Atheism, Deism and Agnosticism should have the same goal: Secularism

Nov 11, 2013


Discussion by: YesUCan

I just wanted to see counter arguments to the following.

1- Discussions on the existence of God is not useful. Existence of God cannot be verified scientifically.

2- Many people want to believe in God because they do not want the death to be a farewell to everything they love in their lives and to their existence. If someone proved that God doesnot exist that would psychologically destroyed them. As a result struggle against God also not useful.

3- Atheism, Deism and Agnosticism are all against organized religion. If this is true they should act together in order to achieve a secular world.

4- "Organized religion" is organized by people with "Holly" books written by "ordinary" people. No prophet ever wrote a holly book. "Officials" of organized religion also get help from religious rules they themselves wrote. As a result, exactly what is conveyed by God to a prophet is not known. If this is the case then organized religion is unreliable and cannot be taken as a basis for everyday or spiritual life of a person or a society.

35 comments on “Atheism, Deism and Agnosticism should have the same goal: Secularism

  • 1
    Seraphor says:

    I think you’ve come to the wrong place for these kind of counter arguments. I would presume everyone one on this board, all the regulars at least, would agree with each and every one of these points in general. Most responses will either be picking out technicalities or playing devils advocate. (‘scuse the pun)

    1- I suppose this one can be ‘argued’ by some, but that’s as far as it can go, because as you have stated gods existence or non-existence cannot be confirmed scientifically. It can only be proposed as likely or unlikely. There may be some merit in debating whether or not it’s likeliness is of any importance, but I’m sure most will agree that it’s not.

    2- On an individual basis this may or may not be true. Some people may be more traumatized by confronting their fears of death than others. I don’t think this should be argued as a blanket statement, but it’s probably true for the majority of devout believers.

    3- Absolutely. I’ve seen no evidence that Atheism, Deism and Agnosticism are against each other in anyway. Those who ascribed to these defined beliefs may disagree on some minor specifics about the likeliness of a creator, but that’s about it.

    4- Nail head hit



    Report abuse

  • 2
    SaganTheCat says:
    1. no but it can be verified philosophically. discussions on the subject can be useful as people who believe in god tend to believe for a reason and understanding this reason, and the faults with it, will usually give people a greater insight into other aspects of their lives.

    2. You don’t know it would destroy them. most believers who lose their faith find the experience enriching. if anyone has their sanity supported by the hope of eternal life, their belief is nothing more than a crutch and they need counseling, god or no god

    3. I have no direct disagreement with this but I also believe that decent religious believers should be acting towards a secular world also. It’s pretty much the bedrock of democracy regardless of what some theists will argue. power to the people means taking it away from those who claim divine right.

    4. I have no counter argument to that whatsoever. being pragmatic however, I’d say most religious believers you talk to would rather end the conversation than seriously consider how the process that led up to the book they call holy came about.



    Report abuse

  • 1- Discussions on the existence of God is not useful. Existence of God cannot be verified scientifically.

    We can demonstrate their is no evidence for god. The universe looks just like you would expect if there is no god. You cannot prove there is no god, but then you cannot prove their are no flying horses. So what. That is not evidence they exist. We can prove the bible contains thousands of falsehoods and inconsistencies. So the bible is not the word of any god. For Christians that is equivalent disproving the existence of god. They are not interested in the existence of Zeus. They are still in denial.



    Report abuse

  • Many people want to believe in God because they do not want the death to be a farewell to everything they love in their lives and to their existence. If someone proved that God doesnot exist that would psychologically destroyed them. As a result struggle against God also not useful.

    I find this a very peculiar argument. According to the bible only 144,000 male virgins go to heaven. The rest are tormented for eternity. This means nearly everyone is roasted, hardly something to look forward to.

    From a purely psychological view, not being roasted is much more fun to contemplate.

    Presume you get let in by some loophole. Heaven is forever. How pathologically boring, wandering about some JW park picking grapes. There is no escape no matter how bored you are. I would far sooner not exist than be trapped for eternity with a bunch of addled Christians.

    Eternity is considerably longer than 100 billion years without TV, the Internet, sex…



    Report abuse

  • 2- Many people want to believe in God because they do not want the death to be a farewell to everything they love in their lives and to their existence. If someone proved that God does not exist that would psychologically destroyed them. As a result struggle against God also not useful.

