Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but the purpose and function and subject matter and scope of paths of religion and spirituality are not reliant upon nor are they related to nor do they spring from nor are they contingent upon nor are they a function of "scientific developments."
"scientific developments" do not render paths of religion and spirituality obsolete.
I stated that it was my feelings. Are you claiming your post as opinion or fact?
I stated that it was my feelings. Are you claiming your post as opinion or fact?
And my feelings are not original on this issue.
well, it is a fact that "scientific developments" have not rendered paths of religion and spirituality obsolete. Because science has been around in some form or another, for thousands of years, and paths of religion and spirituality have never gone away. Including the "scientific developments since the mid1800's" which was the parameter named in earlier post. And paths of religion and spirituality are still going strong with data showing 84% of the world population identifying with a path of religion and spirituality.
it is also a fact that the purpose and function and scope of paths of religion and spirituality are not reliant upon or contingent upon or a function of "scientific developments."
speculation of the "if then" variety is just that, speculation. Certainly anyone can speculate about anything, and hold any view or belief they choose.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-05-2022 at 08:50 PM..
It's not "loaded".
That Atheists have a Religion is simply the facts of the matter.
Even the U.S. Government has deemed Atheism a religion...relative to their primary legal metric, The Constitution, and relative to discrimination matters.
And just look here...this is a forum for "Religion & Spirituality", and it has a sub-form for individual Religious Beliefs. "Atheism" is part of the list, right alongside Christianity, Islam, and others.
Atheism even has churches...mega-churches in fact: https://www.businessinsider.com/athi...-world-2013-11
From your first link.
Similar gatherings in San Diego, Nashville, New York and other U.S. cities have drawn hundreds of atheists seeking the camaraderie of a congregation without religion or ritual.
They don't bash believers but want to find a new way to meet likeminded people, engage in the community and make their presence more visible in a landscape dominated by faith.
Second link.
Atheism the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Doctrine does not mean what you think it does.
Doctrine: A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group
Why would an atheist ask for "sound and valid argument" from someone holding different views than theirs?
That is an Ask an Atheist question. Since it is a behavior seen regularly on CD.
This is actually a very good question. I'll be happy to answer.
And it is a very simple answer - I need to know whose view is the correct one.
If my view is wrong or not rational I must get rid of it.
As I already said before, as soon as sound and valid theistic argument is presented to me, that second I'm not an atheist anymore.
Simply not asking for an argument and assuming that all of them are bad b/c all I've heard so far were bad is not an option. I mean, it is an option, but a bad one. Irrational one.
Quote:
I have reasons for my path. And other people have reasons for their path. It is not up to me to determine whether their path is "sound and valid" for them. Only they can determine that. For that reason, I don't find it to be rational or logical.
And you are objectively mistaken.
"Sound and valid" is not subjective. Your reasons are subjective, but soundness and validity of these reasons are 100% objective and can be determined as such completely independently of any personal opinion on a subject, including yours.
Again, to be clear. I don't really care what you believe in. It is your business.
And I'm not probing your reasons for your believes to put you down in a any way.
I just want to make sure for myself that your reasons for whatever it is you do are not better than my reasons not to do it or to do the opposite. And that takes a little bit of a discussion.
I'm not "imposing views"...I'm just stating how it is empirically.
Certainly, you can hold a differing view, based upon personal preference and/or understanding, and that's totally cool. And that figures...everybody has a unique Belief...no two are exactly alike in their Beliefs.
But I'm actually not going by "my " Beliefs, or "your" Beliefs...I'm going by the empirical aspect of it.
See the links.
There is nothing empirical in any of the links you posted You are still tilting at windmills.
This is actually a very good question. I'll be happy to answer.
And it is a very simple answer - I need to know whose view is the correct one.
If my view is wrong or not rational I must get rid of it.
As I already said before, as soon as sound and valid theistic argument is presented to me, that second I'm not an atheist anymore.
Simply not asking for an argument and assuming that all of them are bad b/c all I've heard so far were bad is not an option. I mean, it is an option, but a bad one. Irrational one.
And you are objectively mistaken.
