Museum of Atheism

Cypress said:
Because fundamentalists like the Taliban, the Saudi theocracy, and American conservative evangelicals desire to limit free thought, scholarly inquiry, civil rights, and scientific investigation.
Click to expand...

American conservative evangelicals desire to limit free thought, scholarly inquiry, civil rights, and scientific investigation.

This part is false!
 
Wolverine said:
American conservative evangelicals desire to limit free thought, scholarly inquiry, civil rights, and scientific investigation.

This part is false!
Click to expand...
They spent enormous resources and decades of effort to try to outlaw gay marriage and women's reproductive choice
.

It wasn't too many decades ago they tried to prevent white people and black people from getting married.
 
Cypress said:
religion and science are asking different questions.

The tale about there being a war between science and religion is mostly a fabrication invented in the 20th century by fundamentalists and militants on all sides.

Despite occasional conflict between intellectuals and the Church heirarchy, for most of the last 2,000 years the Catholic church has been humanity's primary sponsor and patron of science.

Saint Augustine unequivocally said that biblical interpretation has to be modified to keep up with knowledge of the natural world. Issac Newton unabashedly thought he was revealing God's nature. A Catholic monk is the father of the science of genetics. A Catholic priest was the first astronomer to hypothesize the Big Bang.

The fact that you watched a cable movie about bible thumpers and the Scopes Monkey Trial gave you an exceeding limited tunnel vision about the history, scope, and nature of humanity's experience with religion, natural philosophy, and science
Click to expand...

There is no 'war' between Science and Religion. 'Science' is the real stuff. 'Religion' is the made-up stuff.
 
Jack said:
There is no 'war' between Science and Religion. 'Science' is the real stuff. 'Religion' is the made-up stuff.
Click to expand...

It is hard to read Genesis or the Bagavad Gita and leap to the conclusion they represent literal historical accounts.

These days, very few world religious people consider them to be historical research papers.

World religions, first and foremost, present a metaphysical moral vision for how to live one's life.

That is something you cannot get from a mass spectrometer.

Or a particle accelerator.

Or an electron microscope.

Even you - a die hard, religion-hating atheist - have been directly influenced by religious doctrine.

Whatever moral code you follow, you did not invent it by yourself.

You did not get it from atheism, because atheism is not a moral philosophy. It is an expression of disbelief in theism, period end of story.

You did not get it from science and technology, because those are not moral philosophies.

Your moral code comes from one or more of the world religious traditions. Because even people who are not religious, acquire if only through osmosis, the cultural and ethical mileu of the traditions their society is historically steeped in.
.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
It is hard to read Genesis or the Bagavad Gita and leap to the conclusion they represent literal historical accounts.

These days, very few world religious people consider them to be historical research papers.

World religions, first and foremost, present a metaphysical moral vision for how to live one's life.

That is something you cannot get from a mass spectrometer.

Or a particle accelerator.

Or an electron microscope.

Even you - a die hard, religion-hating atheist - have been directly influenced by religious doctrine.

Whatever moral code you follow, you did not invent it by yourself.

You did not get it from atheism, because atheism is not a moral philosophy. It is an expression of disbelief in theism, period end of story.

Your moral code comes from one or more of the world religious traditions. Because even people who are not religious, acquire if only through osmosis, the cultural and ethical mileu of the traditions their society is historically steeped in.
Click to expand...

"Humanists believed in the importance of an education in classical literature and the promotion of civic virtue, that is, realising a person's full potential both for their own good and for the good of the society in which they live. The difficulty in defining humanism and its ever-evolving character have not prevented it being widely regarded as the defining feature of 1400 to 1600 Europe and the very reason why that period can be identified as a Renaissance or 'rebirth' of ideas."
"Petrarch believed that a new golden age of thought and politics could be achieved by returning to the ideals of antiquity and by permitting poets and scholars to lead a revolution in education. His idea that the period in which he lived was an intermediary period between antiquity and this new dawn, what he called disparagingly 'a slumber' was latched onto by later Renaissance thinkers and did much to foster the idea that the Middle Ages was somehow a period of cultural darkness. Further, Petrarch's work with ancient manuscripts encouraged the scholarship of non-religious subjects with humanity at its centre, and this became a legitimate activity for intellectuals. Consequently, Petrarch is often cited as the father of humanism."
https://www.worldhistory.org/Renaissance_Humanism/

It's interesting how you conceive of 'Original Thought' as emanating from 'Religion'.
 
