well, I'm glad you felt the need to post about it

I'm a Christian - but I'm inclined to agree with the statement of the OP in this sense:

The overarching statement of Atheism is that 'there is no God.' That is, there is no supernatural power that controls all things, knows all things, and is in all things. If you take that figure out of the equation, that almost by default makes humans the most powerful beings in the universe...

Unless you believe that aliens can control Man - if so, see the section on Scientology.

The point is, when someone is an Atheist, Humanism is almost sure to follow not far behind. Therefore, the human that believes that there is no God will honor humanity as the highest form of being.

Originally posted by iBOCK3

---

I'm not saying religion is bad or anything, but if it didn't exist, along with money (No poor people), then the world would not be fighting. There would be plenty of food, clothes, accessories for everyone, and we wouldn't be trying to stop one country from bombing another....

---

i disagree, not that i dont disrespect your belief. i believe that if there was no religion or money or anything then people would still fight, even over stupid things(like we do alot today)

Originally posted by puddin'

---

Originally posted by iBOCK3

---

I'm not saying religion is bad or anything, but if it didn't exist, along with money (No poor people), then the world would not be fighting. There would be plenty of food, clothes, accessories for everyone, and we wouldn't be trying to stop one country from bombing another....

---

i disagree, not that i dont disrespect your belief. i believe that if there was no religion or money or anything then people would still fight, even over stupid things(like we do alot today)

---

I agree with you puddin.... even if there was no "money" there are always things for people to gain control over and use to influence other people. Money is just a way we've simplified the ability exchange goods for services. You used to have to have something that someone else wanted in order to get what you want. All money does is temporarily allow people to have something of value after they have traded something.

Anyway, I think my point is that you can't actually get rid of poor people or money or religion and even the suggestion that getting rid of these things would actually somehow change the disposition of 6+ billion people is absurd.

Originally posted by iBOCK3

---

I'm not saying religion is bad or anything, but if it didn't exist, along with money (No poor people), then the world would not be fighting. There would be plenty of food, clothes, accessories for everyone, and we wouldn't be trying to stop one country from bombing another....

---

man even if there was no religion there would still be war

Wont an athiest get closer to nature, thus losing his respect for humans? That would create the opposite of humanism... or something

Originally posted by Spitfire71

---

I'm a Christian - but I'm inclined to agree with the statement of the OP in this sense:

The overarching statement of Atheism is that 'there is no God.' That is, there is no supernatural power that controls all things, knows all things, and is in all things. If you take that figure out of the equation, that almost by default makes humans the most powerful beings in the universe...

Unless you believe that aliens can control Man - if so, see the section on Scientology.

The point is, when someone is an Atheist, Humanism is almost sure to follow not far behind. Therefore, the human that believes that there is no God will honor humanity as the highest form of being.

---

thats nonsense.
"Atheism is the position that deities do not exist, or the rejection of theism"
so how does that equal that atheists are like closer to nature?
the two things, beleif in stuff and caring for nature, are totaly unrelated (except in the case of like nature worshippers but thats a different matter)

Wow, people are still arguing in my three-year-old thread? Hah!
Man, once a thread reaches three year status, I think the person who started it officially qualifies for 'winning the internet'.

David? What say you? Do I win some internets or what?
(I'd like to see a 4chan thread last this long...)

What I find funny is the discussion of Humanism. It is amazing to see how the perception of what it is has changed so much over the last five hundred years or so. When it first started it was simply the desire to reclaim the texts of the Classical era (Ancient Rome and Greece) and learn from them. That was Renaissance Humanism, there have been many others.

See list

Yeah, it's kind of strange... seems like we've redefined the word several times over the course of history, based on our perception of what "human" entails.

And now for a little necromancy!

If there is going to be religion in this world then make only one: Unity, believe what you want to believe and if someone likes something you don't, then respect their opinion

I'm all for respecting other people's beliefs, but there's something in this statement that rings contradictory. Eliminating diversity in order to eliminate conflict is the opposite of respecting others' beliefs. I'd go so far as to say it's the first step down the slippery slope into totalitarianism. Even Unitarian faiths must by definition reject the portions of other religions that state that they are the one true religion. And in many cases, such as with Abrahamic religions, this is one of the central pillars of their belief.
I think humanity has had about as much luck finding a unified religion as we have finding a unified theory of physics.

Originally posted by 2dnoodleman

---

Originally posted by iBOCK3

---

I'm not saying religion is bad or anything, but if it didn't exist, along with money (No poor people), then the world would not be fighting. There would be plenty of food, clothes, accessories for everyone, and we wouldn't be trying to stop one country from bombing another....

---

i disagree, not that i dont disrespect your belief. i believe that if there was no religion or money or anything then people would still fight, even over stupid things(like we do alot today)

---

You all missed a pretty amusing slip-up...

But yeah like Yumecosmos implied: you can't have "religious union" or a universal acceptance of religion when some religions require the rejection of others.

And no, atheism is not theism. that just sounds silly. Most popular religions don't hold that God is not knowable or able to be experienced.

Originally posted by iBOCK3

---

I'm not saying religion is bad or anything, but if it didn't exist, along with money (No poor people), then the world would not be fighting. There would be plenty of food, clothes, accessories for everyone, and we wouldn't be trying to stop one country from bombing another....

---

That's communism in a nutshell.

I don't think it went over to well.

Atheism is not theism. The people who try to claim it is are just trying to take it down a notch out of spite. It's all smoke and mirrors in an attempt to debunk atheism because some people are scared more people will realize how foolish the belief in the unprovable is.

so, you came from goop, and then a monkey...

and I believe I'm a child of a supreme all powerful being.

Sucks to be you

No it's more like you believe in a fairy tale with no evidence to back it up and I believe in the most likely theory according to science. Sucks to be as gullible as you.

except you don't actually know at all what I believe. You have no idea what parts of which theories I think are true and which I don't.

While I hold a creationist perspective I'm not naive enough to ignore the mountains of scientific evidence that refute some of the possible elements that a creationist can hold. I make my faith and science fit together as best they can without ignoring the essential parts of each. Neither side can prove that it is right so I haven't picked a side.

Nice try but you're religious if you believe in a supreme all powerful being as you said before. Spice it up with bits and pieces of science if you want but it doesn't make it any more valid. It's called faith for a reason, you have to believe despite the evidence to the contrary. You're just fence sitting or playing both sides. I think that's not much of a stance, either you believe the evidence of science or you believe in a fable, you can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by axkick

---

Nice try but you're religious if you believe in a supreme all powerful being as you said before. Spice it up with bits and pieces of science if you want but it doesn't make it any more valid. It's called faith for a reason, you have to believe despite the evidence to the contrary. You're just fence sitting or playing both sides. I think that's not much of a stance, either you believe the evidence of science or you believe in a fable, you can't have it both ways.

---

That's not even close to being true. There's no scientific evidence directly conflicting with the idea of a 'supreme being', there's only some evidence that seems to clash with the Bible, or other holy texts. One could easily believe in a God or gods without disregarding science.

And on another note: Atheism doesn't denote a belief in science. Atheism is only the belief that there is no god. A person could completely disregard all scientific fact and still be an atheist.

thank you Mors.

Although I do disagree with your assumption that the Bible conflicts with science. I don't think that is true at all. I think that the way the Bible is read and interpreted is what creates the conflict.

Take the seven "days" of creation. The original hebrew word doesn't mean a literal day but simply a period of time. So when we read the Bible and assume 6000 years + 7 days we are taking the words too literally.

Oh, and axkick.... way to be so black and white about an issue. That doesn't make you sound close-minded and dogmatic