What is Aetheism 2.0?

[RootsBooster]

Atheism is where you don't believe in fairy tales.

This is relevant to the OP, how exactly?

Man made add-on?

 

Religion is a product of evolution.

Okay the word religion might be better off changed for the word "gods"

[quisquose]

Atheism is where you don't believe in fairy tales.

 

Only the fairy tales relating to the existence of gods.

 

Atheism doesn't preclude believing in other fairy tales, but there's no words to define non-belief in those other fairy tales.

 

Afairyism 2.0 anyone?

[Xranus]

Only simplistically minded people believe in all this fairy tale rubbish about there being a God.

[RootsBooster]

Only simplistically minded people believe in all this fairy tale rubbish about there being a God.

 

This isn't a thread about there being a God. Even "simplistically minded people" would realise that.

[FairDooz]

Vote on WHAT issue ???

 

Let's take a look at the OP

 

Q. Is there any mileage in looking for the common ground in the evolving values of aetheists and the evolving values of non-fundamentalist religions

 

You don't think there is any point. I do.

 

... or is it the case that logic and reason will always be incompatible with faith?

 

I think we know your answer to that.

 

Thanks for your input, but I don't want to go round the circle again!

[RootsBooster]

Let's take a look at the OP

 

Q. Is there any mileage in looking for the common ground in the evolving values of aetheists and the evolving values of non-fundamentalist religions

 

You don't think there is any point. I do.

No, you SAY there's a point but you haven't explained it yet. I keep asking.

 

... or is it the case that logic and reason will always be incompatible with faith?

 

I think we know your answer to that.

Yes, you THINK you know

 

Thanks for your input, but I don't want to go round the circle again!

Then why not break the circle and just give an answer?

 

What do you think we can learn from religion that doesn't already exist outside of religion?

[FairDooz]

No, you SAY there's a point but you haven't

explained it yet. I keep asking.

 

Did you watch the Alain de Botton video I linked to at the start? If you did, and if you read any of the points I've made then I have nothing to add.

 

Then why not break the circle and just give an answer?

 

If you have watched the video and you don't agree with the thrust of the argument and my support of it, then there's nothing more to say.

 

I'm very happy not to have your support, just a decision.

 

That's cool.

[Ryedo40]

Society has its problems - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14483149

 

Yes, and you seem intent on pushing the idea that it is the lack of religion that is responsible for those problems. The thing is, society, even when religion was a dominant force, had the same problems - and in many cases, more severe and extreme problems that were caused because of the religious identity.

[six45ive]

Yes, and you seem intent on pushing the idea that it is the lack of religion that is responsible for those problems. The thing is, society, even when religion was a dominant force, had the same problems - and in many cases, more severe and extreme problems that were caused because of the religious identity.

 

Fairdooz is just grabbing at straws. I'm sure he doesn't need telling that the great depression of the 1920's/30's saw huge social deprivation that makes today's problems seem pretty insignificant. And all of this at a time when religion was much more dominant in society. But, according to Fairdooz, we're less fairdooz today because of the lack of religion in society.

[FairDooz]

Yes, and you seem intent on pushing the idea that it is the lack of religion that is responsible for those problems. The thing is, society, even when religion was a dominant force, had the same problems - and in many cases, more severe and extreme problems that were caused because of the religious identity.

 

I'd rather work with people who have a positive image of others, who look for the good, and who are prepared to forgive, encourage and support, rather than those who are blinkered, disrespectful and unforgiving.

 

Now I know that it is possible that you will accuse those "of faith" of being the latter, but, putting that aside, which camp do you fall in? The former or the latter?

 

Are you supporting and forgiving or critical and unforgiving?

 

My personal experience of anyone with faith has always been very positive.

 

My partner's friend went on the Alpha course a few years ago and became a born again Christian. She doesn't push it on you, she's just different, calmer, mellower, sees things a different way, and went to do voluntary work in The Gambia. She is somebody who cares and makes a difference. There's no way in a million years I'm going to start pulling her faith apart just because I have a science background, just because I'm an atheist, just because I don't have her faith and in all likelihood never will.

 

I like her attitude, who she is and what she does and how she contributes to others.

 

On that experience alone I have a very positive view of religion and the religious even though I will never share their faith. I don't care what's happened in history to put others off religion, I am making my judgements on my personal experience of those who practice their faith today.

 

Maybe you've met inspirational characters like that who do not have faith and who reinforce your non-beliefs, your attitudes and your actions. That's cool too.

 

But, if those of faith and those without faith have similar values and concerns and are prepared to do something for the good of all, why not work together as Alain de Botton was proposing?