It only takes one sinle spark to start a fire...just you remember that

I have no idea what anyone does for a living here, so before I say anything I'm pointing out that my observation relates to people in the "real" world.

I've known people from various religions, and I've known people who have stated that they are a devout member of a specific religion who have gone on to become doctors and university lecturers. But when you ask them just how devout they are, for the most part they are not. They go through the motions, celebrate religious festivals, go to church or the mosque to be seen to be active in their religion, but do they believe what's in their holy books? No. It's tradition. Their parents were Muslim, so they are... their parents were Catholic, so they are. They have all the appearance of a devoutly religious person who has done great things with their lives, but it's a facade.

Some of the greatest people I've met have shared that "sense of transcendent wonder" which Dawkins speaks about, but they have not been religious.

I have never encountered a single human being who has believed the bible is inerrant without having to let go of their ability to use reason. Faith dictates that people believe the unbelievable, and once you cross the border and enter territory where proof is no longer required, contradictory information is accepted as fact, and where a clash between science and faith is met with the disposal of whatever science says, you compromise your ability to be logical. Yes, I know people who are Christians, by their own admition, who are in the sciences, but they do not believe that the bible is inerrant and do not take a lot of it literally... where religion and science collide, it is religion which steps back and science which takes over. And would they be classed as "true" Christians by those who consider themselves to be just that on this forum? I imagine not.

It's simply a fact that those who truly have immersed themselves in their religion, who I have encountered over the years, and who have believed that the bible is inerrant and therefore put all their faith in the supernatural, have not advanced, and have invested so much of their time and effort into following the path that their god has laid out for them that they have remained in the same jobs, at the same level, and have been proud to have done so, because they believed that sacrificing scientific knowledge (and all manner of other kinds) in order to hold their faith was something to be proud about.

"If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him. An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest." - Benjamin Franklin.

What if you don't like science? I mean it isn't everyones cup of tea. While I am not saying that it is not possible for some people to find the same satisfaction from it, there are bound to be many who really would not.



Gee that's a really nice thing to say about anyone who is not an atheist.




That last statement appears to be an attack on all religions. Not that the question wasn't leading but with well known atheists running around making statements like that it is a wonder that all religious folks aren't attacking atheism purely out of self preservation. It is statements like this that make the religious right intolerant of atheists in general...I thought atheists just wanted to be left alone to do their own thing?

I take that last statement by Mr. Dawkins to be his personal observation of an insidious campaign wherein people believe, and have said as much, that the world needs religion. Going so far as to effect ,by any means necessary, the intention to convert people by invading their countries and , as the victors in such campaigns, then making illegal the indigenous populations religious practices. As such, in those tactics, it is very much like a virus in a virus invades a host, seeks to overcome the immune system (defense of a people defending their lands and traditions) and then installs itself by replicating and taking over the host. (Outlawing indigenous religions, forbidding the speaking of native tongues, building temples, churches, declaring there is only "one" god, one faith and one way to worship,etc...) So I believe Mr. Dawkins analogy is correct.

Furthermore, if you research the religious far right, you'll find rather quickly that they are intolerant of everyone! That do not ascribe to their ideals about faith, politics and secular values. This is the agenda that said, when it's candidates ran for office in the 80's in the U.S. , that if they were elected they would push for Bill's and then, when passed, sign into law, measures that would make unrepentant homosexuality and abortion, (Thereby penalizing women and abortion providers) a death penalty offense. Thank freedom, they were defeated! But they were not overcome. The "Moral Majority" is still intent on overcoming the diverse atmosphere of this free country, and making America a Theocracy.

The far right religious agenda in this country is fascist and un-American. They may be intolerant of everyone not like themselves, but I assure you their intolerance is met with equal verve, by those that refuse to allow a theocratic dictatorship gain ground in this country. Simply said, no one has to tolerate zealots in the name of christ. And that's exactly what the far right christian agenda, is about. Zealotry! So as to overcome a nation and take this country back to biblical values. It was never born from biblical values, but the far right fascist agenda, does not recognize that.

Apparently, You wouldn't know "religious" if it rared back and snapped your underwear.

care to elaborate

wow sunni you have got Zombie to open up alot.....

Is that a good thing, or bad thing? :/

Which part? the panty part, or the you wouldn't know religion part?

lol not a good thing.



I was talking about the religion part...but sure elaborate on panties if you like.

I have never thought of myself religious-- I think of myself as spiritual. I don't even know where I belong in the religious aspect.. so there goes your theory of me being religious.

I don't feel like getting banned today, so Ill skip the panty elaboration.

I assume you misunderstood my comment then.
I was referring to people in middle eastern society.
not you.
moving along.

just noticing Zombie has gotten over his shyness LOL

Zombie, Shy? never.

The problem has always mostly been the extremists, or the radicals within a religion. There are fewer, but they manage to speak louder, more aggressive. They overshadow others who do mean well.

