[extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline

[Dirk Bruere]

Joseph Bloch wrote:

> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>> kevinfreels.com wrote:
>>
>>> I have always thought that transhumanism should embrace its 
>>> religious aspect
>>> rather than distancing itself from it.
>>
>> It does as far as I'm concerned.
>> I fall into the 'TechnoPagan' category.
>
>
>
> You fall into the "let me make up my own religion to match my own 
> preferences" category. Somewhat different, and I will allow, not 
> inconsistent with Transhumanism in an of itself. The thurs is in the 
> details.
>
Of all the neopagan religions Asatru is the one that is least 'made up'. 
One thing almost all Asatruar agree upon though is 'Asatru is as Asatru 
does'.

> You're an atheist by most definitions, even if you eschew the label. 
> You don't believe in the objective existence of god(s). From what 
> you've said before, they're archetypes; mental constructs. They have 
> no existence outside your mind. The grain does not grow because some 
> being named FreyR commands it so, and the world will not end in fire 
> because some giant named SurtR will incinerate us all with his flaming 
> sword.
>
Just because we recognise that our religious texts are metaphor does not 
mean we cannot claim to be a religion.
And Gods recognised as archetypes makes them no less powerful in Human 
affairs than if they were 'really real'.
It means that the Gods are an emergent phenomenon at the next level up 
from Human.

>>> work with their irrational minds rather than against them Religion is a
>>> powerful force and if we could tap into it properly, we could save 
>>> the human
>>> race.....Kind of reminds me of Dune now that I think of it. Who will 
>>> play
>>> the part of Leto II and set us on the Golden Path?
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>> If most people are indeed geneticlly inclined to be "spiritual", we 
>> should
>> "Hey, we're going to patronise you loons because you seem to be an 
>> unpleasant, powerful and growing majority"
>
>
> Not growing; the numbers of theists and non-theists seem to be fairly 
> constant over the long term. Church attendance goes down with the 
> years, to be sure. But that's not necessarily the same as genuine belief.
>
> Most people are indeed genetically inclined to be spiritual. More and 
> more studies are confirming that. But just because it happens to be an 
> evolutionary advantage doesn't make it objectively true.
>
Qualia are not 'objectively true', yet few people would deny their 
existence.
You seem to be falling into the trap that anything not objectively true 
cannot exist and cannot (or should not) have an objective effect.

>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I know that religion is contrary to rational thinking, but I don't 
>>> think
>>>  
>>>
>> Bollocks.
>
>
>
> Theistic religion is indeed contrary to rational thinking, because 
> there is no rational justification for a belief in god(s). Theistic 
> religion is irrational by definition. It may be emotionally 
> satisfying, and it may "feel" right (no difference between the two, as 
> far as I can tell), but it is fundamentally irrational.
>
Unless one has experience in meeting or dealing with the Gods (and 
that's ignoring deity being hung upon the mystical experience).
Ever played Ouija?

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 04/03/2005