• UK: The non-religious now outnumber the religious
    98 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mingebox;50396909]Spiritualism based on naturalism? What?[/QUOTE] [URL="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_naturalism"]spiritual naturalism[/URL] is a real thing
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;50395757]Quite sad to hear in some respects after reminiscing about having to sing prayers and songs in primary school.[/QUOTE] My only memories of Hymns are from secondary school, I was forced to sit crosslegged on a rock hard sports floor with 800 other kids litterally packed in like sardines held in place by the damn door, and when kids who were 5ft tall found it cramped imagine the torture i had to endure as a 6ft giant (yes i was stupdily tall when i was 15, I was like gandalf amongst hobbits). I'd imagine that's a minorty experience though, but remeniscing about hymns and prayers is not something I do
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50397019][URL="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_naturalism"]spiritual naturalism[/URL] is a real thing[/QUOTE] Sounds like a wishy-washy idea for people who absolutely need to eat thier philosophical cake and have it too.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50396460]Well yeah, because there isn't that much you can do in the name of atheism. There are two reasons I object to that. The first is related to the importance of community and tradition, which would require thousands of words to write about to a dominantly left-wing forum, which I don't want to do right now as it is pointless. The second is because it is pointless attention seeking every time I see someone do this. Just for context, I go to a London private school. As a result of the demographics (a co-ed instead of single-sex private school leads to an extremely white school with dominantly left-wing parents), around 90 - 95% of my year are atheist/agnostic. Despite this, our school still maintains a chaplain and still has a nominal religious element as a result of its history (which I won't go into too much). In my view, a mature person will realise that the hymns aren't to do with 'pushing religion' on a dominantly atheist school. They're instead to do with tradition and as part of making everyone participate in music. As such, the vast majority of atheist/agnostic people simply participate in the services like normal people. However every so often there seems to be some person who decides that they're making some big stand and sticking it to the man by not participating, when in fact they're just engaging in pointless attention seeking.[/QUOTE] Tradition is not a good reason to do something, it's just a fallback for when you're out of actual reasons.
I was raised in a pagan environment. I don't participate in it much anymore, but allowed me to understand from an early age that gods are not all powerful beings but merely imaginary personifications of the natural world, praised to celebrate nature and the circle of life. It's just a way to think about your relationship with the planet. I never know whether to say I'm an atheist, since spiritually I have been pagan for so long but dont participate in rituals or believe thata sentient god created the universe.
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;50397151]Tradition is not a good reason to do something, it's just a fallback for when you're out of actual reasons.[/QUOTE] You're so shockingly wrong, but I need to prevent myself from writing 5000 words against you, so I'll do the standard Facepunch snarky remark method instead. Haha dude! [URL="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/queens-speech-state-opening-parliament-all-pomp-ceremony-photos-1503153"]Look[/URL] how stupid this all is! Why is everyone wearing formal weird clothing? And a [I]monarch[/I]?? What the fuck dude?? Oh wait. None of this is dumb at all. Tradition is important in creating community, social cohesion and linking yourself with the past. You are not an individual poofed out of thin air as a blank slate. You are an individual shaped within a society and living within it. When people find no community, they realise something is missing. Why do you think in an age of atheism and post-nationalism people are immersing themselves in identity politics? Because they realise some kind of community and cohesion is missing if you shit on all tradition and decide its all fucking dumb, and seek for it elsewhere. Rationality can't answer all of human needs, and never will, no matter whether we have flying cars or dystopian happy drugs. Maybe you're fine on your own, with no tradition, no binding to your place in time, no community. Most people are not. Singing hymns in school is part of this idea, and so is the state opening of Parliament. Tradition is important. Can it be oppressive? Of course. Does that mean it is all [I]fucking lame dude[/I]? No, it is important. I don't think it is really a particularly big ask to close your eyes during prayers and sing a few hymns.
