some times i find its not  helpful  to discuss atheism with believers or trying to convert them
, maybe to keep them working hard in this life , let them live with hoop 
some times im not sure they will be good humans without believing in some God watching them....
like  Nietzsche said:yes there is no god but dont tell the maid ..she willl steal the household :)
  
trying hard to write good english  :)

Views: 59

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I have complicated feelings about this. Nice to meet you Fahad, I bet we would get a long just fine.
nice to meet you to Sonny
thanks
Wow. Saudi Arabia. You're a brave guy. I hope you are anonymising yourself. Happy birthday and welcome.

trying hard to write good english :)

You are doing two things a lot of native english speakers here don't - you're being coherent, and you're actually creating a conversation, instead of just posting blind broken links, raw gibberish or spamming your inane personal blog. So please, don't let you're poor english prevent you from contributing. You are more than welcome.
thanks Dr.Gorgan
..the good thing that i dont have to do any thing to practice my atheism here :)
i need few months to improve my English .. planing to study soon
thanks for encouraging
Welcome. Don't worry about your english, you're far and above many native speakers. I'm a bit conflicted on this too. Let people live how they like if they're not hurting others, but, is "goodness" really good when done out of fear? Please keep posting, I too think we'll be fast friends.
thanks .for encouraging :) .. i feel a kind of brotherhood with atheist's
as i see in my country religion mean morals , some religious people are honest and have some commitment towered society -regardless the kind
I also wondered about this when I was going through my leaving stage, but I have long passed that.
I strongly believe humans have a built-in sense of morality, and we don't need religion to tell us what is good and what is ban. In fact, religion gives us justification to kill people and do other bad things, so terrorists feel they are not responsible because they are just doing the work of God.
Also, as other people have already said here, if you are good just because you think God is watching you, then you are not really a good person.
I think the world can learn a lot from scandinavian countries like Sweden which are largely Atheist; and they have much better functioning societies.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1z-NubwpwM
nice
thanks for the link
i hoop all humans where atheists what im wandering about is it efficient now
i remember i spent hours discussing atheism with intelligent american guy without any progress
i know religions cost us too much now .. i think we need 3 to 4 generations after atheismnazations efforts can make any progress
I see what you mean.
Daniel Dennett goes for the softly softly approach in his latest book Breaking the Spell.
See this great long interview with Dennett:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5640093862168820605#

He insists we should begin to study religion as a natural phenomenon just like other natural phenomenon, like the amazing wildebeest superherd or the great upstream salmon migration.
And he also tries to be objective saying we should study whether it will be too much of a shock if certain societies around the world suddenly rid themself of religion. We don't know this because we haven't studied religion properly as a natural phenomenon.
I am still in the middle of Breaking the Spell. That said, I don't get the impression so far that Dennett promotes a particular approach (soft or otherwise). He makes a good argument for why religion exists and how it brings advantage (and disadvantage) to human groups, and therefore individuals. Perhaps later on he does promote some approach to dealing with religion; we'll see.

My conclusion based on his arguments so far is that religion is advantageous on some level and, as such, may never go away completely. We simply need to work hard to bring all societies to a point where religion does not, and can not, dominate society or the law.
By 'softly softly approach' I meant not too anti-theistic. He is trying to be objective saying we should study whether religion is sugar or saccharin. Saccharin satisfies our (evolved) sweet tooth without giving us diabetes and heart disease, whereas sugar doesn't. He says we need to find out whether religion is satisfying an underlying need of ours that we could do more harm with (like fascism for instance) or whether it is just a virus that's good for itself like the cold virus.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

Latest Activity

Plinius replied to MattyLJ's discussion Are you clean and organized?
10 minutes ago
Plinius commented on Little Name Atheist's group Atheist Ailurophiles
14 minutes ago
Plinius commented on Sentient Biped's group Food!
58 minutes ago
Neanderthal Man replied to Napoleon Bonaparte's discussion Viking Trance in the group Les Athées Napoléonienne
1 hour ago
Neanderthal Man posted a video

Viking Trance - The Spyda Web from Napoleon Bonaparte on Vimeo.

Viking Trance - The Spyda Web

Music by Viking Trance with video artwork and editing by Napoleon Bonaparte. Smart Dog Video London (UK) 2014. Viking Trance Radio www.vikingtrance.com Viking Trance buy link
1 hour ago
Man boob posted a status
"CHECK OUT THE SONGS I UPLOADED ON MY PROFILE WOOOOOOOOO"
2 hours ago
Man boob posted songs
2 hours ago
Rick posted a blog post
2 hours ago
Rick posted a status
"Pondering....pondering......pondering...."
2 hours ago
Jonathan Tweet replied to Freethinker31's discussion Are Atheists too judgmental??
3 hours ago
Joan Denoo commented on Joan Denoo's blog post I am offended
4 hours ago
Vangelis replied to Vangelis's discussion Declaration of Atheism
4 hours ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service