"Sound and valid" is not subjective. Your reasons are subjective, but soundness and validity of these reasons are 100% objective and can be determined as such completely independently of any personal opinion on a subject, including yours.
Again, to be clear. I don't really care what you believe in. It is your business.
And I'm not probing your reasons for your believes to put you down in a any way.
I just want to make sure for myself that your reasons for whatever it is you do are not better than my reasons not to do it or to do the opposite. And that takes a little bit of a discussion.
i trust that you know what is sound and valid for you. no one except you yourself can determine that for you. same for me. no one except for me can determine what is sound and valid for me.
sound and valid varies from person to person.
it is not one size fits all.
that's what freedom of religion is all about. each person is free to choose their own path. or none at all.
there is no more a "correct" path than there is a "correct" flavor of ice cream or a "correct" genre of music or a "correct" language to speak or a "correct" cuisine to savor.
to each their own. and so it is.
as a counselor once said decades ago, when i was wailing and begging to know what the right choice was to make during a time of upheaval in my life. She said, "There are no wrong choices. Just different outcomes."
well, it is a fact that "scientific developments" have not rendered paths of religion and spirituality obsolete. Because science has been around in some form or another, for thousands of years, and paths of religion and spirituality have never gone away. Including the "scientific developments since the mid1800's" which was the parameter named in earlier post. And paths of religion and spirituality are still going strong with data showing 84% of the world population identifying with a path of religion and spirituality.
it is also a fact that the purpose and function and scope of paths of religion and spirituality are not reliant upon or contingent upon or a function of "scientific developments."
speculation of the "if then" variety is just that, speculation. Certainly anyone can speculate about anything, and hold any view or belief they choose.
And yet atheism has risen and deisim seems to be less prominant. And belief in various religions are basically gone. But you only addressed religion and spiritualy as a whole rather than any specific path as I did. I never said that scientific developments affected all religions but only deism and atheism which you totally ignored. Not a shick at all that you did that.
Once you can demonstrate some honesty...you may gain some credibility & trust.
You had to know this...so, you were intentionally dishonest.
They have a name for people like that. At this time...you can be deemed one of those "not very smart atheists" that are "not very rational" (your words and assessment), that has nothing of merit...if you did, you wouldn't base your argument on untruths.
Without even pointing out that "prove of god" and "prove of hypothesis" are contextually two different ways to use of the term "prove" (the first one is wrong and the second one is correct), even if I would grant you that I was wrong at some point in the past (although I was not in this particular case), you still cannot project it to a present time.
To have a right to deem me "not very smart atheists" that are "not very rational" now, you have to have a defeater for my present views. Do you have one?
Because if you don't, you can be deemed "not very smart theist" that are "not very rational".
so discussions of atheism, and seeking to understand atheist viewpoint, is a joke?
people genuinely are seeking to engage on the topic.
Ok then I'll give it a try.
Devout theists tend to indoctrinate (brainwash) their children into whatever religion they follow beginning at a very young age. This indoctrination may last for many years. Eventually the child grows up and is exposed to information from other sources and may begin to question what they have been taught. They discover that there is no evidence for it, so they begin to deprogram themselves. It is very difficult to deprogram a indoctrinated person with help, doing it alone is even more difficult.
I believe my journey towards atheism began with a childhood prayer my mother made me repeat every night that scared the daylights out of me, gave me sleepless nights and stress.
Now I lay me down to sleep
I pray the lord my soul to keep
If I should die before I wake
I pray the lord my soul to take
And yet atheism has risen and deisim seems to be less prominant. And belief in various religions are basically gone. But you only addressed religion and spiritualy as a whole rather than any specific path as I did. I never said that scientific developments affected all religions but only deism and atheism which you totally ignored. Not a shick at all that you did that.
i don't distinguish between deism and theism, it's still belief in divinity.
and yes i do group paths of religion and spirituality together as a whole, because they all nourish the spirit.
Atheism is actually declining as a % of world population. And the nones (people with no religion) are also projected to decline as a share of the world’s population. Because the nones as a group are older and have fewer children than people who are affiliated with a religion.
2017 Pew research, article "Why people with no religion are projected to decline as a share of the world’s population" link
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-05-2022 at 09:36 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
