Why are some of you guys Atheists?

But it doesn't halt modern day progress, yeah religion can interfere, but so does science interfere with religion, one is not empowered over the other.

You are trying to articulate a belief in what theologians have called NOMA, or non-overlapping-magisterium. The idea is simply that science tells us some things about the universe, and religion tells us others. For example Science explains things that happen to us in our life, and religion supposedly tells us what will happen after our death.

Its a nice theory, but it doesn't seem to apply to the real world, because religion does not keep to it's side of the line:

and why, try as science might to show all religions are false, try as it might to disprove the existence of God, it just won't matter.

I know of no respected scientist who has EVER tried to directly prove the existence of a god. Science often does disprove events as laid out in a holy book, but nobody tries to disprove the existence of a god. The reason being is that science works on evidence and observation, things that the most ardent believers claim do not hold any bearing on a god. There may be the odd loud-mouth such as Richard Dawkins, but all they do is express their own belief's in a scientific context. What science HAS done, which most believers take as an affront to their faith, is demonstrate that the universe does not require a god to bring it into existence, and manage it's day to day operations. Science has disproved the necessity for god in a physical context. Not the existence of God.

However, religion frequently does overstep it's boundaries. It makes claims about the origins of the universe and how species came to be. It makes claims as to the outcome of the earth and civilisation based on the morality of the present day, rather than the analysis of current social or economic trends. If you accept NOMA, then the role of religion is to tell us about things that science cannot, such as life after death, and the suchlike. If science started claiming knowledge of such things based on evidence, then you could argue it was at fault, but this doesn't really happen. However religion DOES claim knowledge of the workings of the world, based on faith. This is where the conflict rises.

Ultimately, the two are different tools. Science is a constructive, self correcting tool for explaining the operations of the universe, and translating those explanations into devices and concepts that make human existence easier and more fruitful. Religion is a pathological, self-reinforcing belief system that uses faith as a compass for moral decisions, and extrapolation of knowledge to non observable realms (fictitious or otherwise).

However, if i could make one little remark, religion IS categorically interfering with scientific progress. Many avenues of research are becoming increasingly difficult to pursue due to the lobbying of religious activists, such as stem-cell or genetic research. I have, in all my days as a student of the natural sciences, never once seen other scholars violently attack churches or other religious institutions. I cannot say the same for certain believers attacking scientific facilities and research labs.

Originally Posted by KindGalaxy

Iran has the highest volume of drinkable water in the Middle East and has an extremely low doctor-to-population ratio (1 doctor for every 1000 citizens with a population of 70 million), just because their country is a religious state doesn't automatically make them backwards

Iranian laws dictate that homosexuals have to be put to death. Committing apostasy is also punishable by death. Is that not backwards to you?

Saudi Arabia is a Monarchy and their laws are not religious in nature; such as the amputation of hands or feet for robbery.

According to the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia established in 1992, the Qur'an is the official constitution of the country and that all Saudi laws must be compatable with the sharia. Needless to say, the Qur'an and some of the hadith perscribes amputation as a punishment for theft. I fail to see how religion can be such a non-factor in this situation.

I'd also argue that if we had no religion, we'd still have extremist populations extending their influence over other countries

Guess what? Implimenting total bans on firearms will not eliminate crime. Anti-tobacco propaganda will not destroy the tobacco industry once and for all. Giving each person a home and some money will not put an end to poverty. So why bother doing any single thing if it will not achieve 100% results? Even if extremism itself survives the end of religion, such an event would be sure to cut down the amount of extemist people in the world. If I had to choose between letting religion exist and sacrificing it in order to reduce extremism in any significant amount, I'd pick the latter.

It does seem that people are more upset with the idea of religion, and they throw a minority people to argue their case... It is not indicative of all religions, in all the world, in all denominations.

