Tro, og overføring til egne barn. Hva gjør du?

[Anonym bruker]

7 minutter siden, nerdybirdy skrev:

Nei, bevisbyrden ligger på den som tror på det usannsynlige. Det foreligger ingen troverdig empiri som tilsier Guds eksistens. Tvert imot er det mye fakta som tilsier at Gud ikke eksisterer, jfr. Endel av det skrevet over. Jeg «tror» ikke at Gud ikke fins, jeg anerkjenner at Gud foreløpig ikke eksisterer basert på nåværende faktagrunnlag.   

Men de som tror på Gud mener han finnes fordi de kjenner det inni seg. Som forelskelse, kjærlighet, sorg, noen psykiske lidelser. Det er jo ikke bevist at kjærlighet eksisterer, men fordi man har følt det, så tror man på det. Forelskelse er vel faktisk vitenskapelig bevist, men ikke kjærlighet. 

Du tror ikke på noen Gud. Du tror ikke det finnes en høyere makt. Du tror ikke det finnes liv etter døden. Så lenge man ikke VET, så er det en tro.

Anonymkode: ecc5b...6c9

[nerdybirdy]

Akkurat nå, Anonym bruker skrev:

Men de som tror på Gud mener han finnes fordi de kjenner det inni seg. Som forelskelse, kjærlighet, sorg, noen psykiske lidelser. Det er jo ikke bevist at kjærlighet eksisterer, men fordi man har følt det, så tror man på det. Forelskelse er vel faktisk vitenskapelig bevist, men ikke kjærlighet. 

Du tror ikke på noen Gud. Du tror ikke det finnes en høyere makt. Du tror ikke det finnes liv etter døden. Så lenge man ikke VET, så er det en tro.

Anonymkode: ecc5b...6c9

Du driver sirkelargumentasjon. Du presenterer ikke nye argumenter og tar ikke innover deg det som blir presentert. Dette er en «fordi jeg sier det» og «næææhei» måte å diskutere på som er totalt uinteressant!

kommer ikke til å svare deg mer.

[Anonym bruker]

59 minutter siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Religion er en overbevisning om at det finnes en Gud/guder/liv etter døden/i vanskelig osv. Ateisme er en overbevisning om at det ikke finnes noe guddommelig. 

Begge deler er en overbevisning, begge deler er en trosretning.

Anonymkode: ecc5b...6c9

Det var dette med bevis kontra totalt mangel på bevis da... Kun en av dem krever tro. 

Anonymkode: b8215...81c

[Anonym bruker]

11 minutter siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Det var dette med bevis kontra totalt mangel på bevis da... Kun en av dem krever tro. 

Anonymkode: b8215...81c

Ateister mangler da også bevis for at det ikke finnes noe guddomelig.

Anonymkode: ecc5b...6c9

[Anonym bruker]

2 timer siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Jeg er katolikk og vokst opp i den katolske kirke. Barna mine er ikke døpt. De skal få velge selv. De er heller ikke med på aktiviteter i regi av kirken. 

Jeg lærer dem om alle religioner og retninger, om respekt og at tro, eller ikke tro, er et personlig valg alle må ta på egenhånd. 

Har ingen interesse av å melde barna mine inn i en religion uten deres samtykke. 

Anonymkode: 6c081...ec5

Da tror du ikke. Hvis du virkelig hadde trodd på Gud, så hadde du ønsket at barna dine var kristne. På ordentlig. Du driver bare med en fasade.

Anonymkode: 87b6c...ef9

[Anonym bruker]

20 minutter siden, nerdybirdy skrev:

Du driver sirkelargumentasjon. Du presenterer ikke nye argumenter og tar ikke innover deg det som blir presentert. Dette er en «fordi jeg sier det» og «næææhei» måte å diskutere på som er totalt uinteressant!

kommer ikke til å svare deg mer.

Fordi jeg mener at ateisme er en tro på at det ikke finnes en guddommelighet, så er jeg teit? Så er det ikke en tro fordi du sier det? Og fordi du mener du argumenterer bedre enn meg?

Anonymkode: ecc5b...6c9

[Anonym bruker]

36 minutter siden, nerdybirdy skrev:

Nei, bevisbyrden ligger på den som tror på det usannsynlige. Det foreligger ingen troverdig empiri som tilsier Guds eksistens. Tvert imot er det mye fakta som tilsier at Gud ikke eksisterer, jfr. Endel av det skrevet over. Jeg «tror» ikke at Gud ikke fins, jeg anerkjenner at Gud foreløpig ikke eksisterer basert på nåværende faktagrunnlag.   