    And what about the people who are traumatised by the thoughts of going to hell?

    What about the countless number who have be murdered for not believing in the right god?

    Any benefit of belief is far overshadowed by the harm it does.



    Report abuse

  • “Organized religion” is organized by people with “Holly” books written by “ordinary” people. No prophet ever wrote a holly book. “Officials” of organized religion also get help from religious rules they themselves wrote. As a result, exactly what is conveyed by God to a prophet is not known. If this is the case then organized religion is unreliable and cannot be taken as a basis for everyday or spiritual life of a person or a society.

    First it is “holy” not “holly”. The bible was handed down orally long before it was written. I don’t think it was written by someone scheming in a Machiavellian way. Somebody “channeled” it. I have channeled some stuff myself, so I can attest if feels like something outside you dictating. My channeller, whom I named Gaius, would first give a abstract worldless overview of what it was going to say, then gradually refined the English words. Sometimes it would just give me an irritated feeling about a word. I would try alternative synonyms until the irritated feeling went away to indicate I had nailed it. I can easily see somebody 4000 years ago having this experience presuming it was a spirit or god “talking” to him, especially when the results are quite unlike anything you would compose yourself. It is not a literal voice inside your head. It is more like an idea. This thing has the urgency of needing desperately to pee. There is no ignoring it. You have to take dictation and persist until you get the wording precisely correct.

    Other people have had this experience. Jane Roberts wrote the Seth books. Milton wrote his poems this way. Mohammed dictated the Qur’an. On his first session, he felt so flattened, he thought he would die and that he had gone mad.



    Report abuse

  • 1- Discussions on the existence of God is not useful. Existence of God cannot be verified scientifically.

    Existence of God can’t be proven to be false because it’s an empirical claim. That is not at all the same as saying that one can’t talk rationally and even scientifically about various arguments for or against the existence of God. The God Delusion is the best book by far that summarizes both traditional arguments in support of atheism going back to David Hume as well as more recent evidence from evolution.

    2- Many people want to believe in God because they do not want the death to be a farewell to everything they love in their lives and to their existence. If someone proved that God doesnot exist that would psychologically destroyed them. As a result struggle against God also not useful.

    It’s important to distinguish between two different issues here. The claim is that the truth of religion doesn’t matter because belief in religion makes people happy. Now for me the issue of if/when religion makes people feel better is irrelevant. I’m interested in the truth about the universe and I realize that truth is often uncomfortable. So I prefer being unhappy and honestly seeking the truth vs. being happy and contented with things that may be false. However, I think the idea that religion makes people happier is debatable. Certainly I agree it can give some comfort to some people but there is plenty of evidence that it can just as often make people miserable with worry, guilt, etc.

    What’s more I think the evidence from history is that we progress by going beyond superstition and emotional thinking and embracing rationalism and truth. Some beliefs may make us feel better temporaraly but in the long term looking for truth and abandoning dogma –even though it may cause short term pain — inevitably leads to a better world for humanity.



    Report abuse

  • 8
    Mr Greene says:

    2- Many people want to believe in God because they do not want the death to be a farewell to everything they love in their lives and to their existence. If someone proved that God does not exist that would psychologically destroyed them. As a result struggle against God also not useful.

    Would I accept the lies and promises of false redemption made by con-men for the sake of feeble minded cowardice?

    We all face grief, those who wish to profit from it are beneath contempt. The bottom line is; the dead are dead and must be left behind whilst the living must move forward.



    Report abuse

  • 3- Atheism, Deism and Agnosticism are all against organized religion. If this is true they should act together in order to achieve a secular world

    In general I think it’s a good idea for people who share the same values to work together for political change. But there is no one view of atheism or secularism that everyone shares. Ayn Rand and Joseph Stalin were atheists and I have less in common with their world view than I do with Martin Luther King who was a Christian but who is someone I greatly admire.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #7 by Red Dog:

    The claim is that the truth of religion doesn’t matter because belief in religion makes people happy.

