Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?

Pushtrak

paddyandy wrote: »

There are very few atheists in dying rooms .

Dying rooms? What? Oh, do you mean those on their death beds? Taking this assumption, and even granting you the assumption this were true, do you think a desperate person who is far removed from rational thought is a compelling point in your favour? That one needs to not be capable of rational thought is to you a "win" is pretty sad.

Genesis is a very Opaque Book in many parts .....search the web .

Actually, it is transparent in its inaccuracy.

DuPLeX

No you cant make me say it ..No!....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb2-M-B2iVA

LaVail

religion? hmmm :rolleyes:

Doctor Jimbob

I don't give a flying fuck anymore.

paddyandy

PUSHTRAK : Genesis is an oblique and subtle and layered book search the web .
The question on Atheists in dying rooms you should talk to people whose job it is trying to comfort the trembling lips and choking voices and fidgeting hands .One man on his deathbed when asked to renounce the devil and all his works responded with "Sure dis is no time for to be makin' enemies ".

shizz

paddyandy wrote: »

PUSHTRAK : Genesis is an oblique and subtle and layered book search the web .
The question on Atheists in dying rooms you should talk to people whose job it is trying to comfort the trembling lips and choking voices and fidgeting hands .

I don't understand how that means anything though? I would presume that someone dying is no where in a state of mind to think rationally and is trying to hold on to every bit of life they have left.

So you would go by their last dying moments rather than how they lived their life as to whether they are an Atheist or not?

Pushtrak

paddyandy wrote: »

PUSHTRAK : Genesis is an oblique and subtle and layered book search the web .

Biblical literalism is not a new phenomenon. It is an interpretation by liberal christians of today. So, no. Good job on having a better understanding on reality than literalists, though. There is something to be said for that.

The question on Atheists in dying rooms you should talk to people whose job it is trying to comfort the trembling lips and choking voices and fidgeting hands .One man on his deathbed when asked to renounce the devil and all his works responded with "Sure dis is no time for to be makin' enemies ".

What is your point? It doesn't strengthen your position as far as I can see. There isn't anything to rebut here.

Corkfeen

paddyandy wrote: »

PUSHTRAK : Genesis is an oblique and subtle and layered book search the web .
The question on Atheists in dying rooms you should talk to people whose job it is trying to comfort the trembling lips and choking voices and fidgeting hands .One man on his deathbed when asked to renounce the devil and all his works responded with "Sure dis is no time for to be makin' enemies ".

I've had many relatives who were raised Catholic and I can say without a doubt that many of them died without any belief in a god .Your statement has as much legitimacy as 'There's no atheists in foxholes'. Similarly to my initial statement, they are anecdotal unless you can produce some studies that concur with your claim, it is bull****... Darwin apparently found god on his deathbed too, this later turned out to be a lie.

Owen_S

It's not the atheists you should be worried about. It's the agnostics. The indecisiveness will cause havoc.

pragmatic1

I wish it was true but as long as we don't live in a utopian society, I can't see it happening. People need some kind of hope even if it is cac bo.

Pushtrak

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/joshua-everett-search-for-truth-leads-to-rejection-of-religion/article_236296fe-b1b4-11e1-a6be-001a4bcf887a.html

I am an ordained, fundamentalist evangelical Christian minister — and an atheist. It might seem counterintuitive to read such a sentence, but a surprising number of ministers are rejecting religious belief.

None of us became ministers expecting to leave religion behind; we were authentic, strong, sincere, faithful clergy and practitioners of our faiths. Changing our minds about religion does not make us inherently bad or immoral people, uncharitable, dishonest, hostile, lacking in knowledge or common sense, deviants, or any of the other epithets frequently used to malign nonbelievers.

The Clergy Project is an organization that provides a support community for non-believing (atheist and agnostic) clergy and former clergy from all religions and denominations around the world. The organization, started on March 21, 2011, has more than 260 members and receives over 40 applications each month.

Members of The Clergy Project go through an extensive screening process to ensure prospective members actually are non-believers and are clergy or former clergy. Members are classified as either “active” (active clergy) or “alumni” (former clergy).

This organization is not meant to proselytize or change the beliefs of active clergy but to provide them with a support group that can aid them as they attempt to trade their religious careers for secular careers.