Det usannsynlige er jo at det ikke eksisterer noen Gud. Nettopp derfor går flere og flere "ateister" over til å tro på intelligent design istedet for evolusjon. Evolusjon er på alle måter UT blant "de lærde".

32 minutter siden, nerdybirdy skrev:

Når det er sagt er det aldeles ikke galt/dumt/osv å tro på Gud. Det er på ingen måte mindreverdig. På mange områder misunner jeg de troende nettopp fordi det kan være både befriende og en støtte i tunge tider å kunne tro. 

Men å prøve å bevisføre at ateismen er en tro, da er man kraftig på villspor!

https://creation.com/atheism-a-religion

1. Narrative

Every religion has its stories. Almost all religions have stories explaining where the universe came from and what humanity’s part in it is. Smart calls this Narrative.

Narrative is a particularly important aspect of western Atheism. As the prominent Atheist Richard Dawkins said, referring to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution:

“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”⁷

Evolution is an explanation of where everything came from: the cosmos (came out of nothing at the big bang—nothing exploded and became everything); humans evolved from non-human creatures, hence humanity’s place in the cosmos is being just another species of animal. Some have gone so far as to say that humanity is a parasite on earth, and advocate killing up to 90% of humanity.⁸ There are some who attempt to combine belief in God with belief in evolution, not realizing the foundational nature of evolution’s connection to Atheism.⁹ The testimony of those who after learning about evolution in ‘science’ reject Christianity should alert church leaders to the incompatibility between evolution and the Gospel.

2. Experiential

There are two aspects to the experiential dimension. The first is the events experienced before someone founded a religion (for example the Disciples physically saw and touched the bodily resurrected Jesus). It is often asserted that Charles Darwin, after observing evidence from around the world during his voyage on HMS Beagle, developed the theory of evolution. (In reality, he had already learned a version of evolution from his grandfather Erasmus’s book Zoonomia and similar ideas were around at the time).

According to the Humanist Manifesto II, the only meaning in life is what the person gives it.

The second aspect of the experiential dimension concerns the experiences of latter adherents. Many people feel certain emotions when they participate in certain religious ceremonies. Atheists often believe that Atheism is freedom from religion, and some Atheists have reported feeling liberated after converting.¹⁰ Karl Marx said that the removal of the illusion of happiness by the removal of religion was a step towards true happiness. Atheistic denial of the divine entails denial of an afterlife. If there is no afterlife,¹¹ then ultimately there is no higher purpose in life for Atheists than to be happy. According to the Humanist Manifesto II, the only meaning in life is what the person gives it. In the Humanist Manifesto III, this was changed to finding meaning in relationships. Belief in evolution also causes people to aim for self preservation and to spread their own genes.¹²

Smart also seems to include ‘faith’ as part of the experiential dimension. The meaning of the word ‘faith’ is often twisted to make it mean things it does not. In Christianity, faith is logical, being defined in Hebrews 11:1 as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” This is not blindly believing the impossible (which is how many Atheists define faith), but rather trusting the promises of God, whose past promises have all been fulfilled. I would classify Christian faith as part of the doctrinal dimension rather than experiential. On the other hand, Atheism requires ‘faith’ (using their own definition) that the laws of chemistry, physics and biology were once violated and life arose from non-life via chemical evolution.

3. Social

The social dimension of religion looks at the hierarchies and power structures present within the religion, such the Hindu caste system. In missionary religions, it also includes how people get converted and how missionaries go about their work.

Contemporary Atheism has been fueled largely by authors promoting their Atheistic beliefs. In the preface to The God Delusion, Dawkins says,

“If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.”

Dawkins is saying he hopes that his book converts ‘religious’ people to his worldview—exactly what a missionary of any religion hopes to do.

Communist countries often made the state religion Atheism, often to the point of persecuting (other) religions.¹³This followed from Karl Marx’s statement:

“It [religion] is the opiate of the masses. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.”¹⁴

Marxists saw the removal of religion as a step toward true happiness for the common people, although in practice this did not occur, and contemporary critics see Marxism itself as a religion¹⁵. (I would contend that Marxism is a sect of a larger religion: Atheism).

Many scientists are high up on the social hierarchy of Atheism because their research enhances their understanding of the world. Particularly honoured are those scientists who write extensively about evolution. Because of this, many scientists include a little about evolution in their research papers, even when there is little or no relevance (one recent example concerns research into the chameleon’s catapult tongue and suction cap; see Created, not evolved)

Atheism is also taught to children in many schools in science classes as evolution. As atheistic philosopher Michael Ruse admits, “evolution is a religion”, and it could be considered the narrative dimension of Atheism. Thus teaching evolution is teaching Atheism. Several Atheists even support teaching lies, as long as the end result is more children believing evolution.¹⁶

4. Doctrinal

Doctrines are the beliefs and philosophies that develop out of a religion (not necessarily being specifically stated in the religious narratives, etc). For example, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, while not directly stated in the Bible, is logically derived from it.

