as to your question of whether we should try to disprove religions, i say: if reason or scientifc evidence is contradictory to a religious text such as the Qur'an, would it not be benificial to remedy or make clear the false or contradictory passages which are questioned?
Who would it benefit? It seems to me that it would only benefit atheists by giving them another avenue to express how much more 'right' they are. Logically disproving religious texts has not been effective in reducing the faith in a certain religion in the past. The problem is that due to the nature of belief it does not weaken their faith, but serves the opposite purpose. It puts religion on the defensive and breeds further distrust of rationallity. If it is the minds of the people you want to win I think a much more successful direction to take would be to strip religion of its power, as we have done in the secular west. If religion no longer has a say in our lawmaking or schooling, what is the harm in it?
Actually I'm not entirely convinced that a complete absense of religion is a good thing for society. Atheism does not provide absolute moral guidelines for the average person. I know most atheists on this board would tell me that atheists are some of the most moral people, and I would agree, but hear me out.
In every religion there are a small minority of firm believers and a vast majority of casual believers. These casual believers sin even though their morals are handed to them. What if atheism replaced religionIf casual christians sin then what does that mean for the casual atheists? Would they become completely void of morals because they aren't told what to think? Would crime increase and adultery become more prevalent; would society loose its goodwill? Is this already happening?
I think that the 'casual religious followers' which accurately depict the usual church-goers you describe, are usually basing their morals on the laws of their society, rather than their religion. Ask one of them what their biggest fear in commiting a crime is and they will most likely say 'being arrested' rather than 'going to hell'. One reason for this is usually that the majority of their day to day activities no doubt defy their religious teachings, as in the case of christianity, anyone who has partaken in 'premarital sex'.
due to this i would quite agree that the lack of religion would show less of an affect on peoples morals that one might think, despite the basis of western societies laws being based on seemingly christian values. It would no doubt stop the slowdown of modern technolgical progress that religion is imposing on our society today, in the form of stem cell research, nanotechnology, etc.
The problem to governments is that with a lack of religion the people would become more aware of the politics affecting them. Picture, for instance, the 'next life is better' factor, where people ignore current events, content that their current situation doesnt matter so long as eternal bliss awaits them in the next life. The lack of religion will make it far more difficult to govern the people, where people will demand more socially beneficial laws to empower them in what little existance they have. After all, religion has put corrupt rulers in unchecked power throughout history under the guise of holiness. Picture mideval europe, picture the middle east. These people have been dominated not only through their drive for divinity on a road paved by their rulers, but whose meager conservative crimes have been met with harsh punishment in the name of god, instead of simply being a form of eraticating dissent.
Casual atheists can no doubt be subjected to new memes of state control 'war on terror...', which enevitably take their place, for casual atheists are not questioning like those who are stong supporters, they are nonetheless following the pack. The question is, will atheism be enough the stop mass ignorance, or will it open new floodgates of memes to be swallowed by the people?
Atheism is generally feared by theists, and it is generally avoided by nontheists.
The fear of atheism is propagated by stereotypes and essentially ignorance. This is primarily a communication problem. Those who fear atheism have usually been presented with the idea that atheism promotes the activistic disproval of their beliefs. This idea is also usually presented by self-proclaimed atheists, whom are additionally troublesome cynics and skeptics, to theists.
Unlike Christianity, Catholicism, and Islam, atheism’s communication problem stems from the lack of an organizational structure. Atheism is a Satrean existential doctrine. This means that atheism stresses the importance and robustness of individual choice. The lack of {belief in gods} (-theism) is inherent as theism promotes determinism.
Nontheistic avoidance of identification with atheism is also caused by the same communication problem and the power of memes.
Atheism as a belief system- "there is no god, there is only observable reality" is just like religion in that it is philosophically unstable, and that it does not rely on the assumptions it makes to make further assumptions. Ultimately true atheism requires being completely "satisfied"-- ideologically ordered, constant, unchanging, just as true religion does. Facts may only have one interpretation. Speculation must be outlawed. This is why atheism is ultimately just as unworkable as religion. People are by nature transitory. Members of religion shift here and there in the strength of there faith. Atheists do too. Given enough time and motivation to think, most people will reach an inconclusive result, dominated by speculation, though this process sometimes stops at hypotheses long enough to write a book or three, and sometimes stops long enough for the person to die. It never incorporates ALL pieces of information, since there is always a higher level of organization, and a future time, with which the hypothesis could be proven insufficient. Ultimately then, it is only for one outside of time and space, whose reality is constant, to decide what religion is ultimately true. Atheists, if they know rightly that there is no God, must be gods.
of course, this is all just speculation . . .I think . . .that is, I think that I think . . .that is I think that I think that I think . .. . that is . . . .nevermind. . .
The belief that there is no god is not atheism in and of itself. Most would call that "Strong atheism". The lack of belief in a god of gods is a more proper definition IMO. These are very different things. So it's not accurate to suggest that atheism rests on the same unstable ground as religion, this is not to say that there are not irrational and dogmatic atheists.
I was checking out the following link, I think many here may appereciate the objectivity and fair shake that the author gives atheism and freethought. That and he is a fairly personable fellow.
ah but once one becomes aware of the law, he is guilty of sin. If you know what a weak atheist is, you aren't one. It's no longer passive. you can actively believe, actively disbelieve, or say you really don't know. You can also invest partial faith, for the sake of seeing where it leads- which is what most people actually do.
Author
Logged
