This entry was posted
on Monday, January 8th, 2007 at 1:24 pm and is filed under Personal.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Sounds like a load of bollocks to me. Wearing any sort of label is about making a choice. Atheism on the other hand isn’t a “lifestyle” choice or a fashion. Atheism is more like being tall or having brown eyes. It is just something that you are. I can agree with the point about it being an indicator of education though, and where you are lucky enough to have had a good education, it is not uncommon to find wealth not far behind. They do tend to go in hand in hand.
I agree with wealth following a good education. Wealth typically follows when someone is able to add value to the society in which they live - education is a good way of learning how to add this value.
I’ll argue back on Atheism being a function of genetics as with being tall or eye colour. Your likelyhood of following a religion is entirely society based (which is why you find more Christians in the West, Muslims in the Middle East and Hindus in India) - and initially it isn’t a choice made by an individual person (rather, their parents).
You defeat your own point about Atheism being ’something you are’ by then linking it to education. Thats like saying education and eye colour are linked.
Atheism is entirely about an individual making a choice, but the society in which that individual lives influences not only their ability to make the choice (education, exposure to alternatives, encouragement of independent thought etc etc) but also repercussions of that choice (penalties, treated as second class citizens etc etc). Here in Malaysia for example, in order to marry a Muslim you yourself must convert to Islam.
In a society that is exposed to ‘independent’ information (such as the sciences that help explain ‘acts of God’), encouragement to ask questions, conduct investigations and form your own conclusions, and the lack of penalty for choosing Atheism, you’re going to find more Atheists.
Is it a choice? Yes.
Does a more ‘developed’ society enable individuals to make that choice? Yes.
So what poses the biggest threat to religion? I think it’s trade. But then, I read the Economist, so I would do
Ah ha - but when either of you are drunk, you may forget your senses and therefore disagree with your earlier statement… I can then use the argument against you!
Chances of us getting drunk - give me a timescale and I’ll give you the odds. Chances of us speaking bollocks - 100%. I replied in a hurry rather than giving a considered argument, so not so much flame as just hurried and badly phrased retort. I was not linking atheism to brown eyes in terms of genetics, but in a more abstract “it is what it is” kind of way. As an atheist I kick back strongly at any sort of suggestion that that it is a lifestyle choice or some sort of belief system. I don’t believe in any gods. Simple as that. As Richard Dawkins points out, most people are 99% atheist in that they don’t believe in any of the thousands of deities available with one exception (or a few exceptions in pan-atheistic.
religions). I just take it one step further and believe in none at all.
It is obviously easier to be like this in a largely secular society than in a theocracy, agreed, but education as we know it - sciences and arts also tends to suffer in theocratic societies. Religion and science are not easy bedfellows.
As for religion being the parents choice, if you accept the fact that religion is a choice, then children are just children, you can’t have Moslem chidren or Catholic children if the child is being forcibly indoctrinated without any sort of say in the matter.
We must discuss further, hold this thought and I’ll come on over (In September or so).
And I would also like to point out that if I get drunk then I disagree. I am as likely to agree with my earlier statement as I am to disagree with it. Or maybe I’ll just have another drink.
Atheism is a natural state of being. All children are born atheists, you have to take them away and fill their heads with superstitous mumbo jumbo for them to start thinking of themselves as religious. Education poses the greatest threat to religion, along with commerce ( as opposed to trade) and peashooters, but I read the Beano, so I would do.
January 8th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Sounds like a load of bollocks to me. Wearing any sort of label is about making a choice. Atheism on the other hand isn’t a “lifestyle” choice or a fashion. Atheism is more like being tall or having brown eyes. It is just something that you are. I can agree with the point about it being an indicator of education though, and where you are lucky enough to have had a good education, it is not uncommon to find wealth not far behind. They do tend to go in hand in hand.
January 8th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
I agree with wealth following a good education. Wealth typically follows when someone is able to add value to the society in which they live - education is a good way of learning how to add this value.
I’ll argue back on Atheism being a function of genetics as with being tall or eye colour. Your likelyhood of following a religion is entirely society based (which is why you find more Christians in the West, Muslims in the Middle East and Hindus in India) - and initially it isn’t a choice made by an individual person (rather, their parents).
You defeat your own point about Atheism being ’something you are’ by then linking it to education. Thats like saying education and eye colour are linked.
Atheism is entirely about an individual making a choice, but the society in which that individual lives influences not only their ability to make the choice (education, exposure to alternatives, encouragement of independent thought etc etc) but also repercussions of that choice (penalties, treated as second class citizens etc etc). Here in Malaysia for example, in order to marry a Muslim you yourself must convert to Islam.
In a society that is exposed to ‘independent’ information (such as the sciences that help explain ‘acts of God’), encouragement to ask questions, conduct investigations and form your own conclusions, and the lack of penalty for choosing Atheism, you’re going to find more Atheists.
Is it a choice? Yes.
Does a more ‘developed’ society enable individuals to make that choice? Yes.
So what poses the biggest threat to religion? I think it’s trade. But then, I read the Economist, so I would do
January 8th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
And in case that was just flame bait - I see your flame, and raise you an inflationary comment.
_Mandatory inflamatory comment_
Bloody atheists, coming over here, stealing our jobs. Grumble grumble
_/Mandatory inflamatory comment_
January 9th, 2007 at 7:23 am
just a quick warning - I’m going to steel this argument, chapter and verse, and claim it as my own!
(note to self: do NOT use to Dunc or Adam…. unless either are very, very drunk!)
January 9th, 2007 at 9:00 am
How could you use this argument *against* us? It’s our argument!
Time for another heated agreement?
January 9th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Ah ha - but when either of you are drunk, you may forget your senses and therefore disagree with your earlier statement… I can then use the argument against you!
January 9th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Me or Dunc talking bollocks when we’re drunk? - surely that wouldn’t happen
January 10th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Chances of us getting drunk - give me a timescale and I’ll give you the odds. Chances of us speaking bollocks - 100%. I replied in a hurry rather than giving a considered argument, so not so much flame as just hurried and badly phrased retort. I was not linking atheism to brown eyes in terms of genetics, but in a more abstract “it is what it is” kind of way. As an atheist I kick back strongly at any sort of suggestion that that it is a lifestyle choice or some sort of belief system. I don’t believe in any gods. Simple as that. As Richard Dawkins points out, most people are 99% atheist in that they don’t believe in any of the thousands of deities available with one exception (or a few exceptions in pan-atheistic.
religions). I just take it one step further and believe in none at all.
It is obviously easier to be like this in a largely secular society than in a theocracy, agreed, but education as we know it - sciences and arts also tends to suffer in theocratic societies. Religion and science are not easy bedfellows.
As for religion being the parents choice, if you accept the fact that religion is a choice, then children are just children, you can’t have Moslem chidren or Catholic children if the child is being forcibly indoctrinated without any sort of say in the matter.
We must discuss further, hold this thought and I’ll come on over (In September or so).
And I would also like to point out that if I get drunk then I disagree. I am as likely to agree with my earlier statement as I am to disagree with it. Or maybe I’ll just have another drink.
Atheism is a natural state of being. All children are born atheists, you have to take them away and fill their heads with superstitous mumbo jumbo for them to start thinking of themselves as religious. Education poses the greatest threat to religion, along with commerce ( as opposed to trade) and peashooters, but I read the Beano, so I would do.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:52 am
I look forward to the continued discussion:
Something that struck a chord:
“All children are born atheists.”
Atheism by default. Religion is the exception.
I like the thought of that.