I doubt that. Everywhere you look new churches are popping up. Christianity is set into the world culture and I doubt there is anything we could do to change it. And why should we? Everyone has the right to believe in something and most people need that in their life to feel complete. Does it suck that there are constantly Christians trying to save your soul? Yes. Is it there right as free citizens of this world to do that? Of course. Personally, I love having Christians, Muslims and all the other religious zealots around to debate with. It would be nice if they didn't use their religions as an excuse to wage war (that's all of them), but they're only human. If they weren't using religion to wage war, they would find another excuse. So, where will atheism be in the future? Probably in the exact same place. I'm sure as people turn more to science for answers, atheism will rise, but religion will always reign because there will always be questions that are beyond the scope of human understanding; which religion answers with "faith". People are afraid of the unknown. It would be nice if everyone could just tolerate the differences of others.
relativism = failrhapsodisiacAugust 18 2007, 21:17:29 UTC
"It would be nice if everyone could just tolerate the differences of others."
I don't really see why. Only a single position can be the right one. Ours is the right one. Why tolerate the wrong ones?
(of course, this may just be a matter of me being unsure of how you mean 'tolerate')
Sure they're only human, but so are we, and our answers are better than theirs. Imperfection is no excuse to quit striving to do the best we can to answer questions correctly. I don't see why incorrect answers should be tolerated at all, no matter what the species is of those who support them.
Re: relativism = failwood_elfAugust 18 2007, 22:09:15 UTC
Mostly agree. It's fine that they're incorrect, in so far as their incorrectness only affects themselves. When their behaviour under the influence of their incorrect conclusion starts to impose on the rest of us, it becomes problematic.
I'm optimistic about the future of atheism. People aren't stupid, they just don't like uncertainty, and scientific ideas can shift over time while dogma provides nicely fixed truths. I have faith (heh) that science is going to keep on rolling out wonderful answers and theories which bring us closer and closer to pinpointing the answers to the questions now thought to be 'beyond the scope of human understanding', and religion will end up a refuge for the few severely deluded, rather than the majority.
Re: relativism = failghoststriderAugust 18 2007, 22:31:13 UTC
Ours is the right one.
Mm-hmmm.
Why tolerate the wrong ones?
Because every human being is afforded the right of cognitive liberty. Now, I'm not against debating them (after all, debate is fun--to an extent) but if you mean "We're not going to tolerate your beliefs, so we'll ban them" I think we're going to have a sever disagreement.
Re: relativism = failghoststriderAugust 18 2007, 22:55:43 UTC
How can one be absolutely sure of anything? How can one be absolutely sure that god doesn't exist, or that it does? I highly doubt anyone can be 100% sure on anything.
In this case, though, yes. You've made a claim, that relativism = fail. I ask you to provide support for that claim and prove it.
Re: relativism = faileggsnailAugust 19 2007, 00:16:00 UTC
Firstly, your icon is slightly hysterical.
Secondly, I concur. I see no way that either side of this particular argument can claim absolutely certainty. Absolute belief, yes? But not absolute certainty. The atheist camp, after all, can't prove any more in the way of whether or not there is an end all be all deity than people of "faith" can.
The strawman that will not diegeorge1001August 19 2007, 16:16:53 UTC
Epistemologically speaking there's no such thing as 100% certainty about anything. Yet we make decisions about what is true or not all the time. One couldn't survive otherwise.
How can one be absolutely sure that god doesn't exist, or that it does?
Why does god get special treatment? What about the tooth fairy, flat earth, geocentrism, etc?
Re: The strawman that will not diegeorge1001August 19 2007, 18:22:50 UTC
Quantum physics is also fanciful.
Quantum physics is not fanciful. Why do you say that?
What am I saying is that we can't verify anything, so forcing our viewpoints on others is futile, stupid, and largely mistaken.
There are plenty of things that can be verified, we do it all the time. (One always has to keep in mind that there is always a degree of uncertainty, and one theory may be overturned by another in the future, but this is a far cry from saying we "can't verify anything".)
As far as "forcing people to believe" things, that red herring was introduced earlier in this thread. Of course, in a civil society, people should be free to believe what they want, as well as express (pretty much) what they want.
This freedom works both ways, and we can use our powers of persuasion to promote a more realistic worldview over the theistic one through speech.
Re: The strawman that will not dieghoststriderAugust 19 2007, 21:23:43 UTC
Quantum physics is not fanciful. Why do you say that?
To any ordinary person, it is. The very basics of the universe, the collapsing wavefunction, how to alter and change matter, heck, in some cases even being able to travel back in time. That seems pretty dreamy to most folks.
