What do Europeans believe in ?

[sparkey]

Pyrub's response may be diverting us further off-topic here, but mods here can always move posts around, so I'll respond for fun.

Atheism is the dead end of imagination. It's pretty disturbing that people find atheism compelling to explain our existence when the prime mover issue, ie. what was the first cause, Aristotles observation still exists. Atheism isn't an intellectual belief.

(1) Why does the prime mover issue still exist? A circularity could, as well. It isn't logically necessary. (2) If it is required, why does it have to be explained by theism? I can't imagine the most likely explanation being the type of god that a human mind creates.

Intelligence, reason, logic, or understanding of science does cannot prove atheism.

Atheism is a belief, not a logical deduction, so proof is not required, only justification.

It may be compelling to a teenager who questioned the prime mover of gods existence, ie. What caused god. But the same problem must be question in, what caused existence.

If you admit that theism and atheism run into the same problem here, how does that justify one or the other?

Under the guise of intellectualism atheism has flourished into a religion with it's prime target Christianity.

What does the behavior of certain atheists have to do with the legitimacy of atheism itself?

Sure, people who literally interpret the bible are dishonest, but the social implications of religion are such that it existed to keep order in Europe. Every belief, including atheism under the guise of communism has justified wrongdoing(Stalin).

Regardless of the behaviors of the holders of certain beliefs, atheism is nonetheless the most justifiable. If your view is that unjustifiable beliefs should be held due to the fact that they encourage order somehow, your argument has an uphill battle. The "best" societies empirically have been those that have encouraged the most freedom of belief, not those that have been ordered around a certain one, as you are getting at.

The question is what makes society and the individual function better. Is it atheism, which professes human reason above all or theism, which professes existence beyond our control. I, for one, fear humanity that self reassures itself of the infallibility of belief or science. Regardless of whether or not god exists, it should be reasoned that the evolutionary belief in god benefited man otherwise god wouldn't have been created. God is what separated man from animals. Since, with god, humans have a perfection to aspire.

Belief in "god" isn't how humans evolved, it has to be taught. "Belief" and "storytelling" and "finding explanations" are the natural human tendency that evolved, and "god" is a meme that fills that tendency. There's no reason to keep it just because of history. And if you're worried about relying on science too much, realize that atheism doesn't necessitate this over-reliance. It is possible, and quite common, to be an atheist who realizes the limits of current knowledge.

Atheism is a belief that most children believe is epiphany. In reality, the problems posed by atheism seem to outweigh the benefits. It's an intellectual dead end and reeks of the stupidity of its followers.

I don't see this correlation. As a counterexample to the implication that atheism is bad for you and the product of stupidity, atheists in the United States have lower incarceration rates and higher IQs on average. The only legitimate criticism I've seen along these lines is that atheism is less "fulfilling," hence higher suicide rates, etc. The solution, again, isn't to criticize atheism as a whole, but rather to encourage "fulfillment" elsewhere from within atheism.

As Hume says, "That the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction, than the affirmation, that it will rise. "

The implications of raw philosophical definitions of intelligibility and contradiction don't seem to me to be entirely relevant to this discussion.

 

[bertrand]

All right, here is a good example for you. Buddhism is an Atheistic faith, yet its genuine followers reject material possessions, aim at asceticism... The country where people crave the most materialistic gains, as you put it, is the USA, the most Christian of all Western countries (and by far). I liked LeBrok's example of the Vatican as one of the most outrageously materialistic places on Earth.

Maciamo,
I you read my last post, you would see that I actually put budhism in the religious group. Because it is a religion even if some of the parameters of that religion are different from others.
People inferred from my comments that I was defending Christianity against the rest. It is not the case.

I was defending those who obeyed the "unrational" rules of a given religion, vs those who obeyed only their whims and the material needs of their bodies.

 

[bertrand]

Atheism is a belief, not a logical deduction, so proof is not required, only justification.

Sparkey,
You might have noticed in my first comment that I put atheists, non-believers and non-practicing in the same basket; why? because they all behave the same way. They obey no "superior" rule but their own.

Most atheists that I know are more "don't care" than "dont believe". So I dont think that you can classify atheists as a belief system. The philosophers that have spent a lot of time thinking about the implication of God as a driver of the universe and concluded that he does not exist are actually only a fraction of the 90% of non-religious europeans.

On the other hand, in modern society, a believer is confronted every day with the question: "Am i really a believer? Does it really make any sense to go to church/temple when everybody else is watching TV or going shopping?"