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;50397151]Tradition is not a good reason to do something, it's just a fallback for when you're out of actual reasons.[/QUOTE] there's usually a reason traditions form in the first place, and traditions can be actually quite flexible and change a lot.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397209]You're so shockingly wrong, but I need to prevent myself from writing 5000 words against you, so I'll do the standard Facepunch snarky remark method instead. Haha dude! [URL="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/queens-speech-state-opening-parliament-all-pomp-ceremony-photos-1503153"]Look[/URL] how stupid this all is! Why is everyone wearing formal weird clothing? And a [I]monarch[/I]?? What the fuck dude?? Oh wait. None of this is dumb at all. Tradition is important in creating community, social cohesion and linking yourself with the past. You are not an individual poofed out of thin air as a blank slate. You are an individual shaped within a society and living within it. When people find no community, they realise something is missing. Why do you think in an age of atheism and post-nationalism people are immersing themselves in identity politics? Because they realise some kind of community and cohesion is missing if you shit on all tradition and decide its all fucking dumb, and seek for it elsewhere. Rationality can't answer all of human needs, and never will, no matter whether we have flying cars or dystopian happy drugs. Maybe you're fine on your own, with no tradition, no binding to your place in time, no community. Most people are not. Singing hymns in school is part of this idea, and so is the state opening of Parliament. Tradition is important. Can it be oppressive? Of course. Does that mean it is all [I]fucking lame dude[/I]? No, it is important. I don't think it is really a particularly big ask to close your eyes during prayers and sing a few hymns.[/QUOTE] i'm sorry but while i agree with you on the matter of tradition youre using it to justify the fact that people should play along with religion they don't believe in. why?? while it's not a 'big ask' (belittling the original point there, by the way) it's also not a dick move to choose not to participate.
[QUOTE=Crumpet;50397262]i'm sorry but while i agree with you on the matter of tradition youre using it to justify the fact that people should play along with religion they don't believe in. why?? while it's not a 'big ask' (belittling the original point there, by the way) it's also not a dick move to choose not to participate.[/QUOTE] For a couple of reasons. Firstly, whether you like it or not, a strong part of tradition in the West is Christianity. The faith of Christianity forms one half of our culture, and Classical rationality the other half. As such, Christianity is not easy to remove from tradition in a country like Britain. Secondly, whilst I can understand the sentiment if you actively follow another religion, I don't think it makes sense from an atheist/agnostic context. If you realise that it is part of tradition, then what is the issue about singing a hymn? When I sing a hymn, I'm not doing it to praise God, or anything like that, because I am an atheist. If you're not actively following another religion, then the only loss to you is inconvenience and time, which I think it worth it given the benefits to tradition. When you grow older, feel free to opt out entirely. But children don't have that freedom and for good reason, because they don't know what is best for themselves or best for society either way.
Well, good. I completely support the basic right of religious freedom, but I hate the power that religious groups have over politics. Hopefully this trend will reduce the political influence of religious groups, and thus allow for less pandering to religiously conservative ideals regarding "virtuous" legislation in regards to family planning and the like. You can have whatever beliefs you please, but that doesn't mean that I need to live by them. Dig?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50397335]Well, good. I completely support the basic right of religious freedom, but I hate the power that religious groups have over politics. Hopefully this trend will reduce the political influence of religious groups, and thus allow for less pandering to religiously conservative ideals regarding "virtuous" legislation in regards to family planning and the like. You can have whatever beliefs you please, but that doesn't mean that I need to live by them. Dig?