But we've seen throughout history that religion's ills are not confined to a mere collection of wackjobs. We all saw how the Catholic Church used its power over society when it preformed the Inquisition, tried to prevent the publishing of the Bible in vernacular languages, and silenced individuals like Galileo. Even now the Church struggles to fight abortion, genetic manipulation, and any other experiments that are "morally debatable". When Martin Luther broke away from the Church and created the Protestant movement, that just happened to spark the Thirty Years' War in Germany. The fundenmentialist movement in America grows stronger with each passing year as they indoctrinate more and more people to believe that anyone who's not one of them will be condemmed to Hell, and thus should not be repected at all. Generations of anti-Semitism made it easy for Hitler to get away with his Holocaust. In modern times Israel maintains its right to remain a Jewish state, which was promised in their Bible, at the expense of the Arab population, thus allowing for the Holy Land violence to continue without an end in sight. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran which use sharia as the primary component of their legal systems have serious human rights issues, while Sunnis and Shia engage in sectarian conflicts in Iraq. Muslims all too many times have issued death threats and sometimes even riot whenever they percieve an insult to their religion (remember the Danish cartoon controversy), now people are afraid of offending Islam in any way out of fear. Not to leave the East out of this, the Hindu caste system allowed for the mistreatment of lower castes such as the untouchables because they were restricted to ritually impure occupations. Finally despite all the idyllic myths that describe Tibet before the Chinese occupation, the Buddhist rulers of that land exploited their serf population only a little bit better than slaves and were quite willing to use torture and mutilation to punish their subjects.

You see, you can't just handwave away the problems of religion by merely stating that only a fringe of extremists are to blame. All the mainstream religions have abused their powers in one time or another using various methods. While some faiths can believe in such values as tolerance and actually impliment them, the more powerful faiths with the majority of followers (and thus the ones with a better chance of growing) have usually tended to be much less progressive. If it wasn't for secularist pressure, the big religions would never have had any incentive to conform to the values that modernized societies have.

Well um...
I've never actually thought that deeply on Religion in a global sense, not to the point where I could develop an actual argument against what both of you are saying (Black Op and Mad Scientist), and honestly I don't think it needs to be argued since yeah, you're right.
For the most part either religious individuals are convinced Science is all bullshot or don't actually take the time to consider if it is or not. The vocal mob will always be there to decry genetic research, abortion is bad, divorce is never an option, they will pick and choose their verses; Lay with another man is an abomination, love thy neighbour.
You will have thousands, if not millions of people telling you that God made us out of sand, that He really did create everything in 6 days. I believe God was a broad-strokes creator, He started the beginning and let things ride themselves out.
However, as I said, I really can't argue against anything the two of you just said, nor will I even attempt to.

People's relationship with God is and always should be a personal thing, that's one thing very clear in the Bible, it has never said to actively pursue others to enforce your values onto them.
“If you love me, obey my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, who will never leave you. He is the Holy Spirit, who leads into all truth. The world at large cannot receive him, because it isn't looking for him and doesn't recognize him. But you do, because he lives with you now and later will be in you.” John 14:15-17
The you in that verse is you as an individual, not on any other level, your relationship with the Holy Spirit, with God, with Jesus Christ is a personal relationship. The world at large can not receive him, because he lives with you.

Unfortunately yes, most Religions do force their values onto other people.

This gives me an headache.

Can we all be a little honest here? This discussion of religion is not a discussion of religion at all. It is a discussion of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Animistic religions (original African, Native American, and most other early cultures) have stories that explain creation, but most are really only concerned with keeping the gods/spirits/ancestors appeased. Indian (from India) religions focus on Karma and escaping the circle of incarnation. The Chinese religions of Tao and Confusionism can be argued more as philosophies than true religions.
OK, that's all I wanted to say...for now...

I don't think there are any Animistic, Taoist or Confused people that visit GamerNode... Probably why they weren't really mentioned.

Oh, clever boy. This is me celebrating your oh-so-scathing wit. I was trying to point out that not all world religions consume themselves with one supreme being that created the universe. So, I think arguing science vs. religion is a misnomer. To be the most honest it would have to be science vs. western religions.
Isn't it also a bit irresponsible to assume what faith people may or may not practice? Just a thought.

Originally Posted by KindGalaxy

Confused people that visit GamerNode....

Confucist people, they're called Confucist people.....

I was trying to point out that not all world religions consume themselves with one supreme being that created the universe. So, I think arguing science vs. religion is a misnomer. To be the most honest it would have to be science vs. western religions. Isn't it also a bit irresponsible to assume what faith people may or may not practice?

Does it really matter if every single religion has to be mentioned in this thread? All the worlds' religions essentially use the same standards of proof (ie. faith included with a set of scriptures or oral traditions), thus the basic religion-refuting arguments can apply to all of them by just switching around various names. It just so happens that the majority of people who can carry out these debates over the internet live in the Abrahamic sphere of influence, so the fact that western religions get referred to the most shouldn't come as a suprise.