 

[sparkey]

Sparkey,
You might have noticed in my first comment that I put atheists, non-believers and non-practicing in the same basket; why? because they all behave the same way. They obey no "superior" rule but their own.

Most atheists that I know are more "don't care" than "dont believe". So I dont think that you can classify atheists as a belief system. The philosophers that have spent a lot of time thinking about the implication of God as a driver of the universe and concluded that he does not exist are actually only a fraction of the 90% of non-religious europeans.

"Atheism" is one of those tricky words that can have different meanings depending on the context in which it is used. I think that Europeans atheists are more likely to be in the "don't care" basket, while American atheists are more likely to be in the "don't believe" basket, at least in my experience. That's probably just a byproduct of there being fewer American atheists as a percentage of the population, so the American atheists are more likely to feel the need to justify it.

But you're right, there's nothing that keeps us from calling someone an atheist who hasn't really put any thought into the issue and just happens to lack a belief in god. That kind of person doesn't even necessarily require justification, although I think that they should have it if they intend to defend their atheism.

On the other hand, in modern society, a believer is confronted every day with the question: "Am i really a believer? Does it really make any sense to go to church/temple when everybody else is watching TV or going shopping?"

Yup... a theist requires justification regardless.

 

[Antigone]

That's one interpretation of the term 'Dark Ages', not the one and only interpretation... It isn't just about the lack of written records, but the lower level of knowledge, technology, science, culture and everything compared to the Classical Antiquity or Europe since the Renaissance.

Yes, that was the 19thC view of the period. 20thC archaeology and study have led to a greater understanding of the developments of the time and the term dark ages is not used in that context by historians and academics today.

In modern usage the term dark ages is meant to infer that the time is dark only to us, for the scarcity of written and artistic output. Although, some scholars even argue against the use of this neutral term, they contend that a) ordinary readers will not understand the changed meaning and b) that with the explosion of recent knowledge and insight into the period that the dark ages are no longer dark in the sense of being unkown to us. Thus to avoid any judgement or misunderstanding on the use of the term most historians avoid it completely and opt for terms such as the Early Middle Ages or Late Antiquity.

 

[bertrand]

also from a spiritual point of view it was much less dark than nowadays.
In spite of the ruthlessness of the time, many saints accomplished many great deeds of humilty and charity.
Who nowadays could do what Saint Francis of Assisi did or Saint-Claire?
A life completely devoted to humility and others.

Which ruler could do as Richard Lionheart did and put oneself in danger just for the sake of his faith? It led him to the cold jails of Germany...

Same thing with the eldest son of William the conquerror who lost his dominions because he left for the crusades.

 

[Pyrub]

Atheism is a belief, not a logical deduction, so proof is not required, only justification.

How does atheism benefit you? To me, atheism is so shallow that it's hard for me to understand what is compelling about it. As a child i became an atheist, because it sounded right when it fulfilled an answered question that daunted me. Who created god if god created us? But the question is also as relevant to god as it is to existence. This question is the only question that compels me to god, because it is the the ultimate end of human reason.

If you admit that theism and atheism run into the same problem here, how does that justify one or the other?

Of course every belief has the difficulty of the prime mover. It is what makes us human. We can't understand it since we experience in cause and effect. The prime mover is the ultimate mystery to human reason. It's a hole through which thought cannot penetrate.

What does the behavior of certain atheists have to do with the legitimacy of atheism itself?

My issue is not with the actions of atheists, but an argument against religion tends to revolve around - "religion has caused many harms." This may or may not be true, and as you said, it may be irrelevant even if true. Under your reasoning people cause harm, not belief.

Regardless of the behaviors of the holders of certain beliefs, atheism is nonetheless the most justifiable. If your view is that unjustifiable beliefs should be held due to the fact that they encourage order somehow, your argument has an uphill battle. The "best" societies empirically have been those that have encouraged the most freedom of belief, not those that have been ordered around a certain one, as you are getting at.

Memetic culture has thus far penetrated far and wide across the european landscape. It's hard to understand the progress of civilization when we are living through the change in the moment. The dismantling of the old order, the church, and of god - leads to a new order - and to presume we can justify that it is better is an error or reasoning.

I can tell you why Europe is soon to be forgotten. It's simple birthrates. The European population is declining, productivity can only be kept through immigration. The military landscape will look vastly different in the future and there is no will or impetus on the parts of the European people. The will of the European is strangled by forces that also facilitate the declining population of Europe. The European person may well be enslaved as he enslaved populations in the 19th century.