Contemporary Atheism gained popularity in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, after the ‘enlightenment’. In 1933, some prominent Atheist philosophers realised the effects the lack of a belief in a god would have on the morals of society and wrote what they believed would be a suitable set of beliefs and goals for a secular society in the 20^th century. In doing so, they formed the branch of Atheism known as Secular Humanism. By and large, Atheists believe and adhere to the things written in the Humanist Manifesto, even if they don’t know the specifics of the document. After all, many Atheists do want to do what is good.

The doctrines, ethics and goals outlined in the Humanist Manifesto, while being atheistic and accepting evolution as true, are opposite of what would be expected if they were solely derived from the evolutionary narrative. This is because Humanism also makes the assumption that humans are basically good.

In 1973 however, the Humanist Manifesto was updated because of the atrocities that humans inflicted upon other humans during the intervening years (specifically mentioned are Nazism and communist police states).

5. Ethical

Atheism is a morally relativist religion. Most Atheists adhere to one ethical system or another, but in Atheism there is ultimately no foundation for morality, as atheists Dawkins and Provine admit. Many systems of ethics have been proposed; utilitarianism is probably the most popular one.

Some people have taken a further step by creating ethical systems based on the evolutionary narrative and the principle of “survival of the fittest”. People who have lived by such principles include the perpetrators of the Columbine Massacre, the Jokela School Shooting in Finland, and on a much larger scale, the Nazis.

Most people (Atheist or not) inherently know that systems that lead to such atrocities must be wrong, but Atheists cannot give a logical reason for why it is wrong. This contradiction was highlighted by Dawkins when he said “I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics.” It was also graphically shown when two evolutionists wrote a book claiming that rape is an evolutionary mechanism to spread male genes—and see how one of them squirmed to justify why he agreed that rape is objectively wrong under his philosophy.

A world governed purely by Atheistic, evolutionary ethics has been shown by history to be a horrible place to live. Most Atheists recognise this and choose to live by the ethical systems of other religions instead, or at the very least, live by the laws enforced by the government.

6. Ritual

Ritual is the only dimension which on the surface might appear to be absent from the religion of Atheism. In some religions, rituals have meanings attached to them, such as Passover commemorating the Israelites’ escape from Egypt. Because Atheism is a relatively recent movement, it doesn’t have much of a history to commemorate. In other religions, rituals such as sacrifices and dances are done to appease the gods or the spirits. Because Atheism denies the existence of gods and spirits, it doesn’t have the second type of ritual either. Many Atheists do practice ‘secular rituals’ such as their birthday celebrations, or the ‘ritual holidays’ of other religions such as the Christmas and Easter public holidays of Christianity, but this is usually to simply maintain the tradition of a public holiday, and the original meaning of the celebrations are rejected. It’s noteworthy that in recent years, the atheists’ public commemoration of the anniversary of Darwin’s birth each February (and even of the publication of his Origin of Species in November), along with calls for the general public to do the same, is rapidly becoming something of an annual ritual, even in some ‘churches’. One might even say that this modern Atheistic commemoration is being ‘celebrated’ with greater fervour and passion than many longstanding religious rituals.

7. Material

While Atheism by its nature of denying the divine can’t have objects that represent the divine (such as icons or idols), nature is treated as sacred by some Atheists in and of itself.

The material dimension of religion, says Smart, includes all the physical things created by a religion such as art and buildings, and also natural features and places treated as sacred by adherents. While Atheism by its nature of denying the divine can’t have objects that represent the divine (such as icons or idols), nature is treated as sacred by some Atheists in and of itself.

There are two extremes in the range of ideas held by Atheists on the ‘material’:

• natural resources are here to be exploited because of ‘survival of the fittest’ and humans are obviously the fittest species; or
• we should respect all of nature, particularly living things because to kill them is tantamount to murdering a cousin. This second view essentially holds that all life is ‘sacred’.

Both ideas can be derived from the evolutionary narrative, but views tending towards the second idea are more prevalent than the views tending towards the first. But as G.K. Chesterton said a century ago:

“Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. … The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us; we have to admire, but not to imitate.”

An Atheist’s view of the material dimension is strongly influenced by their view of the ethical dimension.

Conclusion

Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.

Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a ‘hairstyle’. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.

The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.

Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.

