Atheism In Youth

[j43mg]

Well, science contributes a factor in it, but the most probable reason is society that we grew up in. People have their own individual opinions, they have a choice whether to have faith or not. Even those who grow up in religious families sometimes lose their faith. Science just broadens the possiblities to prove that there is no God, but it does not help us choice to have faith.

[Jack]

Science just broadens the possiblities to prove that there is no God, but it does not help us choice to have faith.

I don't credit science with offering opportunities to "prove that there is no god", but rather science shows us that there is no need to suppose that gods exist. Gods explain nothing that nature can't explain better.

[Nathan Struth]

But to the original thread's argument; they're completely false. Science is not a religion. Take a look at the definition of religion. a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn. Science says nothing about the supernatural because all science defines is the natural. Sciece also says nothing ab out human destiny...maybe a planets destiny though.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: FlaviusCorvus More and more youth are growing up and only learning religion through the news and through "crazy" Christian organizations, through "Islamic" terrorist bombings, through assaults by a Zionist nation and are abandoning current religions all together. Children are also having science forced upon them in public schools across the US because it is not deemed a religion, yet it does an extremely good job of contradicting most religions to the point where it seems like one cannot believe one or the other.

I didn't get much meaning out of this beyond you being upset US public schools aren't being converted to churches. That may be hyperbole on my part, but remember that religion isn't a matter for public schools.

1-How are children, or people in general for that matter, to take an objective opinion about science and religions if they get science forced upon them as truth and religion cast away as the cause of all the worlds problems?

I'm highly skeptical of the wording of your question. What it seems your wanting the answer to is: "Why can't my myths from the bronze age be presented next to verified facts?"

2-Should the science requirements be stricken from the state curriculum and be replaced with a faith credit that included a science of various religion elective?

Are you TRYING to hamstring American youth? Do you understand that acadamia and world business doesn't have room for people who think the world is only 6000 years old?

3-Is science just a belief that refuses to believe that it is a religion?

Science is a self-correcting system of inquiry based on independently verifyable facts and logic. Religion is an emotionally charged set of traditions based on the musings of a few individuals.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Zhavric Religion is an emotionally charged set of traditions based on the musings of a few individuals.

Careful here.

Some religions are as you describe. But there are more exception to this than there are religions that match.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that religion is a set of traditions based on supernatural explanations for unexplained phenomena?

If you use that defintion, you'll find it much easier explains religious dogma.

[Zhavric]

While I do not disagree with your (Zaiakukan?) description of religion involving the supernatural, all religions have an emotional appeal that seeks to retain converts. While some religions do not do this, the big ones, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hunduism, etc. certainly do.

[Fonceai]

Not Zaiakukan, but a good guess.

Where is the emotional appeal in Buddhism and Taoism?

[Zhavric]

Waiting to be discussed in another thread that hasn't been drawn off-topic as this one.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: FlaviusCorvus More and more youth are growing up and only learning religion through the news and through "crazy" Christian organizations, through "Islamic" terrorist bombings, through assaults by a Zionist nation and are abandoning current religions all together.

How do you conclude this? What's your source?

Quote by: FlaviusCorvus Children are also having science forced upon them in public schools across the US because it is not deemed a religion,

Explain what you mean by "forced". Are you referring to the idea of compulsory education in general? Most people think it's good that our children are being educated.

Quote by: FlaviusCorvus yet it does an extremely good job of contradicting most religions

Tell us how and where science "contradicts" most religions.

Quote by: FlaviusCorvus to the point where it seems like one cannot believe one or the other.

Science is not something that you "believe". It is a method of investigation.

Quote by: FlaviusCorvus 1-How are children, or people in general for that matter, to take an objective opinion about science and religions if they get science forced upon them as truth and religion cast away as the cause of all the worlds problems?

1) Are you objecting to the idea that children ever be taught anything as "true"?

2) Who is "casting away" religiion as the cause of the world's problems?

Quote by: FlaviusCorvus 2-Should the science requirements be stricken from the state curriculum and be replaced with a faith credit that included a science of various religion elective?

