What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
318 Comments
- Fortississimo, on 09/14/2009, -5/+132I would rather decouple what Dawkins and Sagan sagaciously purport from anything religious. The wonder and awe one feels when attempting to understand something far larger and complex than oneself need not be something to worship, but rather something to appreciate and explore with a free and inquisitive mind. The shackles and dogma of religion would, in an ideal world, find no haven in the minds of sentients.
- macmcraeart, on 09/14/2009, -3/+54the simple fact that we are the byproducts of stars is enough for me.
- pstroll, on 09/14/2009, -9/+43No. The whole point of religion is to make money by selling the promise of an afterlife to rubes.
- Balath, on 09/14/2009, -4/+30Have you all SEEN those newest Hubble pictures. They're far more impressive than the Vatican or any other religious building I've entered.
- dtele, on 09/14/2009, -9/+35I'll worship that
- smitas, on 09/14/2009, -6/+31I think we should make it.
- kilimangaro, on 09/14/2009, -9/+29Imagine no religion !
- kurttrail, on 09/14/2009, -1/+19We Are Stardust!
And we'll be Stardust again!
How is that for reincarnation?! - bobburn1, on 09/14/2009, -4/+22Buried for backdoor creationism.
- novenator, on 09/14/2009, -5/+22The natural laws of the universe are a wondrous thing. Any human mind that tries to conceive it must include the mind trying to conceive it too.
- bobburn1, on 09/14/2009, -9/+25***** any religion. I don't blindly follow anything (except in Football)--and that is what religion is.
- rocknog, on 09/14/2009, -2/+17So how would you describe the awe and wonder at the realization of just how utterly amazing and beautiful the universe truly is? I'm an atheist, but from hearing descriptions of religious experiences, that's about the closest to religion I've ever come.
- kylescousin, on 09/14/2009, -8/+23Now that would be a religion that's acceptable!
- desertDenizen, on 09/14/2009, -1/+15Easily recoupled if you replace "worship" with "revere."
"Appreciate" is far too weak a word; it's something orders of magnitude smaller, almost unrelated to reverence and awe. Neither of which require superstition, only awareness. - OLTP, on 09/14/2009, -6/+20Carl Sagan is my hero, I love cosmology, but why even bring up religion? Religion is what people believe in when they don't understand things so they have to make up "Just So" stories.
- smack1700, on 09/14/2009, -0/+14But even the Vatican and religious buildings can be admired for what MAN has the ability to create. Churches/temples/etc.weren't built by God, they were built by Man.
But you're right, natural beauty is always more impressive than what we can create. - Snoogs, on 09/14/2009, -1/+14I'll take the tax breaks associated with donating to the exploration of the Universe. Is 'religion' defined by the number of practicing members? We could make this happen...
- NinjaBoy, on 09/14/2009, -0/+12I always wished there would be a "religion" where science was the key. Every sunday you get together and talk about the new finding of science and what it means exactly. "We dont have all the answers, but lets try and fix that"
- Akairenn, on 09/14/2009, -0/+12I refuse to take part in a religion that doesn't involve silly hats.
Silly hats are the key to everything. - inactive, on 09/14/2009, -2/+13"Hmm, they're finding out perfectly reasonable explanations for all the stuff that we attributed to god before, what do we do?"
"I know! We'll just make god super-vague, they'll never nail him down!" - xenuxenuts, on 09/14/2009, -2/+13How about we worship Schrodinger's cat?
- desertDenizen, on 09/14/2009, -2/+12See also Open-Source Religion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_religion
http://www.redefinegod.com/ - inactive, on 09/14/2009, -7/+17That might be true if one thinks of the term "religion" as only referring to the small-minded religions of tradition and certainly only of those one finds in the western world. As I see it, "religion" refers to any set of beliefs put into practice in one's daily life consciously and with the emotion of reverence. With that definition, I see each of us as necessarily a religion of one without any commentary on whether one loosely adheres to a religion of tradition or a "new age" religion or one you've created and are creating from one moment to the next. I believe Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins are indeed very religious men but that their personal religions are far more genuine in that they deal with things more genuinely true in contrast to religions based on what their followers only wish to be true.
There are many who would say a personal commitment to a lifelong reverence only for what is genuinely true and that truth put into daily practice in one's life is a religion.
I have and do agree.
If there is a talisman for that religion, rather than a cross, a star of David, a pentagram or some such else, I would say it is the question mark. A reverence for genuine truth requires one to continuously question one's beliefs AND the source of those beliefs. As it happens, for me personally, my talisman is the question mark with an exclamation mark as its exponent. This is reverence not simply for the question but for eternal questions, i.e., questions whose answers are only and can only ever be tentative thus causing the question to live on.
