Any other atheists here? Some frustration

[denuseri]

oh Thorne i dissagree sir,
it is the very questions that each religion is attempting to answer in its own way, by each religions begining its birf and subsequent struggle often over a long period of history to formulate its dogma,, (much like science)

just because the big three (christians, jews, and muslims) claim to whorship the same god, doesnt mean the rest of the hundreds of religions do so, nor does it mean that all of thier answers/ questions are written in stone,, i just mean that the proccesss of questions brings new religions to the scene in thier own attempts to answer and or ask the questions that previous religions did not or failed to answer specifically enough,

if there is some asscociation between thier dieties, mabey its because they have come to a consences of sorts, much like scientists do, like: most all scientists now days agree the wolrd revolves around the sun, where as in the past they did not

new religions and belief systems are developed all the time, some in very recent history, new sects of christians etc too, look at the new angelican church with its recent break from the old order on the question of homosexuals in the church, or look at the scientology, a very recently developed religion, or for that matter the new age wiccan movement, or even my own religion bahai, another (relativly new arrival historically speaking) thier are also many differential differences in hindu , buddist and shinto beliefs complete with on going rivalries etc.

as for the experimental side of religion, we each and everyone of us preform our own experiment as we live our lives, even if you choose to be an athiest you are part of the religious experment, (mabey as a control group lol)
case in point, i am born jewish, yet raised lutheran, but studdied budism and still practice its tantric sects forms, while embracing my faith in bahai,

we are each like ongoing religious experiments, some mutat or change one form for another others stick to the status quo of thier upbringings and yet others choose to reject the concepts of divinity

i agree it seems as if most religions appear to nopt be asking questions, so much as saying this is how it is,, but each time a new sect forms or a entirely new religion forms it does indeed attempt to answer the questions that its predessesors asked etc often building on thier work, as for proof, we could argue all day about recordable proof of the divine, i know some buddists that have no problems with the idea of a diety and or science co existing

i will however agree that at least in most cases regaurding religion without that "leap of faith" exposed by Keirkagaurd , all yu have is speculation

does a divine being exist? we could argue all day,,,,,,,allmost as much as i would argue with you that a single asteroid didnt destroy the dinosaurs

[Thorne]

denuseri, I think what you are calling religion should more aptly be called faith. There are, indeed, many different faiths in the world, and people are always modifying their faith to better reflect their own attitudes and beliefs. Religion, on the other hand, tends to codify belief systems, cast them in stone, as it were, and then persecute those who try to diverge from that system. Yes, I realize this is extremely generalized, but it's how I view them.

There is no valid reason that faith and science cannot coexist, as you have said. In fact, there is much in science that we do take on faith, to one extent or another. As an example, science tells us that the world is round, not flat. Our eyes tell us the opposite, but we generally accept, on faith, that the scientists are telling us the truth. There are experiments which we, as lay people, can perform which demonstrate the validity of this statement, but the vast majority of people don't bother to perform them. It's not really necessary. Those experiments have been performed, and documented, by so many others that I, for one, am willing to accept that the world is, indeed, round.

But when it comes to a divine deity, a supreme being, the only evidence which can be presented is hearsay. There is no experiment which can show that God, or Jupiter, or Zeus, or Odin really exists. It is something which must be taken on faith. And I am not willing to do that.

Of course the opposite is true as well. I cannot, nor can anyone else, prove that God does not exist. All we can say is that there is no concrete evidence to support the idea of his existence. One can believe either way and not necessarily be wrong, or right.

With religion, however, you are accepting the tenets which that religion is formed on, and that includes the absolute, positive, no doubt belief that God exists. There's no room for doubt, no room for argument, they say it is so and you'd damned well better believe it, or else. This is the exact opposite of science. And this I cannot, and will not, accept.

Again, their are always exceptions, and I feel that the newer religions, those which have started up completely on their own, like Scientology, or those which have broken away from other, more established religions, tend to be less rigid in their belief systems, more willing to accept some latitude, at least in minor issues. But the older, more established, and larger religions have maintained their systems for so long, and over such a large population, that there is little room for variations. That's why groups break away from them, after all.

[Thorne]

allmost as much as i would argue with you that a single asteroid didnt destroy the dinosaurs

I'm taking this one on separately, as I don't know if it belongs in a religion thread.