So yeah, I think existence and life is one big cosmic joke, but it's a joke that we are in on. You'll find out more when you die... not all of it, but more of it. I promise.

I think existence and life is one big cosmic joke, but it's a joke that we are in on. You'll find out more when you die... not all of it, but more of it. I promise.

(I'd consider myself a Christan due to the fact that I follow the philosophies of Jesus, you know, love thy neighbor, he without sin cast the first stone... maybe I'm a blasphemous heathen according to Pat Robertson, but screw him. I happen to think gay people are cool)

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkee12

Can we all be a little honest here? This discussion of religion is not a discussion of religion at all. It is a discussion of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Animistic religions (original African, Native American, and most other early cultures) have stories that explain creation, but most are really only concerned with keeping the gods/spirits/ancestors appeased. Indian (from India) religions focus on Karma and escaping the circle of incarnation. The Chinese religions of Tao and Confusionism can be argued more as philosophies than true religions.
OK, that's all I wanted to say...for now...

It's because the mentioned religions in this thread are pertinent to the concept of atheism, and those you mentioned, by and large, are not. Except perhaps Hinduism. Atheism isn't of itself a complete rejection of all religion, it's the rejection of or disbelief in a higher power, be it god or deity.

Ancestor worship and Eastern philosophies hardly apply in the scope of this discussion. Granted, a number of us (me included) took a more anti-organized-religion stance than the idea of atheism precludes, which can and does happen.

Atheism itself is not the rejection of religion, but given the stance of many religions and the atheist's usual take that Gods don't exist outside the minds of people, then the rejection of deistic religions generally follows suit.

I actually did mention an interest in Taoist philosophy earlier in this thread, but given that I am more often than not seemingly invisible around here, it was probably missed.

edit- I also want to add that I don't necessarily think that atheism denies one the ability to be spiritual and mystical, the denial of a higher power does not equal the denial of forces we may not understand. But that's just my take. Some of the philosophy to come out of quantum dynamics is all rather interesting, and, to me, lends credence to the ideas of latent energies and vibrations that all matter emits may have some profound effects on our day-to-day lives. I don't need to believe in a deity to believe that there are greater mysteries of this universe that inextricably bind us to each other and to the universe itself. Does that make me agnostic? By definition, it would seem probably not.

Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning.

- Bill Gates

Originally Posted by rtanger

Atheism isn't of itself a complete rejection of all religion, it's the rejection of or disbelief in a higher power, be it god or deity.

The way I see it is you have religion and atheism at the same end of the scale, they are both belief systems. At the other end is agnosticism - a non belief, or acceptance we'll never really know, and that our time would be better served worrying about more important things.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to experience it, did it make a sound?
If God talks in the woods and no one is there to experience it, does God exist?

The crucial question in all of this is, if there were no humans on earth, what would God and Satan's purpose be then? Both are wonderful creations of humankind. Until science cracks the mystery of life, the questions will rage on.

It is important for people to believe in something. Anything. It's scary to see life leave a body, anybody's body, any living thing's "vessel." Until we can figure what powers life, we as humans will continue to try to deal with it the best way we know how, with myth, mysticism, and faith. Nothing wrong with any of it, until it fosters hate or intolerance.

Originally Posted by vc22348

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to experience it, did it make a sound?
If God talks in the woods and no one is there to experience it, does God exist?

The crucial question in all of this is, if there were no humans on earth, what would God and Satan's purpose be then? Both are wonderful creations of humankind. Until science cracks the mystery of life, the questions will rage on.

It is important for people to believe in something. Anything. It's scary to see life leave a body, anybody's body, any living thing's "vessel." Until we can figure what powers life, we as humans will continue to try to deal with it the best way we know how, with myth, mysticism, and faith. Nothing wrong with any of it, until it fosters hate or intolerance.

I never understood the "if a tree falls" idea, finding it incredibly stupid. The thought that something could fail to exist (be it a tree or a god) because we fail to see it angers me without end. Just because someone is not around to observe something doesn't diminish the existence of it.

And yet, I won't believe and find hope in something that isn't there, and will never be there. I would rather see and know what is before me and explore paths that seem mysterious, not try to discover the slimmest chance of something being there. If I did that, I would end up lying to myself just to satisfy my need. I think I would treat myself better than that.