A gentleman called Vorjack (assuming this gentle person is a man!) over at "Unreasonable Faith" points out that atheism has been around for a while but asks the question: why has this wave of atheism more successful than the last?
Vorjack has suggested that the anonymity of athiests over the internet has allowed much more expression and has closed gaps across countries.
I'd suggest that the current state of Atheism has been more successful for a number of reasons, an amalgamation of:
The internet: (i agree with Vorjack, but the internet has done so much more): The internet is a catalogue of ideas, it takes very little to realize the hyper plurality of believing in a god (which god!) and of not believing. The point here is knowledge on demand, just google: does god exist and there are may websites ready to verbally enlighten you.
On top of this, the growing multiculturalism of our society really does allow for challenges. I know Buddhists and Muslims and Christians and pagans and atheists and agnostics. Not only by their very existence but a dialogue between two of these is easier.
A huge difference i feel is a difference between what is right and what is faith. Many religious people now accept that they cannot readily defend their faith, it is faith, it is a belief. This is the view of fiedism..such a state of affairs could lead to an erosion of godly beliefs.
A funny point which i would like to stand, the growing visibility of Scientology... need i say more?
A view that has been suggested to me before, a growing conciousness of evil. whether it's "terrorism" or "hurricanes", the internet has allowed more effective news-gathering and telling. (i however find this a weak suggestion)
Another thing we must assess is: what is atheism? Do we mean people are more atheistic about the monotheistic Christian god? Or all gods?
And where does this atheism lead, without a god how do people account for many of the problems/miracles that occur, how do people account for the existence of the universe?
By this i am not suggesting one needs god to explain these, but what does one use to explain these, how close are some of the beliefs of an atheist to becoming a dogmatic religion!
I believe as well that the conventional approach to defining a religion or a religious person is extremely haphazard.
The actual name we can give to all these effects is a postmodern feel. This plurality of ideas, this breaking down of distance, this difficulty in definition, this modernity in identity.
Ahwell. I hope neither religion or atheism prevails both only talk of a belief in god. For me, i hope humanism prevails, whether people are religious or not - people are the most important.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have to agree with what your saying here. I must say though, it is my belief that the advancement of science is what has caused the increase in atheism. Perhaps humanity will come to a comprimise between religion and aetheism. And I hope obverall humanism prevails. We shall see...
ReplyDeleteamen.x
ReplyDeleteChrist, something we actually agree on lol. X
ReplyDeleteLol, thats because your not poisoned by nationalist ideology! come away from the darkside my padewan! Become a Jedi!
ReplyDeleteAnd i think we do have a compromise between rel. and ath.. we're in a political landscape of tolerance, it's just the compromise is not totally settled.
Like, religion is not mandatory in schools. creationism is not taught science. There are lots of religious people with athiest friends.
but we can't forget that morals and truth come from religion and these, when translated into the political arena, may cause strife between the two because the political outcomes are different.
I think a big thing is the typology between truth and faith. & that is what causes a lack of tolerance. (i think)
"but we can't forget that morals and truth come from religion"
ReplyDeleteNo they do not.
If that was the case "anon" who is unlikely to reply- there would be no abortion debate with religious groups pressuring the gov't. (further) & using the bible to substantiate their claims.
ReplyDeleteWe would not have the Taliban, as many of their beliefs in what is right (shaaria law) is based on the quoran.
We would not see buddists walking along with paper in front of their face to protect the insects and microbes that they would undoubtedly kill.
LOL, silly Sprog.
ReplyDeleteJust because other people claim its true and use that justification to kill and control other people doesn't mean it is so. Ask them to prove tit.
I like the way you think i am silly, but you havn't read the whole convo.
ReplyDelete"I think a big thing is the typology between truth and faith. & that is what causes a lack of tolerance."
Their truth... is what we consider faith.
But i don't like metaphysics...
It may be right that we should ignore all religious participation, but they would perceive something very different from us i.e. authoritarianism.
It'd be simpler if we were all humanists.
But we're not.