My personal favorite is this one: "Is this all that I am? Is there nothing more?"
Even if I lose the ability to ask, there is no end to that question ... raised to the power of exclamation. Truly, an eternal question. - LinuxPerson, on 09/14/2009, -3/+13Science damn you!
- boomchockalocka, on 09/14/2009, -1/+11And to be a tax-free club.
- jareddennis, on 09/14/2009, -1/+11Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqPxqTyjSZM - eir574, on 09/14/2009, -0/+9"All those people who died in the Soviet Gulag's or who are in prison in China for practicing meditation might disagree with you."
Wow, those people were killed and imprisoned in the name of atheism? That's news to me. I always thought that evil people do evil things, and that there's no more point in trying to prove that those deaths are the fault of atheism any more than there would be to prove that those who died at Hitler's hands died because Hitler had that mustache.
"Atheism is faith based therefore it is a religion."
How so? I lack belief in a deity. I'm not saying whether one does or does not exist, but merely that I see no compelling evidence to believe that one does. Hence, I see no more need to believe in it than there is to believe that an invisible technicolor pachyderm is living in William Shatner's sock drawer.
"Atheisms tenants closely resemble another religion called Luciferianism."
The only "tenet" of atheism is that one lacks belief in a deity. Your statement here leads me to believe that you're one of those people who thinks that without belief in your deity, you'd have nothing to stop you from behaving badly. Otherwise, why the comparison? If I'm correct, then you're a great danger to society. Some of us, however, are able to find empathy for our fellow human beings without the promise of eternal reward or punishment. - diggydougie, on 09/14/2009, -1/+10Yeah, I know. Jews don't promise heaven and Buddhist are actually pretty close to the cosmological. The Muslims are similar to Christianity in the afterlife though.
- Mnementh2230, on 09/14/2009, -0/+8"atheism is already a religion"
Atheism has no gods, no holy men, no holy texts, no commandments, no dress codes, no tithing, no churches, no holy days, no holidays, no verboten foods, none of the trappings of classical religion. It oppresses no one, despite your claims, though individuals who are atheists may be oppressors.
"Science, and the VAST MAJORITY of it's discoveries through the ages, have been made my Christians and other people of faith."
But they made their scientific discoveries *in spite* of their faith, not because of it. - DrSnugglebunny, on 09/14/2009, -2/+10As a scientist I can say many scientists already see it this way, but would not label that worldview as a religion, as it is (1) based on evidence (and not faith) and (2) entirely does away with supernatural phenomena. Those two features are diagnostic of religions. The worldview of metaphysical naturalism would be an appropriate term for it, though.
- kaelyiesta, on 09/14/2009, -0/+7Ayn Rand always had a beef with how religion had a monopoly on all those words. She always argued that ideas of divinity, rapture, the holy, and worship were genuine emotions of the human mind, but shouldn't be limited to traditional religion alone. I think she's right about this. There have been times I've felt so inspired by all this beauty I've witnessed all around us. It wouldn't do justice to say I appreciate this reality.
- drunkenoaf, on 09/14/2009, -6/+13But really, religion doesn't either. But they'll take your money and *promise* it's true. It just depends on you how much you want to buy it. Cold, hard facts are against you there, dude.
- georgelulu, on 09/14/2009, -2/+9This sounds like it will degenerate in a few decades to centuries into a certain south park episode...
- rocknog, on 09/14/2009, -1/+8Wow, talk about your ethnocentrism. Your entire understanding of religion seems to be hinged upon the standard "Christian" notion of what religion is all about. Redemption/salvation and the promise of life after death are far from being universal features of religion.
- RatatRatR, on 09/14/2009, -0/+6That must be from some lost verse.
- MiddleOfNowhere, on 09/14/2009, -0/+6You're right. But this appreciation needs some kind of framework. Most people in the world aren't scientists, and even the best scientific explanations will not help them overcome the sheer terror of realizing the universe has no god, no immortal souls, no heaven and no (obvious) purpose.
So if there is religious stupidity/madness on one side and a rational understanding of the world on the other, you need to build a bridge that non-scientists can walk.
Almost twenty years ago, I had what you might call a spiritual crisis. I was in my early twenties and already an atheist, but I felt kind of "naked" without a set of beliefs.
In that situation, I had a business partner who from one day to the next started drifting into esoteric La-la land. Astrology, Tarot cards, the healing power of crystals - he was curious and, like Adams' Electric Monk , he wanted to believe. And talk about it.