Atheism is the cornerstone of a revolution that professes humans are intelligent and have high grounds, therefore, to act in intelligent ways. I for one, do not accept that humans are intelligent, or the vast majority thereof. I believe the collective will is stronger than the individual will and the belief in atheism only destroys humanity through errors of judgment. It should be justified to say that a smarter than average person is a danger when it comes to understanding. And those errors of understanding that arise through arrogance leads to destructions of societal customs that have arisen out of an cultural evolution. The conclusion that it can only lead to is that atheism is destructive to society.

Belief in "god" isn't how humans evolved, it has to be taught. "Belief" and "storytelling" and "finding explanations" are the natural human tendency that evolved, and "god" is a meme that fills that tendency. There's no reason to keep it just because of history. And if you're worried about relying on science too much, realize that atheism doesn't necessitate this over-reliance. It is possible, and quite common, to be an atheist who realizes the limits of current knowledge.

God is as much a part of evolution as logic or math.

I don't see this correlation. As a counterexample to the implication that atheism is bad for you and the product of stupidity, atheists in the United States have lower incarceration rates and higher IQs on average. The only legitimate criticism I've seen along these lines is that atheism is less "fulfilling," hence higher suicide rates, etc. The solution, again, isn't to criticize atheism as a whole, but rather to encourage "fulfillment" elsewhere from within atheism.

A higher than average IQ can be dangerous. Do you think people with higher than average IQ's have created most scientific progress in humanity or people with much higher than average IQ's?

As I stated it is my belief that atheism is dangerous because it presumes humans are able to reason and gives them freedom to reason. Their expression of their reasoning becomes cultural norm. When its realized that their reasoning is erroneous(ie. beliefs that have caused decreases in birth rates), it may be to late to positively change the outcome. But, alas, hope is never lost.

As Schopenhauer says, "Opinion is like a pendulum and obeys the same law. If it goes past the centre of gravity on one side, it must go a like distance on the other; and it is only after a certain time that it finds the true point at which it can remain at rest."

 

[Pyrub]

Maciamo,
The truth is that the resilience of Europeans in face of hardship has become very low. You blow a whiff and the whole thing will collapse. Religion is not the only reason but I believe it is one of the paramaters.
If Putin invaded Europe tomorrow (God forbid), what would happen? Of course we would cry for help in New York. But alone, how much time could Europeans resist? I bet most would not even try to resist, like in 1940.

This is an astute observation and I believe a correct one. With atheism came a sense of intellectualism and a growing disdain for past culture. Culture that has lasted thousands of years and has been curated to sustain the hardships of existence. No longer is man supposed to feel one with his biological brethren, but he's supposed to accept his biological nemesis, feed and cloth him. What sort of disease has spread amongst the people?

One cannot feel at home. Man is separated from god. Man is separated from his own people, his homeland. How charred is this existence? How desolate is man? And man sits alone, his actions smitten by the reaction of the herd and his thoughts crowded by the stupidity of the others.

And to think that one subset of humanity can instill fear into Europe by the issue of Greek default, to paralyze the continent into remission. What a tortured soul the modern European has become.

 

[sparkey]

How does atheism benefit you?

Atheism alone, without any additional beliefs or knowledge about the world, benefits me little. But I find that being an atheist makes the limits of my knowledge clearer and keeps me away from distracting tangents when trying to understand the world.

To me, atheism is so shallow that it's hard for me to understand what is compelling about it. As a child i became an atheist, because it sounded right when it fulfilled an answered question that daunted me. Who created god if god created us? But the question is also as relevant to god as it is to existence. This question is the only question that compels me to god, because it is the the ultimate end of human reason.

Atheism alone isn't supposed to be an entire belief system, it's simply a single disbelief. Why do you find it more shallow to disbelieve in an unsubstantiated concept than to believe in it? I find that the wisest, least shallow man would be he who both knows the depths of his own knowledge, and realizes when something that others have told him is more likely to be the product of their storytelling tendency than the truth.

Of course every belief has the difficulty of the prime mover. It is what makes us human. We can't understand it since we experience in cause and effect. The prime mover is the ultimate mystery to human reason. It's a hole through which thought cannot penetrate.

The belief that cause-and-effect is circular or the result of an infinite regress does not have the difficulty of the prime mover. Interestingly, atheism allows for this, while most theologies do not. Besides, if there is a prime mover, why must we call it God? It would be much more honest of us to call it an unknown.

Memetic culture has thus far penetrated far and wide across the european landscape. It's hard to understand the progress of civilization when we are living through the change in the moment. The dismantling of the old order, the church, and of god - leads to a new order - and to presume we can justify that it is better is an error or reasoning.

