If your belief in god(s) is strong, why should the opinion of an atheist shake your faith?

In all my years of atheism, I have never witnessed an atheist attempting to convert. He or she may have been pointing out the absurdities of theism, but that doesn't constitute "conversion". Did they ask you to say the Atheists Prayer?

Besides, theism and religion are manmade. We are all born as atheists. It was the theists that indoctrinated and converted you!

Thanks Tyo. Reached my boiling point when recently the City Council decided to keep fighting to allow prayers, Board of Ed wants to allow Creationism, local paper has religion section that is several pages long, gov't buildings given free to religious organizations, my tax dollars being given to Faith Based organizations, crosses on public property, etc., etc., etc.... this madness has just gone way too far for rational people to remain silent and allow the delusional cultists to spew their garbage unchallenged.

I like you!!!!!!

Blessed are thee X-Ray-Spex

Do Jews (of any stripe) have any recorded "miracles" other than Moses parting the Red Sea??
Any up-to-date miracles or are miracles are of low priority??

Soory!! Wrong thread.

Why religion? Solves the problems of death and injustice. IMO, some atheists get caught up in the manipulative aspects of religion and fail to realize the beneficial coping aspects of religious belief.

What are the beneficial aspects that are only confined to religion?

A non-religious support group for any cause can be started if it doesn't exist already.

Do I need a god to keep me from addictive drugs, acknowledge my mental or physical state, be friendly/kind to other humans? No.

I don't need a god or religious clergy to direct my movements through life.
I will always make mistakes and I will always attempt to make amends.
I'm not worried about my soul, as I do not believe such exist.

I didn't say religion was the only solution. Sure one can make the case that an atheist is able to cope with such problems in other ways. That said, atheism doesn't really have any satisfying answers to account for tragedy, injustice and mortality. I realize some will say "Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity." Fine. I'm addressing anyone who takes it a step further and goes around in a fit of moral superiority.

BTW, I'm not religious. I just don't buy the self righteous atheism arguments.

Sooo... Religion really is the opiate of the people?

Death is not a problem, death is an inevitability. Thank God. Eternal life would be Hell. Our job is to do our best to see that everyone has at least the chance for as good a life as we have.

I wonder how many religious people routinely visit psychologists and psychiatrists to help cope with their personal issues? How many take pills for this and that?
If they really believe that a god can cure them....why do they adapt to medical science for these needs and still claim that prayer works?

A god can create without human intervention, but yet cannot fix what he/she created without human intervention.?

Is confidence in oneself being "self righteous"?
So again I ask...What are the beneficial aspects that are only confined to religion?

There is really no reason why something beneficial has to be confined to religion. Afterall if there is something good, why couldn't the non-religious absorb/co-opt/share that aspect -- putting it in another context.

As for something good, let's imagine a government leader really believe that they were subject to a higher power, that they themselves were not the ultimate authority/judge.

Hitler/Germany/Nazis certainly wasn't worried about retribution from God when they murdered millions. Mao certainly wasn't worried about God when he was responsible for the murder of millions of Chineses, Pol Pot, Stalin (you get the point.) On the other hand, modern Islamic fighters, dark ages Christians, lots of smaller religious groups throughout history seem to think God is on their side when they fight.

It may be more a matter of perspective than religion or non-religion.

So far, no one has suggested a biological explanation for the question asked in the topic.

Perhaps we are "pre-wired" for religiosity by millions of years of evolution.

That is the explanatory paradigm of a new field called neurotheology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology

"Pre-wired" for religiosity?? No way!

Indoctrinated by religious groups? Yes!

"Longing for group acceptance or social/group interaction would be a better answer, IMO. Chimps and other primates share this trait.

You say that as if you did not live on a planet where atheists (or maybe I should say the irreligious since not all religions are theistic) are the minority.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Major Religions of the World
Ranked by Number of Adherents

Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.5 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand

[snip]

Now BTW, you only get to #3 by lumping what are really four different groups together.

The graph to the right, I think, is a bit more accurate by suggesting only 16% of humanity is nonreligious.

Facts require explanations.

I think the social and psychological ones given in this thread are excellent; I'm just adding a third biological one to the mix.

P.S. you do know chimps and elephants have mourning rituals, right?

http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=1203

Adherancy does not equal inheritance.
A baby doesn't know what a god is until he.she is indoctrinated or taught religious responses.