Anonymkode: 87b6c...ef9

[Anonym bruker]

1 minutt siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Da tror du ikke. Hvis du virkelig hadde trodd på Gud, så hadde du ønsket at barna dine var kristne. På ordentlig. Du driver bare med en fasade.

Anonymkode: 87b6c...ef9

Gud og Jesus ga alle mennesker et valg om de ville følge de eller ikke. Vil ikke du gi barna dine det samme valget?

Å ønske at barna tror er en ting, men det er vel best å gi de et valg slik at de tror fordi de tror og ikke fordi noen har lært de at det er det eneste rette å tro? 

Anonymkode: ecc5b...6c9

[Anonym bruker]

2 minutter siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Ateister mangler da også bevis for at det ikke finnes noe guddomelig.

Anonymkode: ecc5b...6c9

Jeg hører hva du dier, men du har bare ikke skjønt hvordan bevisbyrden er. Jeg behøver ikke å bevise at noe ikke eksisterer. Den byrden ligger hos de som tror eller Gud selv. Hvor vanskelig er det for en evt. allmektig Gud å konkret bevise sitt nærvær? De som er religiøse har valgt å tro, på tross av manglende beviser. 

Hvis disse bevise e hadde foreligger, hadde ingen av oss trengt å tro. Da hadde vi jo visst at det var sant.

Det er bekymringsverdig at voksne mennesker ikke klarer å skille på vitenskap og tro. 

Anonymkode: b8215...81c

[Anonym bruker]

1 minutt siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Jeg hører hva du dier, men du har bare ikke skjønt hvordan bevisbyrden er. Jeg behøver ikke å bevise at noe ikke eksisterer. Den byrden ligger hos de som tror eller Gud selv. Hvor vanskelig er det for en evt. allmektig Gud å konkret bevise sitt nærvær? De som er religiøse har valgt å tro, på tross av manglende beviser. 

Hvis disse bevise e hadde foreligger, hadde ingen av oss trengt å tro. Da hadde vi jo visst at det var sant.

Det er bekymringsverdig at voksne mennesker ikke klarer å skille på vitenskap og tro. 

Anonymkode: b8215...81c

De mener da selv at de har beviset fordi de kan føle Guds nærvær og at alle kan få føle det om de bare går inn for det helt åpent og helt ærlig. Men da må jo alle gjøre det for at de skal bevise det. 

 

Anonymkode: ecc5b...6c9

[Anonym bruker]

15 minutter siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Det usannsynlige er jo at det ikke eksisterer noen Gud. Nettopp derfor går flere og flere "ateister" over til å tro på intelligent design istedet for evolusjon. Evolusjon er på alle måter UT blant "de lærde".

https://creation.com/atheism-a-religion

1. Narrative

Every religion has its stories. Almost all religions have stories explaining where the universe came from and what humanity’s part in it is. Smart calls this Narrative.

Narrative is a particularly important aspect of western Atheism. As the prominent Atheist Richard Dawkins said, referring to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution:

“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”⁷

Evolution is an explanation of where everything came from: the cosmos (came out of nothing at the big bang—nothing exploded and became everything); humans evolved from non-human creatures, hence humanity’s place in the cosmos is being just another species of animal. Some have gone so far as to say that humanity is a parasite on earth, and advocate killing up to 90% of humanity.⁸ There are some who attempt to combine belief in God with belief in evolution, not realizing the foundational nature of evolution’s connection to Atheism.⁹ The testimony of those who after learning about evolution in ‘science’ reject Christianity should alert church leaders to the incompatibility between evolution and the Gospel.

2. Experiential

There are two aspects to the experiential dimension. The first is the events experienced before someone founded a religion (for example the Disciples physically saw and touched the bodily resurrected Jesus). It is often asserted that Charles Darwin, after observing evidence from around the world during his voyage on HMS Beagle, developed the theory of evolution. (In reality, he had already learned a version of evolution from his grandfather Erasmus’s book Zoonomia and similar ideas were around at the time).

According to the Humanist Manifesto II, the only meaning in life is what the person gives it.

The second aspect of the experiential dimension concerns the experiences of latter adherents. Many people feel certain emotions when they participate in certain religious ceremonies. Atheists often believe that Atheism is freedom from religion, and some Atheists have reported feeling liberated after converting.¹⁰ Karl Marx said that the removal of the illusion of happiness by the removal of religion was a step towards true happiness. Atheistic denial of the divine entails denial of an afterlife. If there is no afterlife,¹¹ then ultimately there is no higher purpose in life for Atheists than to be happy. According to the Humanist Manifesto II, the only meaning in life is what the person gives it. In the Humanist Manifesto III, this was changed to finding meaning in relationships. Belief in evolution also causes people to aim for self preservation and to spread their own genes.¹²

Smart also seems to include ‘faith’ as part of the experiential dimension. The meaning of the word ‘faith’ is often twisted to make it mean things it does not. In Christianity, faith is logical, being defined in Hebrews 11:1 as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” This is not blindly believing the impossible (which is how many Atheists define faith), but rather trusting the promises of God, whose past promises have all been fulfilled. I would classify Christian faith as part of the doctrinal dimension rather than experiential. On the other hand, Atheism requires ‘faith’ (using their own definition) that the laws of chemistry, physics and biology were once violated and life arose from non-life via chemical evolution.

