Don't Ever Think That Atheism/Rationalism Can't Be Surpassed

[cronus]

To progress further, preserve bio-diversity & stabilise CO2 etc, may require a new kind of civilization but that means this one must go.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Why?

And what do you mean by "surpassed"?

Atheism is simply not believing in any god. What is beyond that?

[cronus]

Why?

And what do you mean by "surpassed"?

Atheism is simply not believing in any god. What is beyond that?

A civilization where religion mind pathogens are so trite that atheism is unnecessary.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Why?

And what do you mean by "surpassed"?

Atheism is simply not believing in any god. What is beyond that?

A civilization where religion mind pathogens are so trite that atheism is unnecessary.

But that wouldn't be "unnecessary", that would be "obvious". Atheism isn't a movement (although some would like to think it is), merely a state of not believing in a particular brand of supernatural entity. The only reason there is such a word at all is due to the pervasive nature of belief in such beings. If that belief dwindled to nothing, atheism would be universal, not surpassed. Once more, you are flinging around pathetic semantic arguments that you clearly haven't thought through.

There is nothing beyond atheism. That is like saying there is something beyond baldness. Or a sexual state beyond celibacy. There is no beyond non-existence!

[cronus]

Why?

And what do you mean by "surpassed"?

Atheism is simply not believing in any god. What is beyond that?

A civilization where religion mind pathogens are so trite that atheism is unnecessary.

But that wouldn't be "unnecessary", that would be "obvious". Atheism isn't a movement (although some would like to think it is), merely a state of not believing in a particular brand of supernatural entity. The only reason there is such a word at all is due to the pervasive nature of belief in such beings. If that belief dwindled to nothing, atheism would be universal, not surpassed. Once more, you are flinging around pathetic semantic arguments that you clearly haven't thought through.

There is nothing beyond atheism. That is like saying there is something beyond baldness. Or a sexual state beyond celibacy. There is no beyond non-existence!

....secular rational atheism and you need to pick words apart despite the impending collapse of the biosphere. Flown off like a voyager into liguistic mindgames at the farside of fuck knows where.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

So now you change the subject to... fuck knows what! Your usual apocalyptic ranting.

My point is that your OP has nothing to do with atheism. There is no surpassing inherent in your argument. If you want to talk about global warming and how best to combat it, then do so. Why introduce a fatuous argument about atheism becoming unnecessary? Show me how that fits into anything else and we can continue...

[Ian]

I'm so confoosed.

[cronus]

So now you change the subject to... fuck knows what! Your usual apocalyptic ranting.

My point is that your OP has nothing to do with atheism. There is no surpassing inherent in your argument. If you want to talk about global warming and how best to combat it, then do so. Why introduce a fatuous argument about atheism becoming unnecessary? Show me how that fits into anything else and we can continue...

Reverse the focus of my opener with a discussion about atheism which I'd already delineated. The biosphere is necessary for this discussion.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

So now you change the subject to... fuck knows what! Your usual apocalyptic ranting.

My point is that your OP has nothing to do with atheism. There is no surpassing inherent in your argument. If you want to talk about global warming and how best to combat it, then do so. Why introduce a fatuous argument about atheism becoming unnecessary? Show me how that fits into anything else and we can continue...

Reverse the focus of my opener with a discussion about atheism which I'd already delineated. The biosphere is necessary for this discussion.

So. No humans = no atheism? Is that your point? So it's more of the same doom-laden bolocks. Carry on.

[cronus]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... nLFHXDp03k

Gaia: The death of a beautiful idea

THE idea that we live on a planet that takes care of us is intuitively appealing. So it's no wonder that James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis – that the biosphere acts like a living organism, one that self-regulates to keep conditions just right for life – became so popular. Although rooted in science, Gaia appeals to the same side of human nature that gods and guardian angels do.

It's a complex hypothesis, and was never going to be easy to test. But the evidence has been mounting since Lovelock put it forward 40 years ago, and now the first major review of that evidence has been conducted. The verdict? Gaia doesn't hold up (see "My verdict on Gaia hypothesis: beautiful but flawed").

Gaia may yet bounce back. But if it has been struck a fatal blow, it could be the most fitting example yet of what T. H. Huxley called "the great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact".

(continued, no reset and unprecedented 'point' shocks to a fragile complex dynamic system = runaway atmospheric changes and no life)

[JimC]

Why?

And what do you mean by "surpassed"?

Atheism is simply not believing in any god. What is beyond that?

A civilization where religion mind pathogens are so trite that atheism is unnecessary.

But that wouldn't be "unnecessary", that would be "obvious". Atheism isn't a movement (although some would like to think it is), merely a state of not believing in a particular brand of supernatural entity. The only reason there is such a word at all is due to the pervasive nature of belief in such beings. If that belief dwindled to nothing, atheism would be universal, not surpassed. Once more, you are flinging around pathetic semantic arguments that you clearly haven't thought through.

There is nothing beyond atheism. That is like saying there is something beyond baldness. Or a sexual state beyond celibacy. There is no beyond non-existence!

I think that he meant that the aggressive mind-set which is almost a necessity for most atheists in a world with so many cretinous beliefs would no longer be needed. Certainly atheism would not have all the associations it inevitably has today.

Although "atheism is merely a state of not believing in god" is technically true, virtually all atheists I know have, quite reasonably, a set of associated attitudes towards religion, and regarding a rational, evidence-based view of the universe.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I'm not sure he meant that at all, Jim. Or why link it to global warming and the rest?

I'm not sure what he meant, to be honest. And I doubt he does!

[cronus]

I'm not sure he meant that at all, Jim. Or why link it to global warming and the rest?

I'm not sure what he meant, to be honest. And I doubt he does!

I did mean that, and I appreciate you want this civilization to be the 'one for the stars' but you need to go on hiatus like me.

[Tero]

What about athyism? Athy, athier, athyist?

[cronus]

What about athyism? Athy, athier, athyist?

From Latin to English took hundreds of years. A shame but it is true.