Atheism

Opinion

Religious beliefs are often based on what some believe to be ignorance, such as the creation of earth and the universe in general, as well as a number of other existing bodies. With better education and advancements in scientific knowledge, religious beliefs are gradually being replaced by commonly accepted knowledge. Opinion

Europe has a high level of secular medicine and services. In the past these were under the control of religious groups. With government provided services there is less contact with religion and less participation by the populace. The lack of any religious instruction in schools may increase this process.

There is a social pressure in many European countries to disavow religious affiliation, many countries have adopted very stringent rules on the secular nature of government.. This is especially true in France, the Scandinavian countries and in some of the ex-Communist Bloc countries. As a result polled citizens may more frequently be open to indicating they have no church affiliation. Opinion

Like any human activity, it is a matter of choice. Those who accept atheism as reality, are obviously as committed to this way of thinking as those who subscribe to the various religions of the world. There could be any number of reasons, or a combination of reasons for the perceived rise in atheistic thought. It could be a matter of where the data is gathered, the openess of those polled, it could be a matter of misinformation or misinterpretation, or it could be factual representation and completely understood; however, if it were understood, this question likely would not exist. The reality is, when dealing with the vagaries of human belief and understanding there are at least 7 billion possibilities for any result, real or perceived. It can't be limitless, as the population of this planet is finite.

Opinion

After the massive European failure of religion, and paticularly of the Catholic Church, during World War II, many Europeans began to question the benefits of faith.

i don't whant to be mean but this is not a real question because dark can just go and go ect........

Dark is when you cannot see your hand in front of your face.

I presume you mean Skadar Keynes? He lives in Highbury, London.

Yes. Of course.

Richard Dawkins is a good evolutionary biologist and has many things to say about evolution. However in that book, he makes the mistake to try to big philosophical questions (about God, our cosmos, our purpose in life etc), that do not belong in the realm of biology. In "The God Delusion" he fiercely attacks Christianity and religion in general, because he thinks that all religious people are narrow minded like the ones of the medieval Holy Inquisition. That is simply not true. He cannot understand that religion s completely different questions than science: religion s the "why" questions. Science should be left to all the "how" questions...

Religious belief has nothing to do with facts.

Dawkins concludes that it is very doubtful that a deity exists. He does not emphatically deny any possibility whatsoever. Dawkins' thoughts indirectly point to the fact that belief in a deity goes hand-in-hand with faith. With faith, belief in a deity is natural and inevitable. From Dawkins' perspective, there is little if any physical evidence that supports belief in a deity.

As a footnote, religion is not the only approach to the "why" questions; religion is the means of expression of devotion to a deity. The "why" questions can be explored through any number of contemporary philosophies that are not religion/deity bound.

Agnostic?

I'd say 'non-religious'.

I was given a piece of paper awhile back with this quote on it: An atheist isn't only a person that doesn't believe in the word of God or in God himself. But a person that believes in doing the best for mankind without any preconceived notions of obligations of a religion. He will do right by other's because his heart says it's Right.

certainly not but if you consider UNDERTAKER then yep Coming back to life, is now no longer a miracle. It is now a common occurance in all Emergency wards. So the answer to your question depends on who was resuscitated back to life after having flat-lined on the monitor. Theists would definitely say "there's a God", while non-Theist will say "there's no God" but only when asked.

Answer

No one has died long term and came back. No headlines anyway. I mean if he did im sure he would of been killed anyway if he said there was no god the churches would get him. If he said there was a god, many Governments and oposing religious leaders would have him. So we probably wouldn't know either way. Maybe someone has, who knows.

Kerry Packer died and came back... "The good news is there's no devil... The bad news is there's no heaven... There's nothing."

Another View:

Consider the story of Jesus raising Lazarus back to life after being dead for 3 days and already 'prepared' and buried (John 11:43). Or the 'many' bodies of the saints who exited their graves at the Crucifixion (see Matthew 27:51-53).

Bullying is wrong - whether one is religious or not.

Bullying is the violent intimidation of one person by one or more other people.

One either believes that might is right and that bullying is acceptable, or one believes that all people are to be treated equally by all other people.

In fact, non-religious people are more likely to be opposed to bullying than those who are led to believe that they and their opinions are in some way 'special'. That sort of thinking allows one to believe that one is 'superior' and therefore entitled to abuse others.

Bullying can also take more subtle forms when people of one faith, or no faith, or even anti-faith try to impose their views on people of another position.

Non-religious people, in my personal experience are the most likely to be involved in bullying, in terms of attacking those who believe and they do this in various ways, whenever they are permitted so to do. Thus the presupposition behind the question itself is not true in terms of everyday experience, including this site.

Non-religious people also have in some cases little or no constraints on either their language or on their behaviour in pursuing their goal of intimidating those who are of a different view.

Non-religious people may also act in a manner which deliberately intends to offend the sensibilities of those with whom they disagree (that is 'religious' people), and then refuse to acknowledge their offense when challenged and instead attack the person who has raised the issue. Such people seem to regard it as non-offensive when they engage in such bullying, in whatever form it takes, yet they regard it as offensive when such is brought to their attention. This is a total reversal of the facts of the matter. This also points to the fact that there needs to be sensitivity to the feelings of others, something which people who engage in such activity lack. Most bully's also do not wish to see themselves as such and thus will do anything other than call a spade a spade. This can make their behavior worse as they continue to engage freely in it, repeat their offense, and even continue to defend it as being legitimate.

