Taking Advantage Of The "new Atheism"

[DaHudie Biz]

11 hours ago, Fiona said:

The fact that a really smart guy tried to prove god isn't anything but information, data. And many of those old scientists saw god as something entirely different than the average 'believer' believes. The proper place certainly isn't the classroom when learning about that which can be proven.

Agreed!

[Guest]

I started asking those tough question in my early teens, by the time I was mid to late teen, I had my belief system. I'm an electrical engineer, very logical minded and I tend to follow the evidence when performing research.  

[Cecilia]

On 4/6/2012 at 10:49 PM, Guest winterangel said:

"New Atheism" is a name attributed to the ideas proposed and promoted by newly famous atheist authors of the 21st century; e.g. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. They advocate the view that tolerance of religion should be diminished in favor of criticism and countering of religion with rationale.

This is converse of secularism, which promotes tolerance of personal religion, but elimination of it where most reasonable (e.g. government).

I personally find that, although I encourage tolerance of religion (discussed below), religion is too tolerated in society; for example, terrorizing and torture of children for religious purposes should under no circumstances be exempted, and indoctrination of children, such as that done by parents and by pious schools, is displeasing; however, as to the latter, it is difficult to eliminate this without infringement of free rights.

I find that countering of religion is in almost all cases ineffective, because individual religious beliefs rarely ever have foundation in reason or logic, but in pseudo-philosophy or for short, 'faith.' Neuroscientists have proposed theories as to why the brain might generate these foundations, and if they are correct [that religion is inherent to humanity], we cannot eliminate religion entirely without elimination of H. sapiens itself.

Some religions however, such as Buddhism which is actually more similar to a philosophical system, do not take the strong irrational stances against say, science, as others often do, like Christianity or Islam with beliefs in falsified doctrines such as creationism and opposition to evolution and natural selection.

I feel that it is harmless for a person to believe in a deity or multiple deities, which can never be falsified, and that it is harmless if they are accepting of others, and are respectful of such things as science and history, and are respectful of others in regards to personal beliefs (including their own children, who should not be taught religion at an age too young to be mentally capable of analysis or of choosing their own religion).

I don't believe religion will ever be eliminated, nor do I believe in absolute intolerance of it, but there are some changes that need to occur in society.

IMHO, religions are iron age constructs to validate why the humans of that time period choose survivalism over annihilationism or extinctionism. To my knowledge, there is no way to prove that survivalism (something after this) is probable or definite.  Conversely,  there is no way to prove annihilationism (upon death the living being is completely destroyed and no longer exists - also called extinctionism)  is the true end-state either.  I believe the start of the term "annihilationism" came from Christianity;  whereby you were judged before becoming extinct and never to exist again.  Atheism is extinction without judgement.  You die, and that's it.  Something inside me leads me to believe extinctionism isn't guaranteed.  Is Dean Hamer right?  Do I have a "God Gene"?  I don't even think Hamer was peer reviewed with regard to that gene (VMAT2), was he?

I just cannot seem to find the faith necessary to believe in either end of the spectrum.  There is so much we don't know.  Yes, I understand that humans created religion as early as the bronze age, and that most of our modern religions come from the iron age - but just because that's when humans put survivalism down to words and articulated thoughts doesn't mean absolutely that it's a complete fabrication, does it?  Maybe they are wrong with their stories associated with their world view of survivalism; but yet survivalism can actually happen -  whereby there is something after death?   OMG this is all such a struggle for me.  I hope and want there to be something after this;  but there is no way to know if there is until you cross that threshold.  I guess death is like a singularity in that regard.

[Cecilia]

On 3/14/2017 at 10:06 AM, Fiona said:

I started asking those tough question in my early teens, by the time I was mid to late teen, I had my belief system. I'm an electrical engineer, very logical minded and I tend to follow the evidence when performing research.  

 

I cannot seem to do that.  I waffle over time.  BTW,  I was an electronics engineer (military radar design) and now I am a computer systems engineer.  I switched professions after grad school.  I have not found a viable way to research survivalism (something after this) using the scientific method of test and observation. That doesn't mean survival cannot happen - just means I don't believe there is a way to test the theory of survivalism.