[/QUOTE] Religious groups have almost no power over politics here in effect. The only time Cameron even mentions his faith is at churches on campaign and occasionally on religious holidays. Muslims (because of identity politics splitting them into a separate political grouping) actually do have religious power over their politics, with both Labour (the traditional party for immigrants) and the Conservatives (somewhat more socially conservative) trying to court the support of their often highly religious influenced political pressure groups.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397294]For a couple of reasons. Firstly, whether you like it or not, a strong part of tradition in the West is Christianity. The faith of Christianity forms one half of our culture, and Classical rationality the other half. As such, Christianity is not easy to remove from tradition in a country like Britain. Secondly, whilst I can understand the sentiment if you actively follow another religion, I don't think it makes sense from an atheist/agnostic context. If you realise that it is part of tradition, then what is the issue about singing a hymn? When I sing a hymn, I'm not doing it to praise God, or anything like that, because I am an atheist. If you're not actively following another religion, then the only loss to you is inconvenience and time, which I think it worth it given the benefits to tradition. When you grow older, feel free to opt out entirely. But children don't have that freedom and for good reason, because they don't know what is best for themselves or best for society either way.[/QUOTE] I'm not going to sing a hymn just because that's traditional. I don't see why I should. I have been ostracized, and attacked by christians. Why exactly, should I have to raise my children, and spend my young years being part of something that actively hurt me? If the worst part of atheism is choosing to stay silent because of personal reasons, than I guess I'm the worst of atheism. However, I really think you're wrong and I don't see a single reason to raise a child in a religious environment.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50397353]I'm not going to sing a hymn just because that's traditional. I don't see why I should. I have been ostracized, and attacked by christians. Why exactly, should I have to raise my children, and spend my young years being part of something that actively hurt me? If the worst part of atheism is choosing to stay silent because of personal reasons, than I guess I'm the worst of atheism. However, I really think you're wrong and I don't see a single reason to raise a child in a religious environment.[/QUOTE] I used to think like this until I majorly changed my political thinking. The problem with atheism is that it lacks something - something is clearly missing in the atheist world view. Atheism has much to say on the irrationality of condemning homosexuality, or the archaic punishments set out in holy books. But on certain issues it is either silent or very quiet, as it has very little to explain to people. As I said before, no-one can really live out their life with the sheer power of reason and science. There are certain issues that no amount of reason and science will ever allow a pure atheist to deal with. Atheism is quiet on the issue of death, of major life events, of tragedy, and of reconciliation. Religious traditions at least try to deal with these issues. It also provides community. You may think they are wrong in how they deal with them - after all, they are our first attempts at philosophy. But they at least try to deal with them. Although there are plentiful moral doctrines for an atheist to choose from without religion, most simply leave the space empty or adopt the morals left behind by Christianity but with a missing God. I think people like to pretend they are all past religion and spirituality and they think they can get by with religion. In fact, they miss it and don't want to admit it. They try to ignore the fact that they have all kinds of unanswered questions in their lives that will never be addressed due to the our long lifespans, but eventually they will realise there is a strange gap where religion should be. I can't imagine having a wholly non-religious wedding as an atheist. Even more so, I can't imagine having a wholly non-religious funeral. The rational response to death would be to cremate the body and dump them. Is that really a satisfactory way to deal with major life events? Of course not. As a result of what is missing, atheists adopt many of the traditions of religious people. They just don't want to admit that they do it or miss something.
