Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

[It aint necessarily so]

Lincoln wrote:

Atheism declined to the level of Monty Python?

Have you seen The Life Of Brian?

https://www.youtube.com/watch... [Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life]

[It aint necessarily so]

Lincoln wrote:

Christianity seems strong in the US?

You have no intention of looking at those statistics, do you?

[Lincoln]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
Have you seen The Life Of Brian?
https://www.youtube.com/watch... [Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life]

Yes thought is was funny.

"Dr. Strangelove" a favorite

[It aint necessarily so]

Pietro Armando wrote:

"The Church and Science." We have all heard a great deal about the Church's alleged hostility toward science. What most people fail to realize is that historians of science have spent the past half-century drastically revising this conventional wisdom, arguing that the Church's role in the development of Western science was far more salutary than previously thought.

It is all very well to point out that important scientists, like Louis Pasteur, have been Catholic. More revealing is how many priests have distinguished themselves in the sciences. It turns out, for instance, that the first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body was Fr. Giambattista Riccioli.

Of course secular enterprises like science were developed by theists. Who else was there to break free from the church if virtually everybody was a believer under its influence?

And none of this establishes a role for the church in science. If theists were doing good science - even when inventing it - they were functioning as rationalists and empiricists, not fideists.

Faith based systems of thought don't deserve credit for the development of science.

[It aint necessarily so]

Pietro Armando wrote:

To say that the Church played a positive role in the development of science has now become absolutely mainstream, even if this new consensus has not yet managed to trickle down to the general public.

Hardly. The church gets no credit for the fact that some clergy dared to be rationalists and empiricists while under its employ.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Non-Christian cultures did not possess the same philosophical tools, and in fact were burdened by conceptual frameworks that hindered the development of science.

Here's your church's legacy:

[1] "For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." - 1 Corinthians 1:19

[2] "He said, "Go and tell this people: "'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.”- Isaiah 6:9

[3] "Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed." - Isaiah 6:10

[4] "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn." - St. Augustine

[5]”Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." - Martin Luther

[6] "They were allowed to stay there on one condition, and that is that they didn't eat of the tree of knowledge. That has been the condition of the Christian church from then until now. They haven't eaten as yet, as a rule they do not." - Clarence Darrow

[7]”The gods offer no rewards for intellect. There was never one yet that showed any interest in it.”- Mark Twain

[8] "So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." - Bertrand Russell

[9]“We would be 1,500 years ahead if it hadn't been for the church dragging science back by its coattails and burning our best minds at the stake.”- Catherine Fahringer

[It aint necessarily so]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
Bull Crud .... Christian apologist's denial bull crap. Most recently published in Rodney Stark’s The Victory of Reason and debunked in
The Tragedy of Theology: How Religion Caused and Extended the Dark Ages
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/20...
REALLY!! Christians want us to forget the first thing they did out of the gate was to butcher the most prominent Librarian of the time (Hypatia of Alexandria) and burn the library.

Nice link. Thanks.

[Ooogah Boogah]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice link. Thanks.

How doin' Ians? Good to see ya!

[pinch111]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Ans.
01. You are right truth is not proven by majority or minority . Truth is always right be it in majority or in minority. But I am speaking about the "modern concept of Democracy" where if you are in Majority, you get right to rule. I was commenting on that aspect of Atheists being in minority.
02. Why you blame religions? Have Atheists been able to solve the "riddle of death"? Have they any "prove" that there is no life after death? Are they able to "prove" how every thing got created?
Not giving correct answers and then blaming the religious people, is a very unreasonable and illogical thing, in my view.
03. No one knows what is reality behind CIA figures. People comment on what info leaks out in the press and media.
No one knows the true position.
But they a Crime Syndicate, no doubt.Yes you are right Atheists can not prove there is no life after death anymore than religions can prove there is,which is why i sway to a more agnostic view and say i do not know and i know that nobody else does either,best to just get on with and enjoy what you can be sure of,this life you are in.

Yes you are right atheists can not prove there is no life after death any more than religions or anyone else can prove there is,there is no shame in being Agnostic on this or anything else and just say 'i don't know' safe in the knowledge that if any one else says they do know there is life after death they are either a liar,deluded,or madly brainwashed by religion.Best to get on with and enjoy what you are sure of,the life you are in.Take your right thumb and index finger of your right hand pinch a portion of skin on the back of your left hand between your index finger and thumb joints,now twist, if it hurts you are alive,join the club.Enjoy life.

[Langoliers]

Adam wrote:

<quoted text>The scientific evidence is that the universe was created in a big bag c.13.7 billion years ago. Life evolved on planet earth over 3.8 billion years from simple forms to complex life we see today.

The myths of the bible and the quran has been proved false. The universe and life was not created in 6 days 6000 years ago.

"The myths of the bible and the quran has been proved false"

Do you fall for your own lies? LOL

Dolt.

[Fitz]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
Hardly. The church gets no credit for the fact that some clergy dared to be rationalists and empiricists while under its employ.
<quoted text>

Its commonley understood amoung serious scholars (not anti-religious bigots) that the Church was the font of our sciuentific enlightenment. Unlike other religions the Christian religion believed ina God who made a descernable universe capable of being understood by mans intleeigence (because it was made by a rational god)

It is this point that is most used to explain why the western world had such a huge advancment in the creation and fruits of science.