It drove me nuts. Not (only) because it was all obviously a pile of ridiculous nonsense, but because it made him happy. I had nothing but things I *didn't* believe in, and the world seemed without order or justice
It seemed that the believers had their cozy little dream worlds, while a rational person was rewarded with emptiness - you know: entropy, L.A.B.A.T.Y.D. etc.
Then I went on a holiday. And I read a book by Louise B. Young called "The Unfinished Universe".
It is - to cut a long story short - a cosmology, a wonderful book that even a non-techie, non-scientist could understand and appreciate - explaining how order emerges from chaos, how planets form, how life grows from the simple to the complex, from single-cell organism to coral reefs and human societies. And it offers a wonderful view of a universe that - as the title says - is not finished and continues to grow into something even more wonderful each second.
All this without the need for some divine being or supernatural forces.
After putting this book down, I was at peace with rationalism. I had, to quote Douglas Adams, seen the beauty of the garden, and I would never again be sad it had no fairies.
You can get the book here http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195080394/ , and Google Books has it, too.
There is probably not much in there that a person today could find in Wikipedia, but it gives a wonderful view of the world and its beauty as something that *makes sense* as a whole. - foucaultsvac, on 09/14/2009, -1/+7It wouldn't be new, because it's pantheism.
- eir574, on 09/14/2009, -0/+6Just because a Christian commits a crime, that does not mean Christianity caused him to commit the crime. Same goes for atheists. Hence my mustache example. Hitler committed genocide, and he had that mustache. Should we then assume that his mustache had something to do with his evil? Or, if you think so, shouldn't you attempt to prove it rather than just stating it as fact?
- nitsuj, on 09/14/2009, -0/+6Atheism has no attributes of a religion. And sure, many scientific discoveries in the past were made by theists of many religions - certainly not just Christians.
On the other hand science is a much more exacting tool for acquiring knowledge than it used to be and religion played a much stronger cultural role because of the lack of scientific knowledge within the populace.
Does this mean that theism is true? Of course not. Generally, your theistic bias is due mainly to cultural and peer influences and is therefore variable according to whereabouts in the world you are born and raised.
Atheism does not equal science but modern science is certainly secular *until* we actually find evidence of supernatural agent(s). So far, none, and atheism is easily derived from this lack of discovery. - xenuxenuts, on 09/14/2009, -1/+7so are gila monsters, sort of.
- inactive, on 09/14/2009, -8/+14How about not have any religion. it is useless and dangerous.
- Mnementh2230, on 09/15/2009, -0/+6"All those people who died in the Soviet Gulag's or who are in prison in China for practicing meditation might disagree with you."
They died because of a government's oppression, not a lack of religion. That the governments themselves lack religion is due to their need for a lack of competition to the state's power, and is a flaw in the government itself.
"Atheism is faith based therefore it is a religion."
You've got it all wrong. I make no statements of faith. I do not say "I believe there is no god", I say "I do not believe in any gods or the supernatural". One is a statement of faith, the "I believe" - the other is a statement of pure disbelief. I'll accept facts, and those things for which there are empirical evidence. Anything else is a statement of faith, and as such, I disregard it.
"Atheisms tenants closely resemble another religion called Luciferianism."
That you can make this statement only reveals your utter ignorance as to what atheism actually is.
"By the way Hitler wasn't an atheist, he practiced the occult."
He was also a practicing catholic.
"The Soviet and Chinese political system institutionalizes Atheism it's the organized state creed therefore one can say Atheist's committed those crimes not just evil men but institutions."
So I should hold all christians accountable for the evil deeds of a few? Should I hold all muslims accountable for the evil deeds of a few? The evils of the communist governments of the world are solely the responsibility of those governments. That they institutionalize atheism is because their state government relies heavily on the cult of personality that surrounds their national leaders, and it can brook no competition. A deity would by default be competition to the absolute rule of the government, and as such religion cannot be tolerated. - Hetman, on 09/14/2009, -1/+6Why do you assume there has to be a point?
- Gemfinder, on 09/14/2009, -0/+5Saved you from Digg-down oblivion :)
This. So-o-o-o-o this. - kaelyiesta, on 09/14/2009, -0/+5I nominate Sagan as the 'pope' of this new non-religion. He doesn't have to wear a silly hat though.
- desertDenizen, on 09/14/2009, -0/+5My talisman would be ∞.
- js281, on 09/14/2009, -1/+6Not all christianity is like that though, unfortunately.
- Boblin, on 09/14/2009, -1/+5Sounds a little like Buddhism; at least the awareness part.
- Paulish, on 09/14/2009, -1/+5So say we all.
- rocknog, on 09/14/2009, -3/+7Who would've thought the Bible, of all things, would make such a powerful argument against religion?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 321 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is