    The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact
    that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

    ~ George Bernard Shaw 1856-07-26 1950-11-02



    Report abuse

  • 11
    Ben_Keyes_780 says:

    One
    The existential quality of the deity is largely determined by which method you establish knowledge. Some believers claim a priori knowledge of the deity’s existence, while others claim a postiori knowledge (most common, I think, would be the former). Most believers think that the existence of a deity is the kind of claim that one may accept without any need for verification. All of us do, in fact hold similarly grounded beliefs. The existence of an external reality, one’s own existence, and the like. Believers will try to construe their deity with this line of reasoning, and add further conditions that do indeed make the existence of the deity a pertinent matter (one’s status post mortem, for instance).

    When establishing the use of God’s existence, it is important to first establish what on earth you are talking about. Most of the noise is simply a result of misusing rationalist and empiricist arguments in logically suspect ways. Whether this is a matter of import or not depends on how you define your terms.

    Two
    Same issue. Decide what is important in life, and apply, rinse, repeat. After truth is established, the issue of when is it right to act on it arises. Do you tell the proverbial SS that Anne Frank is hiding in your attic or not? Does the doctor tell her patient that he is terminally ill or not? Do we come to terms with the truth of the apparent futility of existence or not? Because of the inherent difficulties of trying to formulate clever responses to these conundrums for my own life, I would encourage maximum suspicion towards anyone that comes to you with simplistic, universal responses to these issues.

    Three
    Not only is secularism compatible with agnosticism, deism, and atheism, but theism as well.On average, I think it best for every ideology to desire some measure of pluralism, lest they find themselves stamped down by the “One True Ideology.” So just to be safe, it would make sense to not ostracize and quash other ideologies for fear of turning tables. And it is for this reason, by the way, that I would advocate special ostracism to Abrahamic ideologies on account of their exceptional barbarism, past and present. You reap what you sow, after all.

    Four
    I would actually charge many people on both sides of the debate with giving this issue more focus that it deserves. To be sure, it is an important issue if you are arguing in terms of Biblical Inerrancy to establish authorship and reliability of the text(s). But for all of those who are not Biblical literalists (or other religious texts) the conversation shifts to the content itself, which is the real matter that ought to be dealt with, I think. I, as an atheist, find passages in holy books that I find moving. This is despite the fact that majority of these sacred texts is at best gibberish and at worst hateful. The detestable content is detestable regardless of who wrote it or why. Many religious believers will concede this.

    I admit that this leaves the so called “fundamentalists” unattended. These “fundamentalists” are, unfortunately, the best religious faith has to offer. That is because they are the most steeped religion; the “fundamentalists,” as I see it, are merely those with the strongest religious convictions. How does on one deal with the likes of these? It is a complicated issue, so any simplistic answer I would encourage the exercise of extreme suspicion. The question is intimately connected to 2., which is why I would answer similarly to it.



    Report abuse

  • 13
    mmurray says:

    Is this a homework assignment ?

    1- Discussions on the existence of God is not useful. Existence of God cannot be verified scientifically.

    First define what a god is ?

    3- Atheism, Deism and Agnosticism are all against organized religion. If this is true they should act together in order to achieve a secular world.

    You need to define what atheism is. There are at least two versions “holds no beliefs in gods” and “believes there are no gods”. Many people though probably fall under a third definition “there is in sufficient evidence to behave as if gods exist”. None of these say anything about how they should feel about organised religion.

    Similarly you need to define what you mean by agnostic. Some people regard it as meaning someone can’t decide if gods exist and others regard it as meaning that someone believes that it is not possible to know if gods exists and yet others take it to mean you are not 100% sure that gods do or do not exist.

    Michael



    Report abuse

  • 14
    functional atheist says:
    1. Discussions on the existence of god can be useful.
    2. It is no more possible to prove that god doesn’t exist than it is possible to prove that leprechauns don’t exist. It is impossible to prove a negative, so the proposition that a ‘struggle against god is not useful’ is a baseless assertion.
    3. Atheism, agnosticism and deism may or may not be against organized religion (it depends on the atheist, agnostic, or deist). I happen to find spiritualism, astrology, and new age beliefs just as annoying as organized religion, and I think a ‘secular world’ is too absolutist a goal for me. I like individuality (and cathedrals) too much to want to achieve some utopian ‘secular world’.
    4. Holy is not spelled ‘holly’. There is no god, so whatever is conveyed to any prophet is of no interest to me. Organized (and unorganized) religion is of course unreliable–but so what? That should be so obvious that it is of no consequence or interest.