Non-religious people sometimes may also act in a manner which is both condescending and has a pretense in some cases of impartiality when they are not at all impartial in both their manner and action.

As a religious person I personally do not regard myself as superior for any reason. In particular, it could be so described that I am religious precisely because I do not regard myself as superior. My religion involves the recognition that 'all people are created equal.' This has an effect on behavior. This does not mean though, that all opinions are equally valid or that I regard truth as relative. There is, however, a vast difference between expressing a view and attacking a person, which is bullying. Even further, systematic attacks on the faith and the facts connected with that faith, amount to an attack on the persons who hold that faith, especially when such persons are subjected simultaneously to tactics involving intimidation and abuse of power. This is quite a different matter from discussion on different point of view.

Certainly all bullying is wrong, in whatever form it takes. This includes if it is allowed by those who purport to not allow it. Even the R&S Guidelines on this site acknowledge that this type issue could be a problem which is why such a statement as follows is in the guidelines:

"Avoid belligerent preaching or forcibly imposing your beliefs upon others."

However, it is one thing to have such a statement in writing and quite another to heed, in actual practice, the legitimate concerns of people who are regularly subject on a daily basis, to bullying of various kinds. Such activity, when ignored or even countenanced, goes against both the letter and the spirit of such guidelines.

Most certainly non-religious people are against bullying.

As a religious person I am against it too. And I am against it precisely because I suffer daily from it. The implication in the very question itself, that religious people are not against bullying is totally false.

Probably non-religious people are against bullying for the same reason(s) I am as a religious person. It is offensive. It demeans humanity. It creates ill-feeling. It can even be harmful to one's health and physical well being. It is something everyone (well, almost everyone) is against in theory, or wishes to be seen to be against, but it may be different in practice. In other words, there can be hypocrisy in people complaining about something being offensive which is legitimately brought to their attention - this itself is 'adding fuel to the fire'. Bullying is harmful. Bullying also demeans both the person and the position of those who engage in it. Most of all, when bullying is supported or constantly ignored it continues unabated and remains undealt with. Those who engage in it thus feel encouraged and continue in ever more bold a fashion. Frequently those involved in bullying exhibit an inability to empathize with those they are bullying. They may also use various means to justify their actions. Such justifications and rationalizations usually involve further offense to the person or persons being attacked. They suggest, or state openly, that the person is not justified in feeling offended or attacked. Yet, quite hypocritically, if they are in the same position they complain most loudly. In theory, non-religious people understand all this and so are against bullying. But my personal experience, in the present, tells me the exact opposite.

One misconception would be that Atheists are people of no faith. It takes just as much faith to deny the existence of a higher power as it does to acknowledge it.

Not all atheists are "strong atheists" who deny the existence of god. Having said that, it does not take faith to deny the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, or the tooth fairy. The idea that you need faith to not believe in something is silly.

The man behind it was revealed as a charlatan, thanks to a dog.

Not very much, since atheism as a philosophy and conscious belief was a thing for the members of the educated, higher classes. The European upper classes even then considered being religious 'the thing to do' and of course a useful examle to their servants, but many of them could not be considered themselves as being really deeply religious. Knowing an atheist would be considered a tintillating experience, but nothing to lose sleep over. The (lower) middle classes - the backbone of churchgoers - would have been more shocked and decided that they would probably end up in Hell or something, but atheists did not move much in their circles. The struggling masses of the industrial and urban proletariat had many things to worry about and religion and churchgoing often wasn't one of them. Most of them had good reason to think that there could not really be a god looking out for them.

Becoming an atheist in a middle or upper class environment back then was a bit like 'coming out' before the Eighties: a shock to the neighbours if you lived in a small community, much less so in a city or otherwise liberal environment and all depending on how much you decided to parade your newly-found identity.

In his book, The Future of an Illusion, Freud concluded that all religious beliefs are "illusions and insusceptible of proof."

Yes. Of course.

Yes. Of course. Notice how he favors Diocletian as a "good" (somewhat) emperor, who was known for his persecution of Christians. Another thing is that he favors gay people, which is against the Christian law.

However, this does not mean he is an atheist. It just means he doesn't like the Christian faith.

It was a greek by the name of Atheos, from which the root word of atheist is derived

This is a relatively widely known concept that likely has no singular origin, though it was most famously elaborated upon by Niccolo Machiavelli in his work 'The Prince'

Yes, he was a lifelong atheist.

Means unrestricted access

We would know approximately when Penepole was born if we knew when the Trojan War occurred, or was said to have occurred. Many events of the Odessey reflect the Mycenaean civilization which continued from around 2000 until around 1200 BCE. Some believe that the Trojan War, if it really did occur, happened around 1194-1184 BCE.

A city believed to be Troy was unearthed in 1870, giving some credence to the general outline of the story.

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a God, or gods, or belief that a God or gods do not exist. Either definition requires a knowledge of belief systems in order to disbelieve them. Therefore, belief in God, or gods, may have come first in any society before any member of that society could choose not to hold that belief.

On the other hand, atheism could be considered older than religious belief since the earliest humans were not capable of forming religious doctrines and belief in some undefined higher power was likely a result of not understanding the powers of nature.

There are millions of people globally who do not believe in a higher being or the supernatural, therefore it clearly exists. It is certainly not a fact that atheism is an error. No one has proved atheism to to be an error, just as no one has proved God exists.

A cultural universal is a part in a humans culture

Religion basically states "the world is as it is because God made it that way". If you prefer an answer that has a bit more of reasoning to it, then you'll probably like the scientific explanation - which tries hard to do away with the "because" answer - better.