No one claims, with absolute certainty, that a single asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs. In fact, there are still dinosaurs alive today. Alligators and crocodiles, as well as sharks and some other sea creatures, are virtually unchanged from 100 million years ago.

But there is evidence to suggest that the asteroid which struck the Yucatan Peninsula 65 million years ago caused such a disruption in the Earth's climate that the large dinosaurs, the "thunder lizards" died out. There is ample evidence to show that an asteroid did, indeed, strike the Earth at that time. There are calculations which show that it would have had to be of a certain mass striking at a certain speed in order to have covered the globe with the debris layer which scientists have found. And to date there is no evidence to show that any large populations of dinosaurs (other than those few which I mentioned) survived past that impact period.

I don't claim to have the type of education which would allow me to interpret the kinds of data that is being discussed here, but I know that there are many scientists who do have that education and who do agree with the interpretation.And there are many who do not agree. By studying both sides of the issue I have come to the conclusion that this particular asteroid strike was most likely responsible for the ultimate extinction of most of the Earth's species. The arguments in favor make more sense to me than those against.

That does not mean that this is a fact! It's just a theory, and evidence could turn up tomorrow which will overturn it. That's the beauty of science. We are always learning new things, and sometimes the old things are tossed out like old garbage. They don't fit anymore.

[companioncube#3]

Hello, everyone. I'll start by saying that this is my first post in these forums, and that I'm happy to have found a thread of like-minded people. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that those with unconventional appetites for the physical are also intellectually curious, untamed, creative and interesting. Still, critical thinkers are, in my experience, rare enough that to encounter any number of them in one place delivers unabashed joy to me. So, thank you to everyone.

My one disappointment is that almost everyone here is more-or-less in agreement (where are the evangelical wingnuts or new-age flakes when you need them? I refuse to believe that they don't also crave a good spanking every now and again). Moreover, where I am inclined to disagree - for instance, I think denuseri is wrong to characterize science as a "belief" system - Thorne has already voiced my opinions, and probably more eloquently than I could. But perhaps I can offer some unique insight.

I was raised Roman Catholic and went to a religious private high school. It was the kind of school that maintained strong ties to traditional values while offering an entirely secular education. I was not taught by nuns, evolution was sacrosanct in biology class and my religion class would be better characterized as a study in ethics and the history of world religions. That being said, we started the day with a prayer and attended mass every Tuesday. We did tons of charity work but our charities were not tied to any particular religion. All this to say, although I had by this time decided that I was an atheist I enjoyed my time there, and I credit the religious mission of the school indirectly. My family life was not great, and the religiously-grounded traditions gave the school a real sense of community and common purpose. It was an environment that made me feel welcome and safe (and I was the kind of student who argued for atheism in religion class and championed the Liberal cause at debating tournaments; I could not have been more of an outsider philosophically).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while religion, and indeed all dogma which presumes to elevate itself above criticism, is contemptible if only for their arrogance in so elevating themselves above other ideas, political, social and spiritual alike, I understand the appeal. And although Enlightenment-inspired reverence of the individual is inherently attractive to someone as misanthropic as I am (sometimes), I do not think that we can ignore the fact that we are (and I think this is a scientifically sound statement) a small-group, socially inclined animal which has evolved to thrive in strong, small communities. I think it is for this reason that otherwise sane, intelligent, educated people flock to what Dawkins might call citadels of silliness on Sundays to partake in the ritual cannibalism and worship of a cracker. People give in because this is what ties them to their neighbour, this is what ties them to their parents, and this is what defines them culturally. It's a sense of belonging, more than anything else, that I think organized religion offers people that is so seductive.

It's for this reason that I occasionally find the militant-atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, Meyers and the rest a little shrill and counterproductive to their own cause. People aren't going to stop worshipping a cracker because you laugh at them can call them stupid for worshipping a cracker. They're going to stop when our culture generates new social structures which strengthen the community in much the same way that religions have for the past two centuries. I know in some cities there are "humanist community centers" where like-minded individuals and families gather every weekend to eat, laugh, exchange ideas and organize charitable events. This is the kind of thing I hope will catch on and grow.

But don't misunderstand. I am a fan of Dawkins and his ilk most of the time. Their flagrant irreverence for religious silliness is important, if only to illustrate the point that, in a democratic society, no idea is sacred.