No.

Quote by: FlaviusCorvus 3-Is science just a belief that refuses to believe that it is a religion?

No. Science is not a belief. It is a method.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I am shocked nobody has taken issue wit this quickie logic

Quote by: rez Can you name one religious theory that has explained a specific occurrence in reality? Can you name a religious theory?

I can name many. In the sacred texts of all religions there are several theories presented. These theories deal mainly with questions such as "What is our place in the universe?" "How should we live our lives?" "How whould we define human?" You could argue science has found an answer to the first, pinpointing our exact spacial position in the known universe and is working on figuring out our temporal position. But that does not point out what our place in our families are, or friends, or people we do not know, all 3 of which are a part of the universe, thereby affecting your place in it. The ancient texts of religions attempted to answer these questions, and are so far the most extensive attempts.

One problem here is that these religious or philisophical questions have become the exclusive intellectual property of the organized religions that alot these books are based on. "Religious" has come to be only associated with a certain organized religion, and each religion believes its answer is the final one; that no other religion or idea can improve upon it. Our world has changed, yet we are using some of the most ancient books possible to guide our morality and ethics. This has led to a general frustration with these questions which I think is largely responsible for the migration of minds toward atheism in recent years.

Another problem is that this has led to an abandonment of these types of questions. While it is perfectly reasonable to abandon the superstitious metaphysics of alot of these religions, it is an absolute tragedy to humanity if we ignore the questions they've wrestled with. If we continue leaning solely on mechanistic, reductionist science as the exclusive worldview it is possible that science in the future could be disturbingly similar to the ethics-free experiments and detached scientists of the Nazi Party.

This is not an attack against people who do not consider themselves religious. "Religion" as defined with its social and cultural implications, is flawed in too many ways... like I said, most of them are based on some of humanity's most ancient texts. However when we disregard the question alongside the answer we're treading on dangerous ground.

Quote by: rez You need to mix in a lot of mind control and a lot of fear to bake that delicious cake of religion.

This is the recipe for organized religion, not religion. Religion may exist like that today, but it is not what it should be, which is a personal method and defenition of morals or ethics. It may prove difficult to do this if we consider concrete, proveable science as the only method of defining ideas. After all,

Quote by: rez Most smart people want to learn about everything, therefore, I think every possible subject would be valuable...

...not just science.

[Chimowowo]

I think I disagree with you Mr. Blue Sky. I don't think those questions aren't being asked/answered any more. I think they are just as prevelant today as they ever were. But they are getting asked in a different area.

One nice thing about religion is that it's one answer for everything. Where did we come from? God. Why are we here? To worship God. Where are we? Where God put us. Now I know those are the real detailed answers given by religions, however when you remove God from the equation, and start to study things and get into modern day classes and sciences, all we did is take the same content and seperate it into different area's.

If you aren't seeing those questions being discussed outside of religion, then I am going to ask you to look again. But understand that usually the non religious won't discuss all of them at once (outside of a philosphy class) and instead take one at a time. They are not exclusive to religion at all. They are also questions I'm sure that everyone at one time or another attempts to find answers too. And also keep in mind, that when the non religious discuss these questions, they do so without religion, and as such the discussions might look and sound different than you would expect, so you might just need to pay more attention to catch them.

[another day]

Quote by: Fonceai Not Zaiakukan, but a good guess. Where is the emotional appeal in Buddhism and Taoism?

Dont know about taoism, but Buddhism isn't a god-based religion. It's more a spiritual philosophy. Either way it DOES have its emotional appeal.

[Fonceai]

It has an emotional appeal, but it doesn't appeal to emotion.

It doesn't try to explain the supernatural and unknown by filling the gaps with some kind of omnipotent/scient being.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Quote by: Zhavric What it seems your wanting the answer to is: "Why can't my myths from the bronze age be presented next to verified facts?"

Well why can't they? they're historical evidence as to how ancient humans viewed the world as language religion and society developed. Their myths have no evidence to prove them but they are evidence within themselves.They give an insight as to how humans dealt with the questions that we're all debating about now.