Cypress said:
Down with God! How the Soviet Union took on religion

Hundreds of atheist museums were established in the Soviet Union’s former churches, synagogues, and mosques.

The museums systematically depicted religion of all kinds as a historical force for ignorance, racism and anti-semitism, and cruelty. Its only worthy replacement, they argued, was science

Some of the most famous were in Moscow and St. Petersburg’s majestic former Orthodox cathedrals. But the museums existed throughout the country and across houses of worship from all religions, including Ukrainian Islamic mosques and Siberian Buddhist temples.

Anti-religious museums adopted a three-prong line of attack. According to Paine, they would expose “the crimes and tricks of the clergy”; promote science as a modern analog to religion; and demonstrate how religion had been the “handmaiden of bourgeois capitalism.”

Marx said religion was the opium of the people – and in the Soviet Union, atheism became government policy.

https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...the-soviet-union-took-on-religion-in-pictures

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/soviet-antireligious-museums-of-atheism
Click to expand...

Sciencey Atheism is sooo much better with the way they starve and murder millions, no?
 
Cypress said:
It is hard to read Genesis or the Bagavad Gita and leap to the conclusion they represent literal historical accounts.

These days, very few world religious people consider them to be historical research papers.

World religions, first and foremost, present a metaphysical moral vision for how to live one's life.

That is something you cannot get from a mass spectrometer.

Or a particle accelerator.

Or an electron microscope.

Even you - a die hard, religion-hating atheist - have been directly influenced by religious doctrine.

Whatever moral code you follow, you did not invent it by yourself.

You did not get it from atheism, because atheism is not a moral philosophy. It is an expression of disbelief in theism, period end of story.

You did not get it from science and technology, because those are not moral philosophies.

Your moral code comes from one or more of the world religious traditions. Because even people who are not religious, acquire if only through osmosis, the cultural and ethical mileu of the traditions their society is historically steeped in.
.
Click to expand...



"Humanism in the Renaissance: Recognizing the Beauty of the Individual"
https://study.com/academy/lesson/hu...recognizing-the-beauty-of-the-individual.html

"The Definition of Humanism
Today we'll be discussing the concept of humanism, the term generally applied to the overreaching social and intellectual philosophies of the Renaissance era, in which the beauty of the individual was elevated to preeminence. To put it in simpler terms, humanism is the belief that man has beauty, worth, and dignity. Therefore, life here on Earth should be cherished rather than simply endured."

Cypress. You view people as 'Sinners'. Humanists believe people are 'Wonderful'. See the difference?
 
Matt Dillon said:
Sciencey Atheism is sooo much better with the way they starve and murder millions, no?
Click to expand...

The leaders of the Orthodox Church conspired with the tsar and the aristocracy to keep 80 million Russians in a state of abject serfdom and illiteracy for centuries.

So it is just doesn't cut the mustard to reduce everything to a simple maxim that religion is good and atheism is bad.
 
Jack said:
"Humanists believed in the importance of an education in classical literature and the promotion of civic virtue, that is, realising a person's full potential both for their own good and for the good of the society in which they live. The difficulty in defining humanism and its ever-evolving character have not prevented it being widely regarded as the defining feature of 1400 to 1600 Europe and the very reason why that period can be identified as a Renaissance or 'rebirth' of ideas."
"Petrarch believed that a new golden age of thought and politics could be achieved by returning to the ideals of antiquity and by permitting poets and scholars to lead a revolution in education. His idea that the period in which he lived was an intermediary period between antiquity and this new dawn, what he called disparagingly 'a slumber' was latched onto by later Renaissance thinkers and did much to foster the idea that the Middle Ages was somehow a period of cultural darkness. Further, Petrarch's work with ancient manuscripts encouraged the scholarship of non-religious subjects with humanity at its centre, and this became a legitimate activity for intellectuals. Consequently, Petrarch is often cited as the father of humanism."
https://www.worldhistory.org/Renaissance_Humanism/

It's interesting how you conceive of 'Original Thought' as emanating from 'Religion'.
Click to expand...