And yes...I do know that chimps have mourning rituals. How does that correlate with religion?
Are you indicating that humans that are not god-believers are unemotional and do not mourn?

Not all religions are about "gods". The Taoists want to talk to you. Of course, every nontheistic religion (like Taoism) gets labelled ... "philosophy" ... or something else ... an argument we've had here a few times.

And don't twist my argument into a sociobiological reductio ad absurdum; I'm not saying there is a gene for inheriting your parents' Rastafarianism. Just like language, you have to be taught it. However, Chomsky argued that while you need to be taught particular languages, the language acquiring mechanism (universal grammar) is biological. Neurotheologists suggest something similar may be true for human religiosity...

It either exists as an evolutionary anomaly, or it was something evolution selected for. Neurotheologists argue the latter.



Neanderthals buried their dead. But in a foetal position, covered with red ochre. That suggests although they left no written records behind, their rituals were about something more than mourning.

Hope for something that followed.

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/BA/ba66/feat1.shtml

In the US, religion should not have an effect on politics. That's why many atheists are "up in arms" about public religious displays on government property. For one thing....they seem to favor ONE religion.

Amendment 1..
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Atheists are a minority.....and you know how minorities get treated in the US.

There are FOUR states in which an atheist cannot hold public office. Do YOU care? I do...as with any minority.

We've been repressed FAR TOO LONG! We 're coming out!

That's right. Good rational people of any religion or none at all should have an effect on politics. But the position and teachings of the Baptists or Catholics, or the Muslims or any other religion in so far as they are rooted in "revealed truth" alone should have no bearing at all.

And yes we have been repressed for way too long. Speaking from my own experience, people have less difficulty dealing with me as an out gay than they do in dealing with me as an out atheist. In this country it's very important to people that you have faith in the supernatural. Being a guy who likes other guys is something that they can handle on some level. Not believing in God is usually a problem for them.

Lemme take a guess.......
It has religious ties??? That is a very general speculation.
There could many other reasons besides religion.

Maybe the mourning started among Neanderthals because they developed bonds???

RealLib:

First off, if/where there are still laws on the books in some states that athiests cannot hold public office, I'm pretty certain they are not implemented and clearly they are unconstitutional (per your posting of 1st Amendment). Still, those laws should be eliminated. And the sooner the better.

But I'm pretty certain you understand that the 1st Amendment does not mean what you state it means. There is no law, or even tradition, in the US or any other democracy I'm aware of (but it might exist) that religion cannot play a role in politics. All of us, religous or not, bring our worldview into the realm of political decisions. For some it is to promote justice, for some to restrict activities. Read that Amendment again. One does not have to be a 'strict constructionist' to see that this means the government cannot establish or favor particular religion(s) or religion at all. This is why religious displays on public property are generally inappropriate. Seems like it also says it cannont restrict religion eiither.

But it certainly does not say that "In the US, religion should not have an effect on politics." Restrictions on political activity by religious groups have to do with tax breaks for political activities, not restricting political activity. This is clearly alllowed.

Why should Abraham, Mohammad or Jesus be thrust into American politics? They were not included anywhere in the Constitution.
Religion should be practiced in private sectors. That's what churches/temples are for.
Political figures should never stump for candidacy/amendment, etc in the religious sector.

Again, you're mixing a couple of different issues. Abortion isn't in the constitution, but we consider it a political issue. "Our Creator" while not in the Constitution is in the Declaration of Independence (but then the Declaration of Independence is not the basis of our laws, the Constitution is.)

What is in the constitution is that the government should not make a law regarding establishment of religion and that there should be no religious test/standard to hold public office.

But if you want to vote for or against a candidate because you feel they will be for or against the values you hold (regardless of the source of those values) and the standards you believe are best for the country, that certainly is your right. From my perspective, anyway, for religion to be serious it's not just for churches/temples/synagogues/mosques. It affects the outlook of people and it helps hold you to a standard. (And yes, many atheists/agnostics/non-religious also have an ethical standards. They also vote on that basis.)

Where I think we agree on this is that tax exempt organizations should not be politicking. I'm not much for political pandering (usually. I can't say it doesn't sometimes make me feel good, but deep down I generally don't believe it.) And that the 'wall of separation' (not a constitutional phrase) should be maintained in the United States. I view that as more of a wall of protection -- both for practicing and non-practicing people.