More at the link.

shizz

Pushtrak wrote: »

[url=Joshua Everett: Search for truth leads to rejection of religion]http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/joshua-everett-search-for-truth-leads-to-rejection-of-religion/article_236296fe-b1b4-11e1-a6be-001a4bcf887a.html[/url]

More at the link.

Link didn't work for me? Had to copy and paste it

nozzferrahhtoo

I just happened to be listening to Dawkins and Dennett on You tube today at this link here. Around 31:20 they start talking about the Clergy Project as Dennett had a hand in it's creation.

It was almost moving. Dennett spoke of how most of these people got into the Clergy out of a genuine desire to do good in the world and help their fellow man. They thought the Clergy was the path to doing that, but they instead found themselves in a role where they were preaching nonsense they themselves had no belief in and unable to talk to anyone about it.

So "in the closet" were they that in many cases, nearly all if not all, the woman running the project (linda lascola) was the first person these Clergy had "outed" themselves to. They had often not even talked to their own spouse, friends or congregation about it. They described feelings of horrific loneliness because of this.

In the Clergy Project forum most of them even now use Usernames like we do on Boards.ie and have not outed themselves. They talk about their shared experiences and loneliness and fear of "coming out" but do it all anonymously. Even Dennett does not have access to their conversations, it is all locked down.

I have very long wondered how many theists actually do believe and how many of them just say they do. The Clergy Project is interesting in that it shows that that question should not just be limited to the flock, but the shepherds too.

prinz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It was almost moving. Dennett spoke of how most of these people got into the Clergy out of a genuine desire to do good in the world and help their fellow man. They thought the Clergy was the path to doing that, but they instead found themselves in a role where they were preaching nonsense they themselves had no belief in and unable to talk to anyone about it..

Clergy in crisis of faith shocker. Nothing new tbh. Plenty of clergy have left their respective churches over atheism and a range of other issues. I even know some :eek:

As a matter of interest how's you sympathy for people with faith who feel they have to hide it? Feel they are unable to talk about? The loneliness for them?

nozzferrahhtoo

prinz wrote: »

Clergy in crisis of faith shocker. Nothing new tbh. Plenty of clergy have left their respective churches over atheism and a range of other issues. I even know some

Some do some dont. Some are in better situations than others to do so. I reckon it is a lot easier to do in Ireland for example than in the middle of the Bible Belt. Or one can look at the likes of Leo Igwe in Nigeria who left the Seminary and set up a Humanist Group. He has undergone violence of all kinds, against himself and his family and loved ones because of it.

We are in a position of some privilege in Ireland. The reaction for leaving the church, the clergy, or outing oneself as an atheist is not THAT bad. It is easy to forget the hardships some, like those in the Clergy Project, undergo in their communities that people here do not.

prinz wrote: »

As a matter of interest how's you sympathy for people with faith who feel they have to hide it? Feel they are unable to talk about? The loneliness for them?

I sympathise with anyone who can not be themselves for no better reason than fear of the reactions of others. Atheists, Theists, Homosexuals, Bolton Wanderers fans......

prinz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I sympathise with anyone who can not be themselves for no better reason than fear of the reactions of others. Atheists, Theists, Homosexuals, Bolton Wanderers fans......

:eek: Some things should never be shared. :pac:

bnt

I recently listened to a discussion with Daniel Dennett, in which he said roughly what the OP article described. One important point he made is that religion survives due to ignorance of religion, if that makes sense. People haven't always been permitted to understand just what they've signed up for, in full detail. It's axiomatic that any formal religion will paint itself as the only true religion, and that other religions - if they even exist - are false. Better still if kids don't even hear about them at all - why else would there have been such a fuss in Quebec a few years ago, over the teaching of world religions to students? A bunch of fundie Christian parents took the Province to court in protest, claiming that having their kids taught about other religions would undermine their "moral authority". They lost.

The advances in communication over the last century - newspapers, radio, TV, and now the Internet - have made that fog of ignorance impossible to keep up forever. But that doesn't necessarily mean that religions will fail as such - but that they'll have to change to stay relevant, or that they will change whether the "powers that be" like it or not. The debate in the Church of England over gay marriage is an example of such a change. The CoE is in danger of a schism over issues relating to gay people, including gay clergy.