That's why I'm trying to explore all the religions that the world has to offer, paganism appeals to me the most though, as well as the new age movement. At this point I mostly say I'm an atheist to piss off the overtly religious here, and even that is wearing thin on me.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397408]I used to think like this until I majorly changed my political thinking. The problem with atheism is that it lacks something - something is clearly missing in the atheist world view. Atheism has much to say on the irrationality of condemning homosexuality, or the archaic punishments set out in holy books. But on certain issues it is either silent or very quiet, as it has very little to explain to people. As I said before, no-one can really live out their life with the sheer power of reason and science. There are certain issues that no amount of reason and science will ever allow a pure atheist to deal with. Atheism is quiet on the issue of death, of major life events, of tragedy, and of reconciliation. Religious traditions at least try to deal with these issues. It also provides community. You may think they are wrong in how they deal with them - after all, they are our first attempts at philosophy. But they at least try to deal with them. Although there are plentiful moral doctrines for an atheist to choose from without religion, most simply leave the space empty or adopt the morals left behind by Christianity but with a missing God. I think people like to pretend they are all past religion and spirituality and they think they can get by with religion. In fact, they miss it and don't want to admit it. They try to ignore the fact that they have all kinds of unanswered questions in their lives that will never be addressed due to the our long lifespans, but eventually they will realise there is a strange gap where religion should be. I can't imagine having a wholly non-religious wedding as an atheist. Even more so, I can't imagine having a wholly non-religious funeral. The rational response to death would be to cremate the body and dump them. Is that really a satisfactory way to deal with major life events? Of course not. As a result of what is missing, atheists adopt many of the traditions of religious people. They just don't want to admit that they do it or miss something.[/QUOTE] And I think you're wrong and majorly over simplifiying people and events as well as majorly over inflating what atheism even is. Atheism is one belief. That's it. That's [B]it.[/B] Nothing more. Of course it has nothing to say on different topics, because it's a single statement belief. It's not meant to. There's plenty of other philosophy and rationality around those topics, to say that atheists, and non religious people as a whole are hollow without religion, even if you're an atheist yourself, is insulting. I lost my father last year. I didn't have religion to turn to, so I faced that loss alone. Nothing about my atheistic thoughts said "Burn the body and dump it" because that's NOT an atheistic thought, it's a utilitarian thought based on a [B]totally[/B] separate philosophy. What atheism says about that topic is nothing, so stop conflating it into something it is not. Tradition, community, culture, I'm not arguing against their existence, nor their importance. They clearly have roles to play in our society. You blame atheism, and non religion for the existence, or popularity, of identity politics. Can you really say with any certainty that without atheism and non-religious thought taking the stage as it has, that things would be better? Would religion really make a move to include homosexuality, transgenders, alternative life styles? I've grown up in "alt" communities for much of my life, and having a feeling of belonging is important. Insisting that there is a correct way of going about that, and that that way happens to be religious, I'm sorry but you're wrong. Flat out.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50396954]oh wait, spiritualism literally means the opposite of naturalism I mean something like contemplation of existence and life, not contacting the dead or some shit[/QUOTE] Metaphysical naturalism holds that nothing exists outside of nature/existence, while methodological naturalism isn't really touched by it. As for contemplating about life and existence, what's there even left to contemplate about? Only faith can dominate the seemingly absurd nature of existence, be it religious, spiritual, or some other abstract belief in a reality beyond our existence, beyond the Absurd, and thus giving life a meaning, but [I]"in their weakest moments, even believers will find their faith absurd."[/I] -Kierkenigga
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397408]I used to think like this until I majorly changed my political thinking.[/quote] Congrats? [quote] The problem with atheism is that it lacks something - something is clearly missing in the atheist world view. Atheism has much to say on the irrationality of condemning homosexuality, or the archaic punishments set out in holy books. But on certain issues it is either silent or very quiet, as it has very little to explain to people.