3. Social

The social dimension of religion looks at the hierarchies and power structures present within the religion, such the Hindu caste system. In missionary religions, it also includes how people get converted and how missionaries go about their work.

Contemporary Atheism has been fueled largely by authors promoting their Atheistic beliefs. In the preface to The God Delusion, Dawkins says,

“If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.”

Dawkins is saying he hopes that his book converts ‘religious’ people to his worldview—exactly what a missionary of any religion hopes to do.

Communist countries often made the state religion Atheism, often to the point of persecuting (other) religions.¹³This followed from Karl Marx’s statement:

“It [religion] is the opiate of the masses. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.”¹⁴

Marxists saw the removal of religion as a step toward true happiness for the common people, although in practice this did not occur, and contemporary critics see Marxism itself as a religion¹⁵. (I would contend that Marxism is a sect of a larger religion: Atheism).

Many scientists are high up on the social hierarchy of Atheism because their research enhances their understanding of the world. Particularly honoured are those scientists who write extensively about evolution. Because of this, many scientists include a little about evolution in their research papers, even when there is little or no relevance (one recent example concerns research into the chameleon’s catapult tongue and suction cap; see Created, not evolved)

Atheism is also taught to children in many schools in science classes as evolution. As atheistic philosopher Michael Ruse admits, “evolution is a religion”, and it could be considered the narrative dimension of Atheism. Thus teaching evolution is teaching Atheism. Several Atheists even support teaching lies, as long as the end result is more children believing evolution.¹⁶

4. Doctrinal

Doctrines are the beliefs and philosophies that develop out of a religion (not necessarily being specifically stated in the religious narratives, etc). For example, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, while not directly stated in the Bible, is logically derived from it.

Contemporary Atheism gained popularity in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, after the ‘enlightenment’. In 1933, some prominent Atheist philosophers realised the effects the lack of a belief in a god would have on the morals of society and wrote what they believed would be a suitable set of beliefs and goals for a secular society in the 20^th century. In doing so, they formed the branch of Atheism known as Secular Humanism. By and large, Atheists believe and adhere to the things written in the Humanist Manifesto, even if they don’t know the specifics of the document. After all, many Atheists do want to do what is good.

The doctrines, ethics and goals outlined in the Humanist Manifesto, while being atheistic and accepting evolution as true, are opposite of what would be expected if they were solely derived from the evolutionary narrative. This is because Humanism also makes the assumption that humans are basically good.

In 1973 however, the Humanist Manifesto was updated because of the atrocities that humans inflicted upon other humans during the intervening years (specifically mentioned are Nazism and communist police states).

5. Ethical

Atheism is a morally relativist religion. Most Atheists adhere to one ethical system or another, but in Atheism there is ultimately no foundation for morality, as atheists Dawkins and Provine admit. Many systems of ethics have been proposed; utilitarianism is probably the most popular one.

Some people have taken a further step by creating ethical systems based on the evolutionary narrative and the principle of “survival of the fittest”. People who have lived by such principles include the perpetrators of the Columbine Massacre, the Jokela School Shooting in Finland, and on a much larger scale, the Nazis.

Most people (Atheist or not) inherently know that systems that lead to such atrocities must be wrong, but Atheists cannot give a logical reason for why it is wrong. This contradiction was highlighted by Dawkins when he said “I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics.” It was also graphically shown when two evolutionists wrote a book claiming that rape is an evolutionary mechanism to spread male genes—and see how one of them squirmed to justify why he agreed that rape is objectively wrong under his philosophy.

A world governed purely by Atheistic, evolutionary ethics has been shown by history to be a horrible place to live. Most Atheists recognise this and choose to live by the ethical systems of other religions instead, or at the very least, live by the laws enforced by the government.

