Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't know. Are they? Let's see what this atheist has to say ... and consider the extent to which his recommendations (for other atheists and by proxy, for Christians) are wrong or right!
The organization effect is more of an effort to provide a community for people who don’t believe in God but can’t tell their family or friends for fear of being ostracized. The effort to “spread the good news” is, in turn, to make it so atheists aren’t at such a risk of being so ostracized. Atheists would prefer not to need to organize at all.Why do atheists even care if we believe? It seems like they are organized and making a joint effort to spread the good news of atheism. I don't get why unless they really do believe that something is wrong with theists.
The organization effect is more of an effort to provide a community for people who don’t believe in God but can’t tell their family or friends for fear of being ostracized. The effort to “spread the good news” is, in turn, to make it so atheists aren’t at such a risk of being so ostracized. Atheists would prefer not to need to organize at all.
Why do atheists even care if we believe? It seems like they are organized and making a joint effort to spread the good news of atheism. I don't get why unless they really do believe that something is wrong with theists.
political hegemony of Christianity
Oh yeah...the churchianity...thing.
Emperor Constantine and the Roman emperors who followed after him installed Christianity into the political modus operandi of the Romanized legal structures of that time
Thanks Silmarien! I enjoyed the guy's little 'reverse-sermonette' he offered to fellow atheists. Some of what he said also could be useful for Christians to hear. I'm with you in thinking that his evolution rhetoric might not be the best way to analogize how some religious doctrines and practices have undergone derivative, micro-permutations during the centuries. But in the case of long-lived religions like Christianity and Hinduism, among others, its not like he's making things up out of whole cloth. I mean, one doesn't need to read, for instance, John Henry Cardinal Newman's book, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, to know that there have been some interesting interpolations later made from the earliest Christian articulations.I mostly liked the video, though had some qualms about his comments about religions evolving. They're not organisms; they don't undergo natural selection in the same way a species would. As long as the development of the religion is recorded, it's very easy to study it and make corrections for later reinterpretation. Obviously this wasn't possible when people didn't have access to information, but it is now. The past is still with us--it hasn't been eliminated, so the evolution of species isn't a very good comparison here.
Oh, there was no real pressing reason for doing so. I just kind of casually caught wind of this video earlier today and I was later inspired by others here to ... post it.Anyway, dare I ask why you posted this? I haven't seen any atheists around here shrieking that we're all crazy lately, but I suppose I've been busy.
Oh yes, the Sunday, Easter, Christmas, etc...appendages...the "evolution" of religion the guy in the video talks about. It's funny how atheists, who are evolutionists (I think all are?), are fighting against religio-evolution.
I don't know. Are they fighting against religio-evolution?
Yes, it could be, but I get the sense from what Genetically Modified Skeptic says in his video in the OP, he is somewhat less concerned than some atheists are with the possibility that religion will continue to stick around, and I'd count that as a good thing. I'm thinking he'd actually like to see both sides bicker less and learn how to work together for the common good more.Well, if the full politicization of religion (or religionization of politics?) is the next big step why, "Some would like to see the political hegemony of Christianity diminish in the world"? The guy in the video says that religion has been with man since his beginning...maybe it isn't just some undesirable mutation, but the key to man's evolutionary ascent.
*Maybe the very thing that has led to man's consciousness...
like to see both sides bicker less and learn how to work together for the common good more
I think that Christians (particularly the... well, just most of them) would do well to accept that irreligion is just as "natural" as religion, and not per se evil, depraved, reprobate, sinful, disgusting, rebellious, criminal, immoral... you get my point?This would be great...both groups would have to agree on just what this is. Hopefully the ideal common ground doesn't become a war zone. I think that atheists (particularly the hostile ones) would do well to accept religion as being more natural to man than irreligion.
I liked it. We atheists should be more open to criticisms of our arguments. I mean clearly, theists are so bad at arguing, we'd never have a flaw in our argumentation pointed out to us if we relied solely on them to find one. We need to have our fellow atheists, the pinnacle of all things logical, critically examine our arguments if we ever want to claim they have any merit.
I think that Christians (particularly the... well, just most of them) would do well to accept that irreligion is just as "natural" as religion, and not per se evil, depraved, reprobate, sinful, disgusting, rebellious, criminal, immoral... you get my point?
But I have a few other problems with your approach.
I agree with GMS' argument from the video that religion is not a "mental illness". It is not a "psychological abnormality", like Philo called in in the thread title. It is "natural". It is "normal".
But I think that is, for the most part, and especially for apologetic discussions, a completely irrelevant argument.
Something being "natural" doesn't say anything else about it. It just explains the origin.
By now, we should know that "natural" does not mean "good" or even "preferable". It's a fallacious argument to equate these.
And by far does "natural" not mean "correct" or "truthful".
So even if religion and religious thought is "normal" and "natural"... should me follow it? Should we promote it? And, what kind of "religion"?
Somehow, everyone seems to come to the, erm, "natural" reaction of: "Why, mine, of course!"
Atheists should not use the argument of "Religion is a mental illness".
But in the same way, theists should not use the argument of "Religion is natural and normal".
Hm? I think I said - and I quote:So, if religion [Christianity specifically] isn't "natural" or "normal," then what is it?
So I don't know what you are trying to ask.[Religion] is "natural". It is 'normal'.
Whoops! My mistake. I misread that last line of yours, thinking you had said, "...atheists should not use the argument of "Religion is natural and normal".Hm? I think I said - and I quote:
So I don't know what you are trying to ask.
Ok, I find this to be a reasonable assertion on your part, and I think I can hang with this Kantian type of analysis you're offering.But it allows me to add a little thought that I might not have expressed correctly in the last post.
"Religious thought" is natural and normal. The "idea" of religion, of conscious agents beyond the observable sphere, of "powers" and "deities" and "spirits"... that is based on human nature. And because the vast majority of humans have that basic human nature... it is "normal".
Though... curiosity and skepticism, the quest for ever further, ever new answers is also based on human nature, and is something that the vast majority of humans share. So irreligiosity is also "natural" and "normal".
Mmmm. I don't know. Where does the 'artificiality' end, then?But, to go back to your question, that is about the foundation, not the specifics. Every specific "religion" is a human construct. It is based on human ideas, human perceptions, human inventions and human needs and wants. It is based on a "natural" foundation, but is in itself artificial.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?