    Report abuse

  • 15
    Tarantella says:

    Four comments in no particular order. 🙂

    1. People might be wrong about their ideas about God even if there is one and if to know God is to stop being a separate person than that’s good enough to keep God hidden at least from God’s perspective. See non-duality, Advaita etc

    2.First identify what makes a person a person and what makes you you before worrying about this.Also If you think you are a separate person then God might just be all that you are not.

    3.A wise man once wrote “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

    Firstly you don’t have to be a member of an organized religion to appreciate this and secondly is to realize the importance of the third sentence.see non duality Advaita. etc

    4.Organized religion might be about holding God at arms length figuratively speaking.



    Report abuse

  • 16
    godzillatemple says:

    Discussions on the existence of God is not useful.

    In and of itself, probably not. But insofar as some people use the existence of God as a justification to oppress other people, such discussions can be vitally important.

    Existence of God cannot be verified scientifically.

    Why not? Most people don’t believe in God simply because a strange notion entered their head. Instead, they believe because of some sort of evidence that they think “proves” his existence. Each of those bits of evidence (the existence of the Bible, supposed miracles, prophecies that have supposedly been fulfilled, the supposed inability of the natural world to have come about without an intelligent designer, etc.) can be explored scientifically and either verified or falsified. If all the claimed evidence supporting the existence of God is shown scientifically to be accurate, then you have effectively verified God’s existence. Conversely, if the claimed evidence is shown to be false, then you have effectively disproved the existence of God.

    Many people want to believe in God because they do not want the death to be a farewell to everything they love in their lives and to their existence. If someone proved that God does not exist that would psychologically destroyed them. As a result struggle against God also not useful.

    True, many people want to believe in God because they do not want the death to be a farewell to everything they love in their lives and to their existence. But why assume that they would be “psychologically destroyed” if their belief in God were shaken? After all, there are plenty of people who believe in God who are still devastated at the loss of a loved on. There are also plenty of non-believers who accept that this life is all we have and try to make the best of it, understanding that we are all part of the “great circle of life”.

    And, as I mentioned in my first answer up above, many people also want to believe in God because it gives them a justification to oppress other people. That, in and of itself, makes the struggle against God “useful” even if it hurts people’s feelings in the process. If a belief in God was simply a matter of finding extra meaning in this life and comfort in the face of death, I doubt there would be much discussion about God’s existence whatsoever. But since the belief in God usually entails a whole lot more than that, with mostly negative consequences towards anybody who either doesn’t believe or who believes slightly differently, the discussion remains crucial.



    Report abuse

  • 17
    Nightsky Majesty says:

    In reply to #15 by Tarantella:

    See non-duality, Advaita etc

    From: http://endless-satsang.com/advaita-nonduality-oneness.htm

    “What is Advaita, or nonduality? Advaita means nondual or “not two.” This oneness is a fundamental quality of everything. Everything is a part of and made of one nondual conciousness.”

    Im sorry but that is just fluff. It might make you feel all warm and fuzzy to think that everything is all one consciousness connected to the “source” creating one “being” and we are just all “expressions” of this being… that is what you call wishing thinking. It may feel nice but look around you’re in the wrong universe.

    To the OP

    While the use of a belief in any god continues to be used in oppression –discussions on the (non)existence of god continues to be useful. Existence of god cannot be verified by science because science cant verify what isn’t there to verify.

    People can believe whatever god they want, it is the harmful ways they use that belief that is of concern. Noone i know has ever said they want to stop christians singing hallelujah in a church or a muslim to give up his prayer mat. If someone did prove god doesn’t exist my guess is those you say might be psychologically destroyed would still go on believing, evidence has not been enough so far to convince them.

    Everyone should act together in order to achieve a free world where every individual has the same rights (laws and punishments) as any other individual… my own bit of fluff 🙂

    Don’t care want any organized religion does unless it is seeking to control, harm, manipulate and oppress others – same goes for governments, corporations and even individuals.