6. Ritual

Ritual is the only dimension which on the surface might appear to be absent from the religion of Atheism. In some religions, rituals have meanings attached to them, such as Passover commemorating the Israelites’ escape from Egypt. Because Atheism is a relatively recent movement, it doesn’t have much of a history to commemorate. In other religions, rituals such as sacrifices and dances are done to appease the gods or the spirits. Because Atheism denies the existence of gods and spirits, it doesn’t have the second type of ritual either. Many Atheists do practice ‘secular rituals’ such as their birthday celebrations, or the ‘ritual holidays’ of other religions such as the Christmas and Easter public holidays of Christianity, but this is usually to simply maintain the tradition of a public holiday, and the original meaning of the celebrations are rejected. It’s noteworthy that in recent years, the atheists’ public commemoration of the anniversary of Darwin’s birth each February (and even of the publication of his Origin of Species in November), along with calls for the general public to do the same, is rapidly becoming something of an annual ritual, even in some ‘churches’. One might even say that this modern Atheistic commemoration is being ‘celebrated’ with greater fervour and passion than many longstanding religious rituals.

7. Material

While Atheism by its nature of denying the divine can’t have objects that represent the divine (such as icons or idols), nature is treated as sacred by some Atheists in and of itself.

The material dimension of religion, says Smart, includes all the physical things created by a religion such as art and buildings, and also natural features and places treated as sacred by adherents. While Atheism by its nature of denying the divine can’t have objects that represent the divine (such as icons or idols), nature is treated as sacred by some Atheists in and of itself.

There are two extremes in the range of ideas held by Atheists on the ‘material’:

• natural resources are here to be exploited because of ‘survival of the fittest’ and humans are obviously the fittest species; or
• we should respect all of nature, particularly living things because to kill them is tantamount to murdering a cousin. This second view essentially holds that all life is ‘sacred’.

Both ideas can be derived from the evolutionary narrative, but views tending towards the second idea are more prevalent than the views tending towards the first. But as G.K. Chesterton said a century ago:

“Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. … The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us; we have to admire, but not to imitate.”

An Atheist’s view of the material dimension is strongly influenced by their view of the ethical dimension.

Conclusion

Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.

Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a ‘hairstyle’. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.

The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.

Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.

Anonymkode: 87b6c...ef9

Hjelpes! Det å bruke kreasjonisters argumentasjon er jo bare flaut. Kreasjonister lukker jo øynene for hele vitenskapen. 

Anonymkode: b8215...81c

[Anonym bruker]

1 minutt siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

De mener da selv at de har beviset fordi de kan føle Guds nærvær og at alle kan få føle det om de bare går inn for det helt åpent og helt ærlig. Men da må jo alle gjøre det for at de skal bevise det. 

 

Anonymkode: ecc5b...6c9

Nettopp, da har de jo ikke skjønt hvilke kriterier bevis må fylle.

Anonymkode: b8215...81c

[Anonym bruker]

27 minutter siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Nettopp, da har de jo ikke skjønt hvilke kriterier bevis må fylle.

Anonymkode: b8215...81c

Da er det jo mange følelser som ikke finnes. Mange av de er ikke bevist på annen måte enn ved å føle det inni seg. 

Jeg er ikke kristen altså. Jeg tror ikke på noe (så er jo ateist), men jeg liker ikke å kalle meg det etter å ha sett oppførselen til enkelte av den ekstreme sorten. Slik som at jeg ikke hadde turt å kalle meg muslim på grunn av de ekstreme. Eller kristen på grunn av de ekstreme.

Anonymkode: ecc5b...6c9

[Anonym bruker]

2 timer siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Men de som tror på Gud mener han finnes fordi de kjenner det inni seg. Som forelskelse, kjærlighet, sorg, noen psykiske lidelser. Det er jo ikke bevist at kjærlighet eksisterer, men fordi man har følt det, så tror man på det. Forelskelse er vel faktisk vitenskapelig bevist, men ikke kjærlighet. 

Du tror ikke på noen Gud. Du tror ikke det finnes en høyere makt. Du tror ikke det finnes liv etter døden. Så lenge man ikke VET, så er det en tro.

Anonymkode: ecc5b...6c9

Kjære tid...

Eksempel:

- Bibelen sier at jorden er 7000 år gammel. Vitenskapen sier at jorden er flere milliarder år gammel, og har forskning og fakta til å støtte påstanden. 

- Bibelen sier at Adam og Eva var de første menneskene på jorden. Vitenskapen har bevist evolusjonen. 

- Tidligere ble folk jaget for å påstå at jorden ikke var universets sentrum. Nå vet vi sannheten, bevist av vitenskap. 

Vitenskapen har motbevist mange påstander i bibelen. Det handler ikke om tro når det kommer til vitenskap. Man forholder seg til fakta, empiri og faktiske data. Bibelen er, et flott historisk dokument. Men, mangler bevis når det kommer til det overnaturlige. 

