And, somewhat off topic, but I cant help posting a Stephen Fry response to theism:
Atheism would not appeared if …
by venus 43 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
David_Jay
fulltimestudent:
Eight days ago I brought up the same Cambridge Study (I believe it was the 9th answer after the OP) and supported it, stating:
A Cambridge study suggests that atheism was not necessarily caused by religion. In fact, the evidence at hand suggests that atheism appears to have been around as long as religion....
Theism cannot be argued to be the natural course of all, even in ancient times. Therefore atheism's existence cannot be said to rely on the existence of theism.
In response I got from Venus (the author of this thread):
I was clearly disagreeing with “The Cambridge study (and others like it) providence evidence that atheism grew just as naturally and even independently of religion.”
And it went on.
I'm glad you brought it up and that no one is challenging you on it. I am not sure why when I bring it up I get told that the study is wrong.
Sometimes I think that because I am an exJW who is now Jewish, that some people have such a hatred of religion and religious people that they cannot see past their hate to see our support of atheism. As I mentioned:
I do not advocate beliefs or faith in deities.
I don't subscribe value to mentally assenting to any concept, as if making a claim to a creed, declaring faith in a doctrine, or exercising credulity have value.
The love of my life was an atheist. (She is gone now.) Her family is entirely composed of atheists. Like the Cambridge Study, none of them, including my wife, became atheists due to religion. They never belonged to one. Their parents never did either....
I don't know why you are arguing against my personal conviction on this: Atheism exists because some people choose logic over superstition; atheism is not dependent on the existence of religion and rejecting it. Some people do become atheists by rejecting religion, but not everyone does.
I don't see the logic in damning one person who speaks in favor of atheism by citing a study but saying nothing to another when they point to the same data in their post.
But I am glad you got the same (and even more) data up to support that study. If they will not listen to me, I am glad they are listening to you.
-
fulltimestudent
David_ Jay posted: I'm glad you brought it up and that no one is challenging you on it. I am not sure why when I bring it up I get told that the study is wrong.
Don't worry about it David - we likely all behaved like morons when we were slaves to the YHWH/Jesus mob.
We are unable to read the minds of all who may post here. So the only sane way to participate is to say what we have concluded, based on the evidence we have noted and not worry too much about those who want to argue without a evidence based foundation to their conclusions.
-
Bungi Bill
....... and if some of us (myself included) are not just totally "Religioned Out"!
- which is maybe just a more polite version of having had a good, old fashioned "Gutsfull".