    Report abuse

  • 18
    Tarantella says:

    In reply to #17 by Nightsky Majesty:

    In reply to #15 by Tarantella:

    …Im sorry but that is just fluff. It might make you feel all warm and fuzzy to think that everything is all one consciousness connected to the “source” creating one “being” and we are just all “expressions” of this being… that is what you call wishing thinking. It may feel nice but look around you’re in the wrong universe.

    Some very clever scientists theorize that the Universe emerged from a Singularity. The question is how do you know you are not still in a Singularity?

    Not to be impolite but Ramana is a far better source for finding out about Advaita especially on the nature of mind and how things are perceived. He is very precise with words and often far from warm and fuzzy :-).



    Report abuse

  • 20
    Reckless Monkey says:
    1. Null Hypothesis – Believers claim again and again in evidence therefore those claims can be tested scientifically. Thus far all can be shown to have better explanations.

    2. This may be true for some but how did they come to be so delicate – religion. For the sake of future generations some doubt must be sewed.

    3. Deism is not necessarily against organised religion it just implies more doubt. But Deism is the result of sloppy thinking unless we wish to placate sloppy wishy washy thought we need to be prepared to argue against that also. But we could certainly side with them on issues of secular society.

    4. Well yes, however try convincing a religious person of that. Try using this to argue for Gay marriage or euthanasia. We’re making progress through a range of processes and awareness raising.

    Your general tone seems to imply that Deism is okay and we should side with them on these issues. Deism incorporates faith on no evidence at all. This is the main if not whole problem.



    Report abuse

  • 21
    Kwwebbo says:

    Religion has always been organised by humans throughout history, often to control the masses and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, except fairy tales and mythology, most of which is contained within so called religious text. With regard to any prophets writing religious texts, what is a prophet? An acknowledgement of a ‘prophet’ is an acknowledgement of God which itself would be contradictory to logic and atheist living. All religious writings are clear and delusional idealogy that must by its very nature and our gradual evelution became redundant.
    I can to some extent understand the ‘comfort blanket’ of religion, in terms of death and the finality that culminates. However spending ones living years based on a non evidenced conglomeration of bastardised stories would bother me far more the a secular existance, living based on logic and realistic existance.



    Report abuse

  • 22
    Fixator says:

    Religion has always been organised by humans throughout history, often to control the masses and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, except fairy tales and mythology, most of which is contained within so called religious text. With regard to any prophets writing religious texts, what is a prophet? An acknowledgement of a ‘prophet’ is an acknowledgement of God which itself would be contradictory to logic and atheist living. All religious writings are clear and delusional idealogy that must by its very nature and our gradual evelution became redundant.
    I can to some extent understand the ‘comfort blanket’ of religion, in terms of death and the finality that culminates. However spending ones living years based on a non evidenced conglomeration of bastardised stories would bother me far more the a secular existance, living based on logic and realistic existance.



    Report abuse

  • 23
    Seraphor says:

    In reply to #20 by Reckless Monkey:

    Your general tone seems to imply that Deism is okay and we should side with them on these issues. Deism incorporates faith on no evidence at all. This is the main if not whole problem.

    That’s not strictly my take of Deism, although I suppose everyone is different.
    While the lack of evidence is enough to convince me otherwise, I see no problem with others coming to a deistic conclusion.

    I always thought of Deism as being a form of realistic wishful thinking. Deists know there is no evidence for the existence of their god, and that it more than likely does not interact with matter as we perceive it and most likely isn’t even concerned with life, let alone human life. In that sense, on a practical level, it is indistinguishable from atheism, as an Atheistic universe is indistinguishable from a Deistic universe. It’s only different on philosophical grounds.

    That kind of faith I don’t see a problem with, unless it turns out they also believe in some form of afterlife and that belief affects their judgement in this one, but even then the affects may not be a problem from the most part.

    Regardless, no wins for secularism can be made through sectarianism. ‘Preaching’ atheism will not win anyone over, but encouraging human rights, equality and scientific inquiry as roads to secularism will also encourage atheism, agnosticism and deism in probably somewhat equal amounts.



