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
              ...
              Lord Histeria, what don't you get exactly? Atheists can blow up buildings and people due to their discontent for religion just like Christians, Muslims and other religious extremists can blow up buildings and people due to their discontent for religions that oppose their own religion... I don't get what could not be understood here? Atheists can be passionate about their beliefs enough to be terrorists to gain publicity and so forth, for their beliefs... This is obvious, surely? What historical examples would you even need to prove something that could logically happen. Passion for one's beliefs sometimes encourages the use of extreme levels of violence and, even terrorism, for one to get their point across (not that I would endorse such a thing).

              In regards to the general topic, I don't think religious or non-religious values should be forced on people by the state or otherwise. How about just letting people make their own minds up?
              Offline

              0
              ReputationRep:
              I believe influence is the right word. In which case, religion, at this moment in time, has much more influence. Atheism is something which is largely prominent in western societies.

              On a side note, at one point I thought Lord Hysteria was pulling JCC-MGS' leg. He must have understood the point that was being made... surely?! :P
              Offline

              2
              ReputationRep:
              It's hard to say which one though I'd say religion has the edge. As a result of secular views, people have started to deviate, leave altogether or consider another faith. The majority of the consequences seem to be localised to the prospect of still belonging to a religion. A time will come I believe that religion will start to decrease altogether.
              Offline

              19
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
              I'm honestly not sure.

              Although more and more people seem to be leaving religion, the role religion has on the state seems to be getting stronger: proliferation of faith schools, religious hate speech legislation, the government being committed to religion, etc.

              So which one do you think has more power at the moment? And what about the future?
              oooooo! interesting question. i think it may be perceived that more people are leaving religion as our understanding of science has advanced, and so people think that religion is so much less satisfying in the way of logic and science.
              actuually, one religion where the number of people increases is Islam. there are several reasons fr this, one of which being that as far as i know, it's the only religion that does go hand in hand with scientific facts.
              for example, the Qur'an described long before the inventing of the microscope that the shape of a foetus is leech-like, which is what the scientist who first examined it using a microscope said. many centuries before the invention of telescopes, the Qur'an described the shape of the earth as being the same as an ostrich egg, and we now know that the earth, like an ostrich egg is not perfectly spherical, but more elongated horizontally. also, many scientists nowadays are concluding that the universe started from a cloud of gas, also described in the Qur'an as "dukhan"...:cool:
              Offline

              0
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by Aj12)
              When is the last time a group of atheists flew planes into a building in the name of their own skepticism of God?
              Agreed.
              Secularism reduces patriotism and willpower.
              But increases savage tribal behaviour and encourages relentless pursuit of science and knowledge.
              Offline

              19
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by Aj12)
              When is the last time a group of atheists flew planes into a building in the name of their own skepticism of God?
              that's not religion. that is simply media and a load of psychopaths hijacking planes.
              • Offline

                14
                (Original post by R£SP£CT)
                A time will come I believe that religion will start to decrease altogether.
                Why?

                (Original post by ash92:))
                actuually, one religion where the number of people increases is Islam. there are several reasons fr this, one of which being that as far as i know, it's the only religion that does go hand in hand with scientific facts.
                for example, the Qur'an described long before the inventing of the microscope that the shape of a foetus is leech-like, which is what the scientist who first examined it using a microscope said. many centuries before the invention of telescopes, the Qur'an described the shape of the earth as being the same as an ostrich egg, and we now know that the earth, like an ostrich egg is not perfectly spherical, but more elongated horizontally.
                Unfortunately you have been misinformed. An ostrich egg is a prolate spheroid while the earth is a oblate spheroid. As you can see from the pictures, they are completely different shapes. Oblate spheroids are like wheels. Prolate spheroids are like tubes.

                Of course, the average person on the street knows very little about science, especially geometry. So while most notable scientists are atheists, I don't think the general conflict of Islam/Christainity with science has much to do with religion's decline in supposedly 'educated' countries. A better correlated factor is prosperity - those (like many in the West) who have comfortable lives do not find religion as attractive compared to those who have less predictable, more uncertain lives. So, to finally answer the OP's question: secularism has more power the more developed and equal a country is, while religion still holds great power in less developed (or more unequal) countries. As most of the world is still developing, that gives great power to religion. But as the rest of the world slowly becomes more developed and equal, we can expect religion to fade away.
               
               
               
              Reply
              Submit reply
              TSR Support Team

              We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

              Updated: December 29, 2010
            • See more of what you like on The Student Room

              You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

            • Poll
              Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
              Useful resources

              Groups associated with this forum:

              View associated groups
            • See more of what you like on The Student Room

              You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

            • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

              Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

              Quick reply
              Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.