How Long Will The New Atheism Last?

[youngmoigle]

I was a teenager in the 1960's and remember there was a short period when the phrase "God is dead" seemed to be on everyone's lips - and then the "Jesus Freaks" went on the offensive and the revolution was over before it had even started.

I wonder what will happen this time? Will the new atheism take root, or will it quietly disappear when the religious fraternity finally gets around to organising its counter campaign?

[MikeM]

Like you, I was teenager in the 1960s, I am 61.

I think atheism is fairly steady. The big changes relate to the formalised religions. I went to a Catholic school and by the time I reached the last couple of years of school several of the teachers were the so called "lay teachers", that is, not brothers. Today the number of teaching nuns and brothers would be very thin on the ground.

Atheism will always be limited, at least at a public level and because it does not offer the frame work like churches, charities, hospitals etc. to build on.

It is also very hard to promote a disbelief. Religions do not promote a disbelief in science or a dis belief in Hawking and Co. Could imagine the salesman going to see the prospect and saying " I am here to tell you what not to buy".....

[youngmoigle]

It is also very hard to promote a disbelief. Religions do not promote a disbelief in science or a dis belief in Hawking and Co. Could imagine the salesman going to see the prospect and saying " I am here to tell you what not to buy".....

Yeah - This cartoon says it all

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3349/3432265817_d1dab45e9d.jpg?v=0

(I'm still having trouble uploading pictures but this link should do the job)

[Chasly]

Internet access makes it easier (for those interested) to seek out information and educate themselves. This will ensure athiesm continues to be on the rise. It will never become the dominant way of thinking, humans are generally too stupid for that, but its definitely on the rise.

[MikeM]

The cartoon sure illustrates it.

Another difficulty with promoting atheism, although it would be a related problem, is no promise of gain.

If someone ceases to participate in a fomalised religion and most notably the Catholic stuff then they don't have to go to church on Sunday mornings. So for them a move to atheism produces no gain. In fact they need to start reading Hawking and Co and unless interested that becomes very heavy going.

I have often thought about how to market atheism but it is a difficult one and especially since the creed seems to be based on "not urging". Perhaps atheism could be marketed on the basis that it will increase education. After all to investigate atheism does need one to follow the sciences.

But there is no getting around the fact that atheism is "nothing". When it comes to religion, fad diets, computers, you name it people gather to discuss the different ways they do it, try it etc and the results. But with atheism you arrive at "God or gods don't exist" and there is nowhere to go after that point is reached. It is not as if you can try different things to have less belief in God or gods:D

When it comes to schools I think both evolution and the Bible should be presented.

[Ramen]

If someone ceases to participate in... the Catholic stuff then they don't have to go to church on Sunday mornings. So for them a move to atheism produces no gain.

Huh? How is that no gain? I see many advantages:


A sleep-in on Sundays (as advocated by AFA!)
Don't have to give your weekly donation to Rome Inc.
Can use birth control to stop overpopulating your household and the planet.
Freedom from guilt about just about everything
No longer struggling to see how this pope could possibly be considered infallible

and most importantly, the ability to look at life clearly and rationally.

[MikeM]

Huh? How is that no gain? I see many advantages:


A sleep-in on Sundays (as advocated by AFA!)
Don't have to give your weekly donation to Rome Inc.
Can use birth control to stop overpopulating your household and the planet.
Freedom from guilt about just about everything
No longer struggling to see how this pope could possibly be considered infallible
and most importantly, the ability to look at life clearly and rationally.

But all that is achieved by just dumping the Catholic church and simply believing "something must be there"

[SchizoDeluxe]

I think atheism will get bigger and more popular but I also see the current religions disappearing as well and replaced with new beliefs, at least on some level. The number of beliefs and religions we have seen in human history is an indication of the changes we go through as a species. It won't happen in our lifetime and at least not for quite some time but it will happen eventually.

[davo]

But with atheism you arrive at "God or gods don't exist" and there is nowhere to go after that point is reached. It is not as if you can try different things to have less belief in God or gods:D

When it comes to schools I think both evolution and the Bible should be presented.

Children are born atheists, why instill in them the concept of a god?

Why should the bible be presented in schools?

[Kid]

Children are born atheists, why instill in them the concept of a god?

Why should the bible be presented in schools?

I agree fully. Why should the bible be included in schools? The bible too is only one of many other 'holy books' from other religions, so why just the bible?
I also don't agree there's nowhere to go without the concept of god. Man, there's plenty of places to go! I've heard believers say this before; without god there's nothing to talk about, think about...what do atheists talk about, if they can't talk about their beliefs? There's so much to talk about! everything from philosophy, to art, politics, science, sport, space, music, history, the natural world, ourselves! and sex...yes, you can talk about sex too without, hopefully, being riddled with guilt; literature, poetry, the list is endless; libraries are full of books that deal with everything under the sun that have nothing to do with 'god'. Those who think there's nothing beyond 'god' are the ones who are in trouble intellectually.