    Report abuse

  • 25
    YesUCan says:

    Toward the end of the 19th century, archeologists found and in time deciphered ancient Sumerian texts.
    (Sumerians lived between 3500 to 2000 BC.) Among them is the deluge myth. According to this myth,
    there is a deity instructing a man to construct a ship to survive the great flood, like the flood stories
    in Abrahamaic religions.. So, in fact who instructed the construction of the ship?? “The God” or “a Sumerian god”?
    (There are other stories from ancient civilizations that are incorporated in various forms to religious texts.)

    The question is how one and only, omnipresent, infinitely capable God replaced the old multi-god belief system,
    which existed perhaps from the beginning of the homo-sapiens?



    Report abuse

  • 26
    Tarantella says:

    In reply to #23 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #18 by Tarantella:

    Some very clever scientists theorize that the Universe emerged from a Singularity. The question is how do you know you are not still in a Singularity?

    That is an easy question. I am made of atoms and in the Planck epoch there were no atoms.

    So there was a time when you were not made of atoms and a time when you were. That’s fine 🙂

    A Singularity though has no separate observer.



    Report abuse

  • 27
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #25 by Tarantella:
    >

    In reply to #18 by Tarantella:

    Some very clever scientists theorize that the Universe emerged from a Singularity. The question is how do you know you are not still in a Singularity?

    That is an easy question. I am made of atoms and in the Planck epoch there were no atoms.

    So there was a time when you were not made of atoms and a time when you were. That’s fine 🙂

    What on Earth are you talking about?
    Everything on Earth has been made of atoms (with some energy flying around), since before humans existed, and all living organisms are made of atoms! !

    The early stages of the Big-Bang involved energy but no atoms. I gave you a link @23 which explained this!

    A Singularity though has no separate observer.

    There are many features of nature which can be calculated rather than directly observed. I don’t see any connection to separate observers being relevant to my present set of atoms. We are not in a singularity – the Universe has dimensions.



    Report abuse

  • @yesyoucan

    1. NOTHING can be “verified” by science nor can anything be proven nor can anything be disapproven. By it’s own statements the scientific method, which, along with mathematics, are the only tools it has. They can observe, deduce and induce, speculate, hypothesize, and test. But all they ever get is the best idea found untill the next better idea comes along. And there is no reason to expect that will one day end.

    2. People believe in god for one fundamental reason. They want an absolute authority that sets the rules for all people because they desperately want to be on “the right side” without the burden of thinking through their own moral, ethical, and for that matter ethical codes. They WANT to be sheeple, and this should neither surprize or disturb us. You need a LOT of folloers for our flavor of society to work. (This is also why they war with each other, because they MUST have one true god (s).

    3. Atheism and agnostism are NOT religions.

    4. This is simply not true. Many biblical “books” are written (or sometimes dictated) by prophets. Like John’s apocalyptic nonsense.



    Report abuse

  • 29
    nick keighley says:

    just wanted to see counter arguments to the following.

    1- Discussions on the existence of God is not useful. Existence of God cannot be verified scientifically.

    if it cannot be verified scientifically then there is no empirical evidence for its existence. To me this is pretty close to non-existent. As far as I am concerned the theists are the ones with the burden of proof. Put up or shutup. Useful discussions of this subject are usually pretty short.

    2- Many people want to believe in God because they do not want the death to be a farewell to everything they love in their lives and to their existence. If someone proved that God does not exist that would psychologically destroyed them. As a result struggle against God also not useful.

    I wouldn’t go out of my way to confront such a person, but if they wanted an argument and I succeeded in proving the non-existence of god (a pretty unlikely supposition) well I’d say they based their lives on a very fragile belief system.

    3- Atheism, Deism and Agnosticism are all against organized religion.

    no. I’m an atheist and I’m not against organized religion.

    If this is true they should act together in order to achieve a secular world.

    its not a club. An atheist doesn’t have to do anything. An atheist is just someone who doesn’t believe in god(s).

    On the other paw, what is wrong with a secular world? I want to live in a world where all religions and non-religions are treated the same before the law, the state etc. I consider I live in a country where this is largely true.