 

Anonymkode: 4873e...1ca

[Anonym bruker]

21 minutter siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Kjære tid...

Eksempel:

- Bibelen sier at jorden er 7000 år gammel. Vitenskapen sier at jorden er flere milliarder år gammel, og har forskning og fakta til å støtte påstanden. 

- Bibelen sier at Adam og Eva var de første menneskene på jorden. Vitenskapen har bevist evolusjonen. 

- Tidligere ble folk jaget for å påstå at jorden ikke var universets sentrum. Nå vet vi sannheten, bevist av vitenskap. 

Vitenskapen har motbevist mange påstander i bibelen. Det handler ikke om tro når det kommer til vitenskap. Man forholder seg til fakta, empiri og faktiske data. Bibelen er, et flott historisk dokument. Men, mangler bevis når det kommer til det overnaturlige. 

 

Anonymkode: 4873e...1ca

- de kristne hevde at de har regnet seg ut til at jorden er 6000 år gammel. Det står ikke noe om dette i bibelen. 

- vitenskapen har bevist evolusjonen, men det er en missing link de ikke finner.

- hva har det med religion å gjøre?

vitenskap har også bekreftet mange ting som står i bibelen. Blant annet har de funnet ut at delingen av havet Moses gjorde var mulig på den tiden med det unntak at det ikke var Moses som gjorde det. Men på den tiden trodde de det. De har også funnet skrifter som beviser at det fantes to brødre i Egypt som het Moses og Aron. De har funnet at Jesus eksisterte. De har funnet at han ble begavet og korsfestet. Maria Magdalena var en ekte person. 

Anonymkode: ecc5b...6c9

[Anonym bruker]

Jeg er hverken religiøs eller åndelig, religion har liten plass i livet vårt utover de deler av samfunnet som er basert på kristendommen (men vi har jo andre deler man kan spore tilbake til førkristen tid). For meg er religion sidestilt med julenissen og tannfeen. For å sitere Douglas Adams: I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously. Vi går i kirka når vi blir invitert (dvs. dåp, bryllup etc.). Ungene er med på feriekoloni som arrangeres av kirken, tviler på at de tar skade av det. 

Jeg er døpt, men konfirmerte meg borgerlig, mine barn er ikke døpt. Det ville vært rimelig sært av to ateister å døpe barna sine «sånn i tilfelle». Jeg har aldri helt skjønt meg på ikke-religiøse som likevel døper ungene; ja det er en tradisjon, men for kristne. Skulle f.eks. muslimene begynt å gjøre det samme ville folk stusset veldig. 

Vil ungene konfirmeres i kirka må de gjerne døpe seg og gjøre det, deres valg, men det bør være basert på tro, ikke fordi alle vennene skal konfirmeres i kirka. 

Anonymkode: 6e9f9...8ed

[Anonym bruker]

23 timer siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Artig der der hvordan man forsvarer sin egen form for konfirmasjon. Det er bare human etisk forbund som har denne beskrivelsen. Andre steder vil ha en annen beskrivelse. 

Ateister er en gruppe. Hvis ikke ville man vel ikke kalt seg for noe? Kristne er en gruppe som dele samme tro, muslimer er en gruppe som dele samme tro, ateister er en gruppe som deler samme tro. Og så har man disse ekstreme og moderate i alle formene for tro. De ekstreme ateistene er uspiselige og derfor vil jeg ikke sammenlignes med de. Jeg tar avstand fra hele troen ateistene har

Anonymkode: ecc5b...6c9

Poenget med ateistar er jo at ein ikkje trur nokon ting. Eg blir ikkje flau/sint/osb om det kjem ein anna ateist og hevdar idiotiske og meiningslause ting. Det har ingenting med meg å gjere. 

Eg lærer ungane mine at nokre trur på ditt og andre trur på datt og om dei vil tru er det opp til dei.

Men, eg kan faktisk ikkje forstå at kristne eller andre religiøse som trur at det å tru på (sin) Gud er vegen til evig frelse ikkje lærer ungane sine dette?? Ein kan lære dei respekt for andre religionar likevel, men hadde eg vore religiøs hadde eg nok øvd eit visst påtrykk ved td å snakke om religionen, bruke gudshuset, osb. Alt anna tyder vel på at ein enten ikkje egentlig trur på denne Guden, eller at ein er så opptatt av andre ikkje skal kunne seie at ein indoktrinerar ungane sine at dei vel å late det vere viktigare enn om ungen blir religiøs og oppnår evig frelse eller kva det no er ein får i den aktuelle religionen. 