It's not an error in reasoning if there is evidence. There is an obvious correlation between irreligion and human development. I won't say that that is necessarily one-way causation, but it's difficult to imagine a more critical, scientific culture not having an advantage over a theocratic one.

The European person may well be enslaved as he enslaved populations in the 19th century.

Atheism is the cornerstone of a revolution that professes humans are intelligent and have high grounds, therefore, to act in intelligent ways. I for one, do not accept that humans are intelligent, or the vast majority thereof. I believe the collective will is stronger than the individual will and the belief in atheism only destroys humanity through errors of judgment. It should be justified to say that a smarter than average person is a danger when it comes to understanding. And those errors of understanding that arise through arrogance leads to destructions of societal customs that have arisen out of an cultural evolution. The conclusion that it can only lead to is that atheism is destructive to society.

Sorry, but that's a series of bad conclusions. For one, atheists are often more skeptical of how much we know that theists are--especially about things such as how the universe was created and where morality comes from. If you're worried about people thinking that they know things when they really don't, then religion is exactly what you need to be worried about.

You go farther than that, though... your idea being that the culturally-reached conclusions (via cultural evolution) are inherently better for the public to hold than individually-reached ones (via philosophy, the scientific method, etc.). But you don't offer any evidence for that. The counterexamples are too numerous to count, with all the advancements to humanity contributed by individual efforts, and all the tragedies that have occurred as the result of people simply accepting something cultural.

Unfortunately, our evolved tendencies are not always to our collective advantage, especially now that humanity is living in such a different situation than what it evolved in.

God is as much a part of evolution as logic or math.

If that was true then God would be universal. Logic and math, at least in their most necessary forms (decision-making, counting, etc.) are. But he isn't. As I already said, he is one of many memes that fills a particular human tendency.

A higher than average IQ can be dangerous. Do you think people with higher than average IQ's have created most scientific progress in humanity or people with much higher than average IQ's?

I don't understand what you're asking me here.

As I stated it is my belief that atheism is dangerous because it presumes humans are able to reason and gives them freedom to reason. Their expression of their reasoning becomes cultural norm. When its realized that their reasoning is erroneous(ie. beliefs that have caused decreases in birth rates), it may be to late to positively change the outcome. But, alas, hope is never lost.

Why can't you simply "spread the word" about birth rates if that's your most important issue? There's no contradiction between atheism and the belief that higher birth rates are better.

 

[Pyrub]

The belief that cause-and-effect is circular or the result of an infinite regress does not have the difficulty of the prime mover. Interestingly, atheism allows for this, while most theologies do not. Besides, if there is a prime mover, why must we call it God? It would be much more honest of us to call it an unknown.

It's simply impossible to answer the question of the prime mover. It is the only question that can bring someone to god. Infinite cause and effect is a human concept applied to human reason. The same can be said of god, an infinite being. If you answer the question of how something can exist from nothing, I would like to know. Because until then, a belief of atheism which assumes a truth rather than an ignorance is foolish. You do not know the truth because you can't know it. Neither do I, but my belief is that it is better for humanity to believe in god, otherwise people that do believe in god (Arabs) will conquer the world.

It's not an error in reasoning if there is evidence. There is an obvious correlation between irreligion and human development. I won't say that that is necessarily one-way causation, but it's difficult to imagine a more critical, scientific culture not having an advantage over a theocratic one.

Correlation doesn't prove causality one way or the other. It seems evident that with increased human development index and education creates educated people that are stupid and hold stupid beliefs. Atheism has little to offer me or the world and it's propogation seems reflective of reasoning that is shallow and inept. The basic reasoning behind atheism, that there is no god, seems like a delusion of people to justify intelligence. It simply provid es no value to the world and may be part of a defective culture.

Anyway, religious belief is also correlated with population growth. See image above.

If you don't grow population, you will cease to exist as a gene pool. That's a fact. I don't think you understand the implications of smart but not smart enough or how dangerous this can be to the culture.

Sorry, but that's a series of bad conclusions. For one, atheists are often more skeptical of how much we know that theists are--especially about things such as how the universe was created and where morality comes from. If you're worried about people thinking that they know things when they really don't, then religion is exactly what you need to be worried about.

It's easy to see how atheism correlates with less population growth. Given this fact, it should be held that population growth is the greatest danger to civilized humanity because it ensures gene pollution to sustain economic output. Economic output is highly dependent on population growth and the importation of labor due to low levels of population growth will destroy Europe.