Clap...Clap...Clap...
We reap the rewards of a victorious conquest 2,000 years ago.
The victory was so thorough, the battle so bloody that today there is not ONE person whom can remember ancient languages, traditions, healings, ceremonial sights....NOT ONE PERSON...all in the name of fear...fear the heathen...fear the pagan...you are either with us or you are against us.
Problem is where's the solution?
We have 5,000 years of history to show the idea just doesn't work.
No longer are we "villages", we are a GLOBAL community now.
Mountain ranges do not separate us, oceans do not hinder the transportation of information.
Individual communities worked for the benefit of the community 2,000 years ago.
They had customs that both benefeted themselves and the land from which they reverred because it brought them bounty and life.
I don't see much reverence around today, except perhaps to honour the gods with a flick of the ciggie, the discarding of the Tim Hortons cup out the window, the used oil poured down the storm sewer, or my god given right to drive a SUV.
For 5, 000 years we have been led from one conquerer to another, with the intent of submission of the people.
We seem to be enjoying another foolish at a useless idea with Islam.
When are we going to say enough is enough and perhaps try something new...one that doesn't heirarchy people, or makes one person more reverred than another?
We are all one and we are all innerconnected.
Lets start there.

Blessings

its never the idea its the implementation of the idea and depending on what awareness you are bringing to the table will determine how one interprets things as you are saying ... i agree

take a bow Turtle very inspirational count me in((HUGS)))

The whole thing is baised if you ask me.....the idiot that wrote it (dawkins) knows there is no way of proving faith or disproving it...or maybe he just can't get his head around it all...and is one of those muppets that thinks - you need evidence to support your beliefs....failing to see that evidence is only through a persons experience, it can't be proved in the eyes of others...so instead he calls it religion for dummies................I say he is the dummy

Agreed Turtle. I think there are movements for change in the monotheistic exclusivist model, already. The UU church is one vehicle for unity in all faiths. If you've ever attended one of the services you'll feel a diverse community of people under one roof, or out of doors at times, come together in the spirit of sharing their unique understanding of the power that invigorates their personal understanding of god, goddess and all that is.

I think the problem arose when polytheism was overcome by monotheism. Polytheism and animism saw god/dess, in everything and so all the world was sacred. The tree's were alive in spirit, and so it was a matter of honoring that before they would be felled for the homes they could provide. The ground was sacred and vested with it's own spirit, and so it was a matter of ritual before the planting, because the body of the mother was to nourish and sustain the seeds that would grow the crops to feed a people. And all this ritual, this reverence, precluded a people from every clear cutting the forests. It prevented polluting the blood streams of mother earth, the rivers, lakes and seas, because even those called a primitive people , in those days, knew the waters were to be cherished for the sustenance they provided themselves, their crops, the atmosphere itself.

When a philosophy of an extrinsic deity is introduced into a cultural dynamic that honored the immanence of that power, it destroys every aspect of reverence for that god/dess philosophy. It makes the old ways prohibited and as such the honoring of the Earth and a people that are also the embodiment of that which they revere, simply materials to be exploited for the new presumptive "greater good" of materialism and acquisition. So when you remove the sacred from everything that exists, and impart it is actually transcendent and outside this world, one becomes less conscious that everything on Earth has a soul. And it think it then makes it easier to kill it. And so we have. Our air, the breath of the goddess, is foul. The waters, her blood stream, are polluted. Her body is pitted with garbage, nuclear waste, sewage irrigates the crops that sprout from her body. All those things the ancient pagan people would never do, are today, called the necessity invested in industrial evolution and societal dominion. And it's killing us, as if we have no soul to worry about while we're here, living on a once sacred planet, that we're choosing to make a corpse, in the name of progress.



Edit to add: There's an excellent article I found to share about Animism & a link to further reading as well, here.

Video ~ Atheist (It's not what you believe)

About Atheism

Atheism Defined
Definition:
Atheism (A'thE-iz"um),-n, is defined as:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

The term atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, meaning godless. Atheos is derived form a, meaning "without," and theos, meaning "deity".

Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not.

a collection of definitions and translations



Strong and Weak Atheism

Weak Atheism:
Stating that you do not believe in a god or gods.

Strong Atheism:
Asserting that God does not or can not exist.



Statistics
850,000,000 Secularists, Non-Religious, Agnostic and Atheists in the world. That's about 15% or more than 1 out of 10 people, making this the fourth largest religious belief grouping.

The population of non-believers in the USA is about 10% and 10-25% in Europe.

Most studies of the hightly educated and scientists show a higher proportion of atheists and non-believers.

Prison populations appear to have a lower proportion of Atheists and non-believers.

Statistics of Atheists are generaly considered statisticaly low especially in 'self-identification' surveys because many who are technically 'Atheists' shy away from the term, often using 'non-religious', 'agnostic', 'secular' or 'humanist' due to Atheism's negative perception. (Source & Further Information)