    4- “Organized religion” is organized by people with “Holly” books

    ITYM “holy”. A bit of a simplistic definition of organised religion. ORs like other human institutions have rules, have insiders and outsiders. There is a certain resistance to change and certain institutional instincts to survive. Institutions that can’t defend their integrity tend to cease to exist.

    written by “ordinary” people. No prophet ever wrote a holly book.

    not sure there is a a clear distinction between “ordinary people” and “prophets”. Wasn’t Mohamed or the mormon guy ordinary people and prophets?

    “Officials” of organized religion also get help from religious rules they themselves wrote.

    I know this is said, and sometimes is true. I think it is far less prevalent than is sometimes suggested

    As a result, exactly what is conveyed by God to a prophet is not known.

    since god doesn’t exist, nothing has been communicated to a prophet

    If this is the case then organized religion is unreliable and cannot be taken as a basis for everyday or spiritual life of a person or a society.

    despite its unreliability religion seems to provide many people with spiritual support. It seems to provide some social benefit as well



    Report abuse

  • 30
    pedro.carreira.167 says:

    1- Other subjects might be more interesting but that doesn’t mean this subject is useless, maybe you find it boring.
    2- Not everyone is the same, people react differently and while some suffer others feel happiness. Different approaches to different circumstances.
    3- Not all of them, you are generalising, because many atheists simply don’t care about religion and that’s the reason they don’t act together Although I think they should.
    4- Agree.



    Report abuse

  • 31
    YesUCan says:

    In the mean time, I thought of something. One of the basic principles of religion is that humans have a “soul.” For science to disprove God it perhaps can prove that no soul exists. (I’m in no way on the religious side in this respect.)



    Report abuse

  • 32
    Malaidas says:

    You make some interesting points here.

    My viewpoint on this has wavered over the years, although I am now fully atheist for reasons that are unimportant.

    Its a difficult point:

    As a deist, you accept the existence of a god, but would never think to set up a place of worship for one, he/she/it doesn’t require one , never the less the idea of reverence is no less, you still see something special, some purpose in everything you look at. Your worship is to everything around you, and there is a profound spiritual sense to it, at least where I was concerned, in my gradual evolution from theism to atheism. a place of worship or definite rituals in this sense I agree has very little sense, however you would hold that there is a need for a sense of reverence, however I would probably argue that a secular society in general was right.

    agnosticism is a difficult one to be honest, I don;t recognise it as a proper belief, rather an absence of belief, an atheist believes there is no god, its is most likely a justified true belief, ala fact. but that is a firm belief, a true agnostic on the other hand claims unbelief, those spiritualists who claim to be agnostic aside (I class them as something completely separate). An agnostic cannot be asked to commit to any side therefore, I don;t know if we could expect them to commit to a secular society

    atheists obviously go along with this



    Report abuse

  • 33
    Malaidas says:

    In reply to #30 by YesUCan:

    In the mean time, I thought of something. One of the basic principles of religion is that humans have a “soul.” For science to disprove God it perhaps can prove that no soul exists. (I’m in no way on the religious side in this respect.)

    In spite of all attempts to do so, the human soul has never been detected. However this offers only proof that if it exists it is not of normal energy etc, which would correspond with religious belief, I personally don’t believe this is the case but that’s a matter of belief



    Report abuse

  • 34
    Robert-Evans says:

    Point 1: I agree. The existence of God is not scientifically verifiable. This shows that atheist comments are therefore only opinion.
    Point 2: People believe in God because their eyes are opened. What happens after that, such as what you just mentioned, is just common human responses.
    Point 3: They may well be. But it is not healthy to be against other people, although it is fair to comment on practices which are wrong in some way. Point 4: if you are saying that no prophet ever wrote anything, then we would need to see evidence for that. (see point 1)



    Report abuse

  • 35
    YesUCan says:

    In reply to #33 by Robert-Evans:

    Point 3: They may well be. But it is not healthy to be against other people, although it is fair to comment on practices which are wrong in some way. Point 4: if you are saying that no prophet ever wrote anything, then we would need to see evidence for that. (see point 1)

    I am not against other people. I am against being trapped and surrounded by all sorts of religious pressure. You may answer who wrote Bible, Torah and Qoran. I suspect they are not Jesus, Moses and Muhammad.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.