All aboard the atheist bus?

Bad choice of word. Sorry.

You're probably right on that front but we're not talking about scientific minds of today.

The names I cited were religious and that is a recorded fact. What they would be today is pure conjecture.

 

I wont dwell too long on this but replace the words 'pure conjecture' with 'probably atheist'.

 

Nice try......

 

Tnx, i aim to please

 

If you said "I don't believe" in those days, people tended to come along and set fire to you. A powerful reason for playing along with it.

 

If there was no religion, we wouldn't have the crimes in the first place.

Checks & balances -- fine. But not those based upon religion, please.

 

A very compelling reason I'm sure but the record stands that they were people with religious leanings and no amount of conjecture on our part can change that.

 

hey,we all have our cross to bare.

 

Isaac Newton was highly religious, but not from any sense of 'having to conform'. He was unorthodox in his beliefs, denying basic church teachings such as the Trinity, yet remained firm in his private belief that the universe was the product of an intelligent creator. He wrote more works on religious subjects than scientific ones, although it is the scientific ones for which he is remembered.
He was considered in 2005 in a survey of British scientists to be more influential as a scientist than was Einstein.

What his, or anyone else's, views would be under different circumstances is hypothetical and irrelevant. Just as irrelevant and hypothetical as asking what our personal views would have been had we lived under the systems they lived under.

 

Using your skill & judgement, try to think of any possible reasons why leading thinkers hundreds of years ago tended to have "religious leanings", whereas nowadays they tend not to.

 

I can think of several reasons why and can perhaps guess why they were men of religion but I don't really know whether they were repressed athiests or were happy to reconcile the concepts of God / Allah and science. Nor do you. Nor does anyone.

We can debate this one until the cows come home but you can't change the historical fact.

Unless you're Stalin (who was an athiest and a mass murderer I believe )

 

Academics in ancient Greece most probably believed in Zeus, et al. Is this relevent? Does it mean that Zeus is likely to exist?

 

1 - They probably did.

2 - Relevant insofar as it shows the statement from the hand of Dawkins that Graffoeman found to be at best misinformed:

3 - No Zeus probabbly doesn't exist.

However, this is probably rapdily disappearing down a very unproductive rabbit-hole. I can't help it if some people have a difficulty coping with historical facts that don't support their world view....

 

All in shows is that the Zeitgeist has gradually changed as we have become better-informed about our origins & surroundings. No-one really believes in the gods of the ancients any more, yet in that time many people did, and very sincerely, no doubt. We are moving towards a time when no-one is going to believe in any "God", at all, one hopes.

 

Now that's an interesting idea. I agree that over time the majority will move away from the idea of an omniscient being behind everything but will need a 'god' of sorts to provide answers to 'where do I come from?', 'what happens when I die' and 'why shouldn't I kill you?' but that god will be science, or even the god I have inside me.

People don't want to have cold hard facts all the time.They'll seek succor and fulfilment for their soul one way or another.

 

None of those questions requires any god for an answer.

 

No, you're right. What I mean is, that people want reasons and explanations. Before, it was God and in future, it will be something else (rational thought, science, chance, whatever) but in all but name, it will be fulfiling the same role as a god.

Not a very good explanation but hey! I know what I mean.

 

Ah, that old chestnut. Did he murder in the name of atheism?

I'm trying not to mention the multitude of wars and attrocities performed in the name of religion.

I sincerely hope people don't get their morals from religion.

 

You see - the broad brush approach. A lot of wars were/are fought in the name of religion therefore without religion there would be no wars. This is largely Missed-A-Good-Pokin's approach as well. The first bit is, of course, true, the conclusion drawn being utterly false.

Wars are/were fought for political and/or personal gain. What the instigator needs is a banner beneath which the minions will be prepared to die. Minions being what they are, religion has been a good starting point. Fear works. As does revenge. As does greed. As does patriotism. Depends, for the instigator, on what's hot and what's not.

If you think that the demise of religion will mean nation states stop going to war with each other then, I'm afraid, you may live long enough to be dreadfully disappointed - assuming the decline of religion continues at its present rate.

It really isn't necessary, or indeed in any way possible, to 'prove' how evil religion is. People do evil things, religion is just sometimes the vehicle they use, to achieve the power and/or influence needed, to get away with it! For a while.

 

No, Stalin didn't. I'm not suggesting he did. I just want to nail this idea of "religious people= bad / atheists = good".

You see, in the absence of God, he like other atheists went to war and killed for other reasons like race, resources, politics, ideology.

Lets keep a balance here - people have died in religious and non-religious wars. In fact the amount killed in the latter will increase as less people believe.

Not every religion is perfect but what's wrong with teaching people it's bad to kill, or steal, or commit adultery?

IMHO, the problem is not setting morals but how those religions deal with transgression.