[/quote] Perhaps because from an atheistic perspective there is nothing to explain about those things? [quote] As I said before, no-one can really live out their life with the sheer power of reason and science. There are certain issues that no amount of reason and science will ever allow a pure atheist to deal with. Atheism is quiet on the issue of death, of major life events, of tragedy, and of reconciliation. Religious traditions at least try to deal with these issues. [/quote] You act like any of those things are intrinsically related to religion and thus cannot exist on their own. I would love to see you even attempt proving that. [quote] It also provides community[/quote] Woah there, are you saying that an atheistic society cannot have a sense of community? Humans are social creatures that form interpersonal bonds with each other. This fact alone indicates that some form of community will exist so long as there are human beings capable of interacting with each other. Saying that community cannot exist without religion is completely asinine. [quote] . You may think they are wrong in how they deal with them - after all, they are our first attempts at philosophy. But they at least try to deal with them. Although there are plentiful moral doctrines for an atheist to choose from without religion, most simply leave the space empty or adopt the morals left behind by Christianity but with a missing God. [/quote] And why is this such a big deal? [quote] I think people like to pretend they are all past religion and spirituality and they think they can get by with religion. In fact, they miss it and don't want to admit it.[/quote] I'd also love to see you prove, or even support this statement at all ever. [quote] They try to ignore the fact that they have all kinds of unanswered questions in their lives that will never be addressed due to the our long lifespans, but eventually they will realise there is a strange gap where religion should be.[/quote] You're shitting out some massive unsubstantiated assumptions about an extremely large and diverse group of individuals. If I were to argue like this I would be saying that all Christians are abortion clinic bombing fundies. [quote] I can't imagine having a wholly non-religious wedding as an atheist. Even more so, I can't imagine having a wholly non-religious funeral. [/quote] Then you have an incredibly small imagination. [quote] The rational response to death would be to cremate the body and dump them. Is that really a satisfactory way to deal with major life events?[/quote] Just because someone is an atheist does not mean they are not prone to sentiment and emotion. [quote] Of course not. As a result of what is missing, atheists adopt many of the traditions of religious people. They just don't want to admit that they do it or miss something.[/QUOTE] Hold on there a second. Many atheists adopt the traditions of religious peoples because thats what they grew up with. Its their cultural background and heritage. You can appreciate and enjoy such things without actively partaking in the religious aspect of such ceremonies. Furthermore burial rituals are not a strictly religious practice by any stretch of the imagination. Unless you want to insinuate that elephants have some form of religion.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397408]I used to think like this until I majorly changed my political thinking. The problem with atheism is that it lacks something - something is clearly missing in the atheist world view. Atheism has much to say on the irrationality of condemning homosexuality, or the archaic punishments set out in holy books. But on certain issues it is either silent or very quiet, as it has very little to explain to people. As I said before, no-one can really live out their life with the sheer power of reason and science. There are certain issues that no amount of reason and science will ever allow a pure atheist to deal with. Atheism is quiet on the issue of death, of major life events, of tragedy, and of reconciliation. Religious traditions at least try to deal with these issues. It also provides community. You may think they are wrong in how they deal with them - after all, they are our first attempts at philosophy. But they at least try to deal with them. Although there are plentiful moral doctrines for an atheist to choose from without religion, most simply leave the space empty or adopt the morals left behind by Christianity but with a missing God. I think people like to pretend they are all past religion and spirituality and they think they can get by with religion. In fact, they miss it and don't want to admit it. They try to ignore the fact that they have all kinds of unanswered questions in their lives that will never be addressed due to the our long lifespans, but eventually they will realise there is a strange gap where religion should be. I can't imagine having a wholly non-religious wedding as an atheist. Even more so, I can't imagine having a wholly non-religious funeral. The rational response to death would be to cremate the body and dump them. Is that really a satisfactory way to deal with major life events? Of course not. As a result of what is missing, atheists adopt many of the traditions of religious people. They just don't want to admit that they do it or miss something.[/QUOTE] Ofcourse atheists take part in traditions of religious nature but I think you are wrong if you assume that it is the religious nature of these traditions that draw atheists to them. Atheism doesn't say anything on the irrationality of condemning homosexuality and it doesn't say anything about death or tragedy either. You make it sound like an organization the way you generalize atheists. It is simply the choice - although I'd hardly call it a choice, it's not up to you as an individual to design your world view - to not believe in religious divinity. I do not see what is odd or wrong with people who may or may not be atheists condemning such values that discriminate and have destructive impact on lives. Anyways, traditions will exist without religion or having originated from religion, they do everywhere. Tradition is still not a good reason to do anything unless there isn't any good reason not to do it.
