It seems that the neo-atheism trend rising up today are putting two entities that are different into a battle.
process in which I see the way/how we as a thinking thing absorbs
information and uses that data is based on a process (Think a tri-cycle
of an embodied cognition)...
- First point (main-primary) Belief
Systems (isms, religions and philosophies) become primary to our
thinking nature. Those primary beliefs are formed, created and/or
adaptive due to society, family, friends, environments, optimism,
inspirations and other individualistic factors (Neurophysiological
Nature and Nurture).
- The secondary are the tools we use to
enhance, explain, explore and expand the primary. The secondary are
obvious tools; math, science, art, poetry, astronomy, biology, physics,
engineering, etc. Fields of study that we have traditionally used in
humanities and use more in-depth today (The Meta-Longing to Know and be
- The third is the applying and the applications
feedback, either conflicting or establishing patterns with the first and
second (Self-Actualization vs. Social Acceptance).
It seems to me that this debate is something that
neo-atheist need to create because they claim to "lack a belief system"
due to the fact "not believing in a unicorn isn't a-unicornism." Which
is totally **** retarded. The concept of God has existed
since cave-paintings. You are already in a culture of atheist, why not
just take the next step and organize?!?! It would be so beneficial for
the world to have a religion based off of "religious naturalism"
"ignosticism" and/or "Indian irreligion." Gandhism! The knowledge of
all the good things these philosophers had to teach while nitpicking the
better quotes! Rather than never learning due to current day dogmas.
to this website, a ritual, reading articles about atheism, science and
politics, scripture reading. The differences are not in the actions but
in the context of actions. I know everyone on here is happy to be
surrounded by philosophy, but this Neo-Atheism and Militant Atheism doesn't do anything to help in the long run. It only proves to further
divide humans against humans.
Classically, all the fundamental
religions of today were very liberal and free-based. Kabbalah
suggested God is in the brain, ancient Islamism suggest math is the
language of God - Today, scholars suggest Jesus was talking about
consciousness and not an immaterial place (kingdom of heaven). We all
have the ability to "feel" and want to "know" God... whether it is
knowing "that" idea does and "this" idea does not exist.
middlist - So, while I HATE this new trend, I support it also, because
it does show the opposite side of the spectrum that is stunting global
growth. But to fix that growth does not come from telling people of
their "irrationalities" but rather how our NATURAL optimistic biases are
making us want to know and love a god or knowledge.
I don't know
where I am going with this, just tired of "Religion vs. Science,"
because science is a tool to investigate while religion is a process to
understand... Science dictates a "process" but for data, not life, not
philosophy and not the holistic reality we are apart of...Science and religion are ultimately no mutual entities - as it required a new age of unorganized religion in order to establish a debate between a broad methodology of research... with organized religions.
The overstatement of science (or any other religious phrase), for the purpose of debate, is how exactly I know this movement of atheism is religious - the overstatement of ideas is essential to carry on beliefs forward and to reject others.
Reference my Plea to Atheist!