Anonymkode: d96ab...5ba

[Anonym bruker]

13 timer siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

- de kristne hevde at de har regnet seg ut til at jorden er 6000 år gammel. Det står ikke noe om dette i bibelen. 

- vitenskapen har bevist evolusjonen, men det er en missing link de ikke finner.

- hva har det med religion å gjøre?

vitenskap har også bekreftet mange ting som står i bibelen. Blant annet har de funnet ut at delingen av havet Moses gjorde var mulig på den tiden med det unntak at det ikke var Moses som gjorde det. Men på den tiden trodde de det. De har også funnet skrifter som beviser at det fantes to brødre i Egypt som het Moses og Aron. De har funnet at Jesus eksisterte. De har funnet at han ble begavet og korsfestet. Maria Magdalena var en ekte person. 

Anonymkode: ecc5b...6c9

Selvfølgelig er det mange historiske personer, steder og opplysninger som stemmer. Det betyr ikke at det overnaturlige har bevis. 

Vitenskap derimot: Bevis

Anonymkode: 4873e...1ca

[Anonym bruker]

15 timer siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Hjelpes! Det å bruke kreasjonisters argumentasjon er jo bare flaut. Kreasjonister lukker jo øynene for hele vitenskapen. 

Anonymkode: b8215...81c

Men å svare? Det var fullstendig fraværende. Merkelig det der asså! "Jeg liker ikke siden, de tar feil selv om de har 100% rett"

Anonymkode: 87b6c...ef9

[Anonym bruker]

16 timer siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Gud og Jesus ga alle mennesker et valg om de ville følge de eller ikke. Vil ikke du gi barna dine det samme valget?

Å ønske at barna tror er en ting, men det er vel best å gi de et valg slik at de tror fordi de tror og ikke fordi noen har lært de at det er det eneste rette å tro? 

Anonymkode: ecc5b...6c9

Nei. Hvem i huleste har lært deg det, egentlig, er du i det hele tatt kristen? Å lede barna mot ateisme, eller hedenskap, er i kristendommen en stor synd. Det er kanskje en dødssynd. 

Jeg er enig i at troen skal være ekte, der er vi helt enige, men det skapes ikke gjennom å åpne for at ateister eller buddhister for den saks skyld har rett. I det hele tatt.

Anonymkode: 87b6c...ef9

[Anonym bruker]

4 minutter siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Nei. Hvem i huleste har lært deg det, egentlig, er du i det hele tatt kristen? Å lede barna mot ateisme, eller hedenskap, er i kristendommen en stor synd. Det er kanskje en dødssynd. 

Jeg er enig i at troen skal være ekte, der er vi helt enige, men det skapes ikke gjennom å åpne for at ateister eller buddhister for den saks skyld har rett. I det hele tatt.

Anonymkode: 87b6c...ef9

Foreldre som prakker på barna sine kristendom er de som oftest leder de inn i ateisme/hedenskap. Jeg kjenner mange av de. De brøt med hele religionen fordi alt de spurte om ble begrunnet i religion. Jeg er ikke kristen. Men tror du mennesker er født uten fri vilje?

Anonymkode: ecc5b...6c9

[Syngensang]

15 timer siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Da er det jo mange følelser som ikke finnes. Mange av de er ikke bevist på annen måte enn ved å føle det inni seg. 

Jeg er ikke kristen altså. Jeg tror ikke på noe (så er jo ateist), men jeg liker ikke å kalle meg det etter å ha sett oppførselen til enkelte av den ekstreme sorten. Slik som at jeg ikke hadde turt å kalle meg muslim på grunn av de ekstreme. Eller kristen på grunn av de ekstreme.

Anonymkode: ecc5b...6c9

Men feig, det kan du kanskje våge å kalle deg? Viss alle tenkjer som deg så vil jo alle grupperingar tilslutt berre bestå av ekstremistar! 

[Anonym bruker]

2 minutter siden, Syngensang skrev:

Men feig, det kan du kanskje våge å kalle deg? Viss alle tenkjer som deg så vil jo alle grupperingar tilslutt berre bestå av ekstremistar! 

Da hadde det vært lettere å skille ut hvem som var de farlige da... 

Anonymkode: ecc5b...6c9

[Anonym bruker]

Mitt barn har spurt meg om Gud finnes, da har jeg svart slik, mange tror på Gud, jeg og pappa vet at Gud ikke finnes. Har aldri pratet om Gud igjen. 

Anonymkode: 30da5...4f9

[Syngensang]

4 timer siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Da hadde det vært lettere å skille ut hvem som var de farlige da... 

Anonymkode: ecc5b...6c9

Og alle andre får litt problem med å gruppere seg og lage motpress innad for å forhindre ekstremisme....