Quote by: Zhavric Science is a self-correcting system of inquiry based on independently verifyable facts and logic. Religion is an emotionally charged set of traditions based on the musings of a few individuals.

ORGANIZED religion is an emotionally charged set of traditions based on the musings of a few individuals. Humans have given churches the questions science cannot answer, and churches have all stopped seeking the answer because if they tell people they've got the right one, they'll get the followers (christianity is great at this, they tell you if you DONT follow them there will also be consequences) If humanity took back the questions we let the church institutions take from us long long ago, religion would be defined alot more like science: a self-correcting system of inquiry based on independently verifyable experiences.

[Chimowowo]

Quote by: Mr. Blue Sky Well why can't they? they're historical evidence as to how ancient humans viewed the world as language religion and society developed. Their myths have no evidence to prove them but they are evidence within themselves.They give an insight as to how humans dealt with the questions that we're all debating about now..

I am all for teaching myths and religion in school. But keep them where they belong, with theology, philosophy, and history. Just don't try and bring myths into the science classroom without evidence. Religion is still taught in school, but in the right context. So long as it stays there, that's fine.

Also make sure what is taught is right. If you are going to teach religion in history, teach it as it has been documented, and discovered. Not what is preached. If you are going to teach it in philosophy, make sure you explore what religion is, and why it is, instead of trying to convert. Do not try and teach mythical stories though as scientific fact.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Quote by: Chimowowo I am all for teaching myths and religion in school. But keep them where they belong, with theology, philosophy, and history. Just don't try and bring myths into the science classroom without evidence. Religion is still taught in school, but in the right context. So long as it stays there, that's fine. Also make sure what is taught is right. If you are going to teach religion in history, teach it as it has been documented, and discovered. Not what is preached. If you are going to teach it in philosophy, make sure you explore what religion is, and why it is, instead of trying to convert. Do not try and teach mythical stories though as scientific fact.

agreed. I was unaware people were stupid enough to use these ancient myths as scientific fact.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Quote by: Chimowowo One nice thing about religion is that it's one answer for everything. Where did we come from? God. Why are we here? To worship God. Where are we? Where God put us. Now I know those are the real detailed answers given by religions, however when you remove God from the equation, and start to study things and get into modern day classes and sciences, all we did is take the same content and seperate it into different area's. If you aren't seeing those questions being discussed outside of religion, then I am going to ask you to look again. But understand that usually the non religious won't discuss all of them at once (outside of a philosphy class) and instead take one at a time. They are not exclusive to religion at all. They are also questions I'm sure that everyone at one time or another attempts to find answers too. And also keep in mind, that when the non religious discuss these questions, they do so without religion, and as such the discussions might look and sound different than you would expect, so you might just need to pay more attention to catch them.

This is true, the non religious do use words that seem to get across the same ideas of the religious. I am seeing these questions discussed outside of religion, but only on this forum and in a classroom full of hoplelessly apathetic college kids, not in the real world, and therefore I think not enough.

[SoylentGreen]

FlaviusCorvus If a one who gives his soul to science, and one who gives his soul to god(s) see the same thing, What makes their explanations different? What gives the believer in sciences explanation more value?

One does not give their soul to science, one uses their intellect to understand.
Science is about questioning those things, religion is about answering those things.
And value like morality is purely subjective, The individual will value that which they choose to believe in.

Should those who practice a religion be entitled to make a decision based on their morals just like everyone else?

What exactly is stopping you?

[Zhavric]

No one has posted to this thread since 2006 :(

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric I didn't get much meaning out of this beyond you being upset US public schools aren't being converted to churches. That may be hyperbole on my part, but remember that religion isn't a matter for public schools.

Hardly. Public schools only began because of state religion.

Science is a self-correcting system of inquiry based on independently verifyable facts and logic. Religion is an emotionally charged set of traditions based on the musings of a few individuals.

Science has faith in its own principles of the scientific method.