The title is a bit off: atheism is not a "force" that's going to "defeat" anything. No-one's going to lose any more than whatever they want to leave behind. :cool:

Pushtrak

bnt wrote: »

The title is a bit off: atheism is not a "force" that's going to "defeat" anything. No-one's going to lose any more than whatever they want to leave behind. :cool:

Indeed. I titled it as such because it was the name of the article from which I made the post. I added the question mark as it isn't something I think will happen.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/unholy-row-in-council-chamber-as-move-to-scrap-prayer-defeated-197120.html#.T9eSOMaViZ8.facebook

Unholy row in council chamber as move to scrap prayer defeated
A proposal to scrap a prayer at the start of a local authority meeting sparked an unholy row last night. Cork’s city councillors voted overwhelmingly against the move after a heated debate. Socialist Party councillor Mick Barry, an atheist, called for the deletion of a rule governing the order of council business which states that the start of the council’s public meetings should include the recitation of an opening prayer, followed by a brief period of silent reflection.

The prayer reads: "Direct, we beseech thee, O Lord, our actions by thy holy inspirations and carry them on by thy gracious assistance; that every word and work of ours may always begin from thee, and by thee be happily ended; through Christ our Lord. Amen." Quoting James Connolly’s position, Mr Barry said: "You should have separation of Church and State. When I come into this council chamber, I report for work. A bus driver who reports for work isn’t faced with saying a prayer. The State should not interfere with a person’s practice of religion in a genuine republican democracy."

He was backed by Cllr Ted Tynan, Workers Party, and Fine Gael councillor Laura McGonigle. "We don’t come in here to practise religion," she said. "A short period of silent reflection is done in Dublin City Council, the Stormont Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. We should consider this as a pluralist and inclusive alternative."

But several councillors said it was open to individuals to either stand or sit during the prayer. Labour councillor Michael Ahern pointed out that Connolly signed the proclamation "in the name of God". Cllr Joe O’Callaghan (FG) said: "If it was good enough for Connolly, then it’s good enough for me. With all its faults, I’m a Catholic and I’m proud of that. And it’s still a Christian country and long may that continue."

Sinn Féin’s Tom Gould urged caution against Mr Barry’s proposal. "I respect his position, but we need to be careful about where we’re going," he said. "I mean, are we going to end up calling Christmas ‘happy holidays’?" Cllr Kenneth O’Flynn said it wouldn’t do any harm for councillors to aspire to follow the teachings of the bible. A vote was called and Mr Barry’s proposal was shot down by 20 votes.

af_thefragile

So which one will take over?

Will it be the Allied Atheist Alliance, the United Atheist Alliance or the Unified Atheist League...???

Red Hand

af_thefragile wrote: »

So which one will take over?

Will it be the Allied Atheist Alliance, the United Atheist Alliance or the Unified Atheist League...???

My money is on Atheists-R-Us.

Opticom

Pushtrak wrote: »

Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?

So, AH, what do you make of it all?

I doubt the numbers game makes much difference to what people believe / don't believe. There are only about 750 Samaritans left in the world, their religion and tribe have almost died out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans

Opticom

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If that was all they did you may have a point but the fruits of religion are much more than that. From destroying the lives of children accused of witchcraft, to destroying discourse between different religions by creating divides where none actually exist, to conning money out of the faithful, to trying to teach stultifying nonsense to children in schools all over the US and the world, to teaching some parents it is ok to watch your own child die of treatable Diabetes, to silencing free speech and free expression, to hindering the progress of science, to facilitating and protecting behind a veil of holyness the systematic abuse, often sexual, of children, to influencing government policy in damaging ways, to promoting hated towards minority groups such as homosexuals, to distributing false and damaging information on topics such as contraception, to to to... the list goes on.

As if atheist states were any different : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Religion or Atheism is not the problem. Fundamentalists, and their hateful, all consuming 'love to hate' obsessions are the problem, whether it be religious fundamentalists or atheist fundamentalists.

strobe

Pushtrak wrote: »

Indeed. I titled it as such because it was the name of the article from which I made the post. I added the question mark as it isn't something I think will happen.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/unholy-row-in-council-chamber-as-move-to-scrap-prayer-defeated-197120.html#.T9eSOMaViZ8.facebook

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full." Matt. 6:5 (via The Quadratic Equation).

bnt

Opticom wrote: »

As if atheist states were any different : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

And if you read the Wikipedia piece, you'll see that state atheism was attempted by dictators or politburos, not democratic parliaments, and was rarely an end in itself, but a means to an end. The end being political control in countries where a Church held significant political power and was a threat to the dictator or the Party.