You apparently do not understand humanism or the Renaissance.

The rennassaice was not an attempt to abandon the New Yestament teachings of mercy, humility, and universal love.

Pretty much to a man and woman, Rennassaice intellectuals were devout christians. And remained so.

The rennassaice was an attempt to promote individualism, cultivate classic art and culture, and establish intellectual pursuits which did not rely on the authority of the past, particularly Aristotle and Scholasticism.

Mercy, charity, humility, and universal love were not the virtues of the Roman world. Their virtues were honor, courage, loyalty.

The Greco-Roman pagan religions were not even based on a moral philosophy. It was a religion based on sacrifice to curry favor with fickle gods.

If you have a moral code, at it's heart it came from the western religious tradition. Specifically, the New Testament, Judaism, and possibly in an indirect way Islam.

You did not independently invent your own moral code,

You did not inherit it from Sparta, the Roman Republic, or the Gauls.

You did not get it from a mass spectrometer, a neutrino detector, or a radio telescope.

You got it, even if only by osmosis, from the historical cultural and ethical mileu you were raised in - primarily Judeo-Christian and possibly other world religions.
 
Cypress said:
You apparently do not understand humanism or the Renaissance.

The rennassaice was not an attempt to abandon the New Yestament teachings of mercy, humility, and universal love.

Pretty much to a man and woman, Rennassaice intellectuals were devout christians. And remained so.

The rennassaice was an attempt to promote individualism, cultivate classic art and culture, and establish intellectual pursuits which did not rely on the authority of the past, particularly Aristotle and Scholasticism.

Mercy, charity, humility, and universal love were not the virtues of the Roman world. Their virtues were honor, courage, loyalty.

The Greco-Roman pagan religions were not even based on a moral philosophy. It was a religion based on sacrifice to curry favor with fickle gods.

If you have a moral code, at it's heart it came from the western religious tradition. Specifically, the New Testament, Judaism, and possibly in an indirect way Islam.

You did not independently invent your own moral code,

You did not inherit it from Sparta, the Roman Republic, or the Gauls.

You did not get it from a mass spectrometer, a neutrino detector, or a radio telescope.

You got it, even if only by osmosis, from the historical cultural and ethical mileu you were raised in - primarily Judeo-Christian and possibly other world religions.
Click to expand...

Religion is the enemy of culture. Always attracts the stupidest people. Religion is the enemy of art and knowledge.
 
Hello Cypress,

Cypress said:
Donald Trump was America's first atheist president.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but he does not typify atheists any more than the USSR did.

There exists within atheism a very wide range of morality.

Atheists can be very good people.
 
Hello Cypress,

Cypress said:
If you won't allow religious people to dissociate themselves from Al Qaeda and the Spanish Inquisition, then you as an atheist own the crimes of prominent atheist leaders Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot the leaders of the French Revolution's Great Terror.
Click to expand...

BS

Religion is organized. Atheism is not.
 
Cypress said:
They spent enormous resources and decades of effort to try to outlaw gay marriage and women's reproductive choice
.

It wasn't too many decades ago they tried to prevent white people and black people from getting married.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a Biblical institution, Homosexuality goes against Biblical teaching! Was the church the only organization objecting to Mixed marriages, and were republicans the only ones against it the Klan sure was against it and that is a liberal institution ? It was wrong they Church makes mistakes!
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Cypress,



That may be true, but he does not typify atheists any more than the USSR did.

There exists within atheism a very wide range of morality.

Atheists can be very good people.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I did not state, nor do I think implied, that our first atheist president represents the irreligious at large.

Trump is an amoral sleazebag in a league by himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top