Re: relativism = failjmlowAugust 19 2007, 00:05:12 UTC
The problem with your argument lies in the phrases 'ours is the right one' and 'why tolerate the wrong ones?'
There is no way to be sure you are absolutely right. And to think this is dangerous, this is how wars are started and genocide happens.
That is why you tolerate and by tolerate I meant the actual definition, not a slanted view on the meaning. "Allow the existence or occurance of without harm."
This doesn't mean you can't argue your point, but to flat out say you're wrong is unjust to another's rights of free thought.
The point is... No one knows who is right or wrong.
And why should we?
Everyone has the right to believe in something and most people need that in their life to feel complete. Does it suck that there are constantly Christians trying to save your soul? Yes. Is it there right as free citizens of this world to do that? Of course.
Personally, I love having Christians, Muslims and all the other religious zealots around to debate with. It would be nice if they didn't use their religions as an excuse to wage war (that's all of them), but they're only human. If they weren't using religion to wage war, they would find another excuse.
So, where will atheism be in the future? Probably in the exact same place. I'm sure as people turn more to science for answers, atheism will rise, but religion will always reign because there will always be questions that are beyond the scope of human understanding; which religion answers with "faith". People are afraid of the unknown.
It would be nice if everyone could just tolerate the differences of others.
Reply
I don't really see why. Only a single position can be the right one. Ours is the right one. Why tolerate the wrong ones?
(of course, this may just be a matter of me being unsure of how you mean 'tolerate')
Sure they're only human, but so are we, and our answers are better than theirs. Imperfection is no excuse to quit striving to do the best we can to answer questions correctly. I don't see why incorrect answers should be tolerated at all, no matter what the species is of those who support them.
Reply
I'm optimistic about the future of atheism. People aren't stupid, they just don't like uncertainty, and scientific ideas can shift over time while dogma provides nicely fixed truths. I have faith (heh) that science is going to keep on rolling out wonderful answers and theories which bring us closer and closer to pinpointing the answers to the questions now thought to be 'beyond the scope of human understanding', and religion will end up a refuge for the few severely deluded, rather than the majority.
Reply
Mm-hmmm.
Why tolerate the wrong ones?
Because every human being is afforded the right of cognitive liberty. Now, I'm not against debating them (after all, debate is fun--to an extent) but if you mean "We're not going to tolerate your beliefs, so we'll ban them" I think we're going to have a sever disagreement.
And relativism ≠ fail. Prove otherwise.
Reply
Reply
"And relativism ≠ fail. Prove otherwise."
And you're absolutely sure the burdon of proof rests entirely on me?
Reply
In this case, though, yes. You've made a claim, that relativism = fail. I ask you to provide support for that claim and prove it.
Reply
Secondly, I concur. I see no way that either side of this particular argument can claim absolutely certainty. Absolute belief, yes? But not absolute certainty. The atheist camp, after all, can't prove any more in the way of whether or not there is an end all be all deity than people of "faith" can.
Reply
BTW, check out my entire gallery for lots of absurdity.
Reply
How can one be absolutely sure that god doesn't exist, or that it does?
Why does god get special treatment? What about the tooth fairy, flat earth, geocentrism, etc?
Reply
Reply
Reply
What am I saying is that we can't verify anything, so forcing our viewpoints on others is futile, stupid, and largely mistaken.
Reply
Quantum physics is not fanciful. Why do you say that?
What am I saying is that we can't verify anything, so forcing our viewpoints on others is futile, stupid, and largely mistaken.
There are plenty of things that can be verified, we do it all the time. (One always has to keep in mind that there is always a degree of uncertainty, and one theory may be overturned by another in the future, but this is a far cry from saying we "can't verify anything".)
As far as "forcing people to believe" things, that red herring was introduced earlier in this thread. Of course, in a civil society, people should be free to believe what they want, as well as express (pretty much) what they want.
This freedom works both ways, and we can use our powers of persuasion to promote a more realistic worldview over the theistic one through speech.
Reply
To any ordinary person, it is. The very basics of the universe, the collapsing wavefunction, how to alter and change matter, heck, in some cases even being able to travel back in time. That seems pretty dreamy to most folks.
Reply
There is no way to be sure you are absolutely right. And to think this is dangerous, this is how wars are started and genocide happens.
That is why you tolerate and by tolerate I meant the actual definition, not a slanted view on the meaning. "Allow the existence or occurance of without harm."
This doesn't mean you can't argue your point, but to flat out say you're wrong is unjust to another's rights of free thought.
The point is... No one knows who is right or wrong.
Reply
Leave a comment