Try and find an actual atheist here who's in favour of state atheism. If that ever becomes a possibility in Ireland, we'll all have far more serious concerns already. I don't know if you're genuinely equating state atheism with secularism, but that would be the kind of rhetoric you'd find at a Republican Party convention in some Southern US State.

prinz

af_thefragile wrote: »

So which one will take over?
Will it be the Allied Atheist Alliance, the United Atheist Alliance or the Unified Atheist League...???

The Atheist People's Front People's Front of Atheism.

prinz

Opticom wrote: »

Fundamentalists, and their hateful, all consuming 'love to hate' obsessions are the problem....

The recent thread about An Post commemorative stamps was a highlight.:pac:

Wibbs

strobe wrote: »

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full." Matt. 6:5 (via The Quadratic Equation).

Actually that's one of the attributed quotes from the lad from Galilee I always liked. While he had his moments of being OTT as your religious do, he really got stuck into the hypocrites, the loud of faith, the craw thumpers and the like.

Even though I'm a fervent agnostic I've always had a sneaking affection for Jesus and Buddha on this score. They both despised hypocrites. I have always found it particularly interesting that the more conservative Christians tend to eschew their founders cynical eye on such matters. They have a nasty habit of quoting a parable like the good Samaritan while completely missing the bloody point the lad was making. They actually go out of their way to do so.

If one looks at the passage contextually for the time and place, here is a bloke, a rabbi talking to an audience steeped in the Torah and the beginnings of the Talmud, which is totally gung ho on the "chosen people" vibe, yet he turns this on it's head. The chosen people(inc a rabbi and fundamentalist) leave one of "their own: to die, yet what to his audience would be considered the "lowest of the low/infidel/scumbag" is the one who stops and helps. He makes this point more than once. I particularly like the "she's a whore rabbi". ORLY? yea well go ahead and cast the first stone if you think you're moral enough fcukers" debate. Buddha says similar, as does Confucius and any number of clued in dudes.

We would all do well to be mindful of same; atheist, agnostic, god botherer, or lapsed god knows what. In fact the latter lot should be more mindful than the atheists IMHO. Your "what would Jesus do?" types tend to avoid the bloody question entirely. On Christianity and Christians I tend to be with Gandhi on that score.

prinz

Wibbs wrote: »

We would all do well to be mindful of same; atheist, agnostic, god botherer, or lapsed god knows what. In fact the latter lot should be more mindful than the atheists IMHO. Your "what would Jesus do?" types tend to avoid the bloody question entirely. On Christianity and Christians I tend to be with Gandhi on that score.

I'd agree with your post here, but just point out one thing.. while the lad from Galilee used to say things like 'let those without sin cast the first stone' he also said things like 'go and sin no more'.. and often times even echoing that advice from time to time as a godbotherer will get you boxed off as a fundamentalist nutbag because you are mad enough to believe some things are sinful.

Opticom

bnt wrote: »

And if you read the Wikipedia piece, you'll see that state atheism was attempted by dictators or politburos, not democratic parliaments, and was rarely an end in itself, but a means to an end. The end being political control in countries where a Church held significant political power and was a threat to the dictator or the Party.

Try and find an actual atheist here who's in favour of state atheism. If that ever becomes a possibility in Ireland, we'll all have far more serious concerns already. I don't know if you're genuinely equating state atheism with secularism, but that would be the kind of rhetoric you'd find at a Republican Party convention in some Southern US State.

True state secularism does not give atheism or theism any preference. For one to 'win', does not mean the other has to loose, not that you'll hear that from any fundamentalist theist or atheist.

bnt

Opticom wrote: »

True state secularism does not give atheism or theism any preference. For one to 'win', does not mean the other has to loose, not that you'll hear that from any fundamentalist theist or atheist.

Yes, I know that. But what is a "fundamentalist atheist"? There's a whole forum of atheists here on Boards, but the only "fundamentalist" I've ever seen there was an obvious troll bungee-ing in from the half-a-Beast forum (#333).