snip
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397408]I used to think like this until I majorly changed my political thinking. The problem with atheism is that it lacks something - something is clearly missing in the atheist world view. Atheism has much to say on the irrationality of condemning homosexuality, or the archaic punishments set out in holy books. But on certain issues it is either silent or very quiet, as it has very little to explain to people. As I said before, no-one can really live out their life with the sheer power of reason and science. There are certain issues that no amount of reason and science will ever allow a pure atheist to deal with. Atheism is quiet on the issue of death, of major life events, of tragedy, and of reconciliation. Religious traditions at least try to deal with these issues. It also provides community. You may think they are wrong in how they deal with them - after all, they are our first attempts at philosophy. But they at least try to deal with them. Although there are plentiful moral doctrines for an atheist to choose from without religion, most simply leave the space empty or adopt the morals left behind by Christianity but with a missing God. [/QUOTE] Things "major life events, tragedy, and reconciliation" are all just basic social interaction, you don't big ol' sinner smiter for any of that. As for the other questions, atheism and naturalism answer those questions just fine- people just don't like the answer. [QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397408] I think people like to pretend they are all past religion and spirituality and they think they can get by with religion. In fact, they miss it and don't want to admit it. They try to ignore the fact that they have all kinds of unanswered questions in their lives that will never be addressed due to the our long lifespans, but eventually they will realise there is a strange gap where religion should be. I can't imagine having a wholly non-religious wedding as an atheist. Even more so, I can't imagine having a wholly non-religious funeral. The rational response to death would be to cremate the body and dump them. Is that really a satisfactory way to deal with major life events? Of course not. As a result of what is missing, atheists adopt many of the traditions of religious people. They just don't want to admit that they do it or miss something.[/QUOTE] Sounds to me like you're projecting and don't want to admit it. Not everyone is afraid of the meaninglessness of existence or impermanence of their consciousness, nor needs to tell themselves white lies to deal with it. And who says atheists don't want to remember dead loved ones? If anything, them being gone forever is all the more reason to memorialize them. Indulging ones sometimes irrational emotions doesn't mean we have believe irrational things.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;50397519]Metaphysical naturalism holds that nothing exists outside of nature/existence, while methodological naturalism isn't really touched by it. As for contemplating about life and existence, what's left to even contemplate about? Only faith can dominate the seemingly absurd nature of existence, be it religious, spiritual, or some other abstract belief in a reality beyond our existence, beyond the Absurd, and thus giving life a meaning, but [I]"in their weakest moments, even believers will find their faith absurd."[/I] -Kierkenigga[/QUOTE] What's left to contemplate about? Well, could be as simple as "I'm alive, other people are, I like being happy and so do other people so I guess happiness is a positive thing to me." I'm not necessarily talking about everybody having deep metaphysical ideas about the meaning of life or anything although if that's something you wanna do then cool, I guess that's what philosophy class is for. I just mean that scientific literacy could lead to stronger unity as more people look for answers to questions based in rational thinking and therefor hold more similar views and can be more easily convinced by more progressive and humanistic ideas.
I think a lot of the annoyance (Kyle is clearly mad in some way, but whatever. Your line by line response is crappy and insinuates I said stuff which I clearly didn't, so I'll focus on the other responses) comes from the fact that I'm extending religion to almost all forms of spirituality. This is probably strictly incorrect, but I think most people do use religion for spirituality in practice. My main point is that most outlets for spirituality usually come in the form of religion, or take very close forms to the religion and heritage they grew up with. I think this is no accident and shows the power of religion over people. People do need spirituality, and religion as a vessel, as it forms an outlet for, (for example) grief. I also didn't really extend on atheism. HumanAbyss is both right and wrong about atheism. He is right that it is theoretically only the lack of belief in a God. However, I find in practice it is inextricably tied up with ideas of rationality. My arguments I think are fairly simple. Rationality has limited utility. Atheism has bad or quiet answers on life questions (whether or not they are true). Religion is commonly utilised as an outlet for atheists in life events, showing that to an extent a lot of people do need religion - not everyone, but a lot of people. I never tried to claim all atheists are hollow. Nor did I claim that the atheist response would always be chucking the body away. I think that using pure reason would result in that answer, but pure reason doesn't give good answers, and that is why people need spirituality, and that is where religion becomes useful (aside from the aforementioned tradition points). I will write more in the future.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397651]I think a lot of the annoyance (Kyle is clearly mad in some way, but whatever. Your line by line response is crappy and insinuates I said stuff which I clearly didn't, so I'll focus on the other responses)[/QUOTE] I don't even know who you are lol. You're argument is just generalizations and massive assumptions. Also if its so crappy then I'm sure you would have absolutely no problem whatsoever disproving or refuting such a clearly shitty argument. Right?