The developed the rules of evidences, the scientific method, the university system, and countless scientist were and still are believing Christians.. Including Gallileo, who proofs for heleocentrism were infact flawed and did not prove what was already widley understood since copernicus as probably true but not yet demostratable through impirical proofs.

The Church does get credit for fostering intentionally the scientists under its direct imploy and for encouraging, financing and fostering the discipline of the sciences for their earliest inception and of coarse continuing today.

[Langoliers]

Adam wrote:

<quoted text>Atheists and other free thinkers, believe in lots of different things. Its just that the things they believe in are based in reality and not on myths and fantasy.

"Atheists and other free thinkers, believe in lots of different things."

be·lieve\bə-ˈlēv\
intransitive verb
1 a : to have a firm religious faith

Yes we know.

[Ooogah Boogah]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
Its commonley understood amoung serious scholars (not anti-religious bigots) that the Church was the font of our sciuentific enlightenment. Unlike other religions the Christian religion believed ina God who made a descernable universe capable of being understood by mans intleeigence (because it was made by a rational god)
It is this point that is most used to explain why the western world had such a huge advancment in the creation and fruits of science.
The developed the rules of evidences, the scientific method, the university system, and countless scientist were and still are believing Christians.. Including Gallileo, who proofs for heleocentrism were infact flawed and did not prove what was already widley understood since copernicus as probably true but not yet demostratable through impirical proofs.
The Church does get credit for fostering intentionally the scientists under its direct imploy and for encouraging, financing and fostering the discipline of the sciences for their earliest inception and of coarse continuing today.

The Church locked up Galileo and threatened to further prosecute him for crimes of heresy if he continued teaching his Heliocentric "nonsense". This is how the Church "supported" scientific advancement.

[ToManyLaws]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
The Church locked up Galileo and threatened to further prosecute him for crimes of heresy if he continued teaching his Heliocentric "nonsense". This is how the Church "supported" scientific advancement.

For 400 years or so religion held back progress....Imagine we could be on star ships travleing the galaxy by now...We lost close to 400 years of advancement because of religion...Even today they hold us back..

[Langoliers]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>Empty words mouthed mechanically and perfunctorily.

Look for that kind of mindless verbal litter to disappear shortly after people like me outnumber people like you in America.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

This statement in The Declaration of Independence shows that we get unalienable Rights because we have a creator. You don't get them because you have no creator.

[Langoliers]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>Someday, Mr. Disney will be appreciated as the prophet that he truly was:

[1a][Disneic prophecy] http://snipurl.com/108iuq [image]
[1b][The news] http://snipurl.com/25tn3rc [image]

[2a][Disneic prophecy] http://snipurl.com/25tn47m
[2b][The news] http://snipurl.com/25tn4eu [image]

[3a][Disneic prophecy] http://snipurl.com/266za0y
[3b][The news] http://snipurl.com/25tn74q

While I enjoyed your joke a doubt that Mr. Disney will ever be know as a prophet.

[Langoliers]

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>I agree, but I think you mean "big bang" and not "big bag!" Sorry, not calling you out on a typo, but I just thought it was funny. In a way, I suppose it was a really big bag! Cheers.

It is funny, I've done it many times myself hit the post key and in that second you see a typo that you can no long do a dang thing about. I just hate that.

[Ooogah Boogah]

ToManyLaws wrote:

<quoted text>
For 400 years or so religion held back progress....Imagine we could be on star ships travleing the galaxy by now...We lost close to 400 years of advancement because of religion...Even today they hold us back..

More like 1500, but who's counting?

[Rose_NoHo]

albtraum wrote:

<quoted text>
True! Stephen King usually sets his stories in Maine.....much more interesting stories at that.

Well, then all of his stories that happened in Maine must be true!:)

[Rose_NoHo]

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "
"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
This statement in The Declaration of Independence shows that we get unalienable Rights because we have a creator. You don't get them because you have no creator.

No, it shows that' what they believed. Doesn't mean it's true.

[Langoliers]

albtraum wrote:

<quoted text>Looked there, didn't find those statistics bub. Can you provide a link to the actual page?

Here's a link:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/compuswrld....

taken from a book of facts also. Atheism 12.5% not accounting for Buddhism, agnoticism, etc.

Buddhism is not an enemy of religion as atheism is believed to be. Buddhism, indeed, is the enemy of none. A Buddhist will recognize and appreciate whatever ethical, spiritual and cultural values have been created by God-belief in its long and checkered history. We cannot, however, close our eyes to the fact that the God-concept has served too often as a cloak for man's will to power, and the reckless and cruel use of that power, thus adding considerably to the ample measure of misery in this world supposed to be an all-loving God's creation. For centuries free thought, free research and the expression of dissident views were obstructed and stifled in the name of service to God. And alas, these and other negative consequences are not yet entirely things of the past.

The word "atheism" also carries the innuendo of an attitude countenancing moral laxity, or a belief that man-made ethics, having no divine sanction, rest on shaky foundations. For Buddhism, however, the basic moral law is inherent in life itself. It is a special case of the law of cause and effect, needing neither a divine law-giver nor depending upon the fluctuating human conceptions of socially conditioned minor moralities and conventions. For an increasing section of humanity, the belief in God is breaking down rapidly, as well as the accustomed motivations for moral conduct. This shows the risk of basing moral postulates on divine commandments, when their alleged source rapidly loses credence and authority. There is a need for an autonomous foundation for ethics, one that has deeper roots than a social contract and is capable of protecting the security of the individual and of human institutions. Buddhism offers such a foundation for ethics.