The future is to those who believe in something and will together. Individuality was a thing of the past that was nurished under the guise of freedom and the absence of a threat.

You go farther than that, though... your idea being that the culturally-reached conclusions (via cultural evolution) are inherently better for the public to hold than individually-reached ones (via philosophy, the scientific method, etc.). But you don't offer any evidence for that. The counterexamples are too numerous to count, with all the advancements to humanity contributed by individual efforts, and all the tragedies that have occurred as the result of people simply accepting something cultural.

To believe everyone can think as well as everyone else is an error of judgment and dishonest to evolutionary biology. Since we reject this premise we should accept that people share views that are not only wrong, but subversive to society. They hold beliefs because their thought leads them to it and they are otherwise unable to distinguish truth from fact. If you believe IQ is hereditary you also believe that some people are better able to understand truth than others.

Unfortunately, our evolved tendencies are not always to our collective advantage, especially now that humanity is living in such a different situation than what it evolved in.

Unfortunately evolution only cares about population growth, which is called fitness.

 

[sparkey]

It's simply impossible to answer the question of the prime mover. It is the only question that can bring someone to god. Infinite cause and effect is a human concept applied to human reason. The same can be said of god, an infinite being. If you answer the question of how something can exist from nothing, I would like to know. Because until then, a belief of atheism which assumes a truth rather than an ignorance is foolish. You do not know the truth because you can't know it.

To be honest, your repeated appeals to the Prime Mover difficulty are becoming tiresome and you aren't really addressing my points. I'll put my points concisely so that you hopefully won't just restate yourself again:

1. A Prime Mover is not a logical necessity because the premise that cause-and-effect needs a beginning is flawed
2. If there is a Prime Mover, the most likely explanation is not god because the god concept is a human construct
3. Justification of atheism does not require an explanation for the unknown any more than theism does, and remains more justified due to (2)

Neither do I, but my belief is that it is better for humanity to believe in god, otherwise people that do believe in god (Arabs) will conquer the world.

I've never understood the argument that, since creeping Arab culture is bad, therefore we should be more like Arabs. I find it would be more productive to promote Western values to peoples who migrate to the West, and indeed, we see that Arabs in Europe are on the whole quite moderate.

Atheism has little to offer me or the world and it's propogation seems reflective of reasoning that is shallow and inept. The basic reasoning behind atheism, that there is no god, seems like a delusion of people to justify intelligence. It simply provid es no value to the world and may be part of a defective culture.

Atheism is the delusion? What don't you accept?:

1. Humans have a naturally evolved tendency to create mythology
2. This tendency arises in greatest force when they encounter unexplained phenomena
3. The god concept explains such phenomena as in (2) and fits the tendency explained by (1)
4. Therefore the god concept is human-created mythology
5. As a corollary to (4), atheism is a more justified belief than theism

Also, you're using "defective" pejoratively when it isn't warranted. Even if atheistic cultures experience a decline in total population, that won't have any implication on whether or not the atheism was justified.

Anyway, religious belief is also correlated with population growth. See image above.

OK, so there is a three-way correlation between religiosity, population growth, and human development. Perhaps we should be looking at adjusting more than one variable there to affect the others. I mean, religiosity may be the one we have the least control over.

It's easy to see how atheism correlates with less population growth. Given this fact, it should be held that population growth is the greatest danger to civilized humanity because it ensures gene pollution to sustain economic output. Economic output is highly dependent on population growth and the importation of labor due to low levels of population growth will destroy Europe.

I don't understand what you mean by sentence 2 above.

The future is to those who believe in something and will together. Individuality was a thing of the past that was nurished under the guise of freedom and the absence of a threat.

How much individuality are you intending to throw out of modern culture? Are you sure that the side effects would be worthwhile? I find that groups often operate wonderfully as a summation of individualists.

To believe everyone can think as well as everyone else is an error of judgment and dishonest to evolutionary biology. Since we reject this premise we should accept that people share views that are not only wrong, but subversive to society. They hold beliefs because their thought leads them to it and they are otherwise unable to distinguish truth from fact. If you believe IQ is hereditary you also believe that some people are better able to understand truth than others.

Yup. So now that you're done with that rant, are you willing to accept that the god concept could be one such view?

 

[Rinconete]

I'm Christian non-believer.

 

[yingxuy]

This is the trap of assuming human nature, if you believe something, that something must be correct. Similarly, different things, or do not believe that all who believe in others, is wrong.

 

[SekhemreKhutawy]

I'm a pagan, that follows a variation of ancient Greek religion.