Your post (unlike the other responses, which were good) shows you clearly aren't interested in discussion. Just one example [QUOTE]Woah there, are you saying that an atheistic society cannot have a sense of community? Humans are social creatures that form interpersonal bonds with each other. This fact alone indicates that some form of community will exist so long as there are human beings capable of interacting with each other. Saying that community cannot exist without religion is completely asinine.[/QUOTE] Who is the one insinuating and making up what I am saying here? I said it provides community. You claim that I said atheists can't have community.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397651]I think a lot of the annoyance (Kyle is clearly mad in some way, but whatever. Your line by line response is crappy and insinuates I said stuff which I clearly didn't, so I'll focus on the other responses) comes from the fact that I'm extending religion to almost all forms of spirituality. This is probably strictly incorrect, but I think most people do use religion for spirituality in practice. My main point is that most outlets for spirituality usually come in the form of religion, or take very close forms to the religion and heritage they grew up with. I think this is no accident and shows the power of religion over people. People do need spirituality, and religion as a vessel, as it forms an outlet for, (for example) grief. I also didn't really extend on atheism. HumanAbyss is both right and wrong about atheism. He is right that it is theoretically only the lack of belief in a God. However, I find in practice it is inextricably tied up with ideas of rationality. My arguments I think are fairly simple. Rationality has limited utility. Atheism has bad or quiet answers on life questions (whether or not they are true). Religion is commonly utilised as an outlet for atheists in life events, showing that to an extent a lot of people do need religion - not everyone, but a lot of people. I never tried to claim all atheists are hollow. Nor did I claim that the atheist response would always be chucking the body away. I think that using pure reason would result in that answer, but pure reason doesn't give good answers, and that is why people need spirituality, and that is where religion becomes useful (aside from the aforementioned tradition points). I will write more in the future.[/QUOTE] You're wrong. People do not need spirituality. Reason does give good answers to those questions, even if you don't like them.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397706]Your post (unlike the other responses, which were good) shows you clearly aren't interested in discussion.[/QUOTE] Pardon me if my response isn't up to your standards of discussion then. Although clearly you took my post as some attempt at a personal slight, which is not my intention. I apologize if it appeared as such. [quote] Who is the one insinuating and making up what I am saying here? I said it provides community. You claim that I said atheists can't have community.[/quote] Fair enough.
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;50397709]You're wrong. People do not need spirituality. Reason does give good answers to those questions.[/QUOTE] if people don't need spirituality, then why the enduring persistence of religion? religion isn't even in decline at all, it's just transforming into different forms or moving to other places.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50397725]if people don't need spirituality, then why the enduring persistence of religion? religion isn't even in decline at all, it's just transforming into different forms or moving to other places.[/QUOTE] The endurance of Religion has many factors, but some base need for superstition is not one of them.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50397725]if people don't need spirituality, then why the enduring persistence of religion? religion isn't even in decline at all, it's just transforming into different forms or moving to other places.[/QUOTE] because people are conditioned to it through family and guess what, tradition. is that a good thing? no modern religion inherently hinders the advancement of society. while i have no problem at all with being religious saying stupid things like 'people need spirituality' is greatly insulting to a lot of people who really dont, and paints you as ignorant.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;50397718]Pardon me if my response isn't up to your standards of discussion then. Although clearly you took my post as some attempt at a personal slight, which is not my intention. I apologize if it appeared as such. Fair enough.[/QUOTE] It's a lot to do with the tone of it. Any 'line-by-line' appears obnoxious almost by default even if it isn't your intention, because arguments are meant to be read in chunks and not like that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.