I'm hoping beyond hope that atheism/humanism/secularism/reason and science and everything will keep on growing and flourishing. But it's a hard, hard road to overcome centuries of religious privilege. People still credit religion and god-belief with too much importance and privilege. It really is time for a paradigm shift and a revolution in how we all deal with religion and its almost complete negative impact on all of the world's societies.
Call me a dreamer...

[MikeM]

Why should the bible be presented in schools?

Because it is a fundamental part of our culture in both social, domestic, business and language.

If someone left school and had been shielded from every and anything to do with the Bible then they would find it hard going.

Let me give a small example. On Tuesday I phoned a fellow to say I had the data base ready for testing etc and would Thursady be OK to come around and test. He replied "Thursday will be a bad day as we are going away over Easter". Imagine if I said to him "what is Easter":D

But if it could be phased out very gradually then that would be OK.

I could be wrong here but although evolution is accepted I don't think there is a scientific accepted explanation for the actual start of life. If that is correct then something else would need to be presented in conjunction with evolution.

[davo]

Because it is a fundamental part of our culture in both social, domestic, business and language.

No it's not, prove what your saying. Really you are just making wild claims as truth.


If someone left school and had been shielded from every and anything to do with the Bible then they would find it hard going.

Just a sec, those goal posts are moving again. Wonder how far.
You placed the bible at the same level as evolution.


I could be wrong here but although evolution is accepted I don't think there is a scientific accepted explanation for the actual start of life. If that is correct then something else would need to be presented in conjunction with evolution.

Let's face it your a THEIST. plain and simple all your arguments are against the fact people don't believe there is a god, and against people believing that religion should be taken out of our schools etc etc.

Please read my thread on Abiogenesis :

http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=681

This is SCIENCE we are talking about, it's something that is a body of information, not VOODOO. We are well on the way on all the points that you are raising in your attempt to attack anyone that does not accept that all these fairytales of gods have any truth in them.

We are sitting here quietly learning about life the universe and everything, and heres some bloke in a flowery top come up to us saying the Big Gazoo did it all, we should teach it in schools, just accept it. Well sorry if I laugh my guts out.

[davo]

forgot to mention, one of the big fallacies is that evolution covers everything from the big bang to the start of life. It DOESN'T, it's about how life evolves.

See thread on abiogenesis

[MikeM]

forgot to mention, one of the big fallacies is that evolution covers everything from the big bang to the start of life. It DOESN'T, it's about how life evolves.

See thread on abiogenesis

I am aware of that and so there needs to be something in conjunction with evolution. If there were classes covering Big Bang etc and Paul Davies was teaching would he be allowed to mention he is a deist?

[Kid]

Gotta agree with Davo; don't agree still the bible is our foundation etc...and Easter has f-all to do with the bible. Easter was a pagan fertility celebration; maybe we should be teaching the children that instead, and schools need to deal with historical facts, not ancient creation myths.

Evolution is not there to teach the beginning of life, but how it survives and changes over the aeons of time. We don't know how life began. Yet. One day we might discover how it came about, but right now, scientists admit to not knowing; this is not a flaw, but a strength. And to even suggest that what caused the start of life as really 'something more'. that is, a supernatural being is an absurdity. as I said to the other 'there must be something more' guy who was here a while ago, why would a non-existent so called 'supernatural being' create material life?

overall, no, the bible can go the way of other ancient texts that are mostly full of ignorance and brutality, myths and nonsense: into the archives of museums as examples to future generations of just how damn primitive human thinking really is.

[MikeM]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeM http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=9050#post9050)
Because it is a fundamental part of our culture in both social, domestic, business and language.

[qute]No it's not, prove what your saying. Really you are just making wild claims as truth.[/quote]

You must be joking. The major holidays of the year. The private schools etc and etc and etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeM http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=9050#post9050)
If someone left school and had been shielded from every and anything to do with the Bible then they would find it hard going.

Just a sec, those goal posts are moving again. Wonder how far.
You placed the bible at the same level as evolution.

There is no change. I am simply saying if you remove all teachings related to Bible/Christianity then you need to remove it totally from our culture.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeM http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=9050#post9050)
I could be wrong here but although evolution is accepted I don't think there is a scientific accepted explanation for the actual start of life. If that is correct then something else would need to be presented in conjunction with evolution.

[quote]Let's face it your a THEIST. plain and simple all your arguments are against the fact people don't believe there is a god, and against people believing that religion should be taken out of our schools etc[quote]

Actually I would be deist. I am not against taking religion out of schools as long as it is also removed from our general culture.

Surely you are not suggesting if I employ one of these new school leavers I have to spend all last Monday explaining why there is a 4 day holiday period and all the other bullshit that goes with Easter. The list is endless.

[MikeM]

Gotta agree with Davo; don't agree still the bible is our foundation etc...and Easter has f-all to do with the bible. Easter was a pagan fertility celebration; maybe we should be teaching the children that instead, and schools need to deal with historical facts, not ancient creation myths.

Agree with you on Easter but the reality is that Easter is taught in conjunction with the Bible/Christianity.

Evolution is not there to teach the beginning of life, but how it survives and changes over the aeons of time. We don't know how life began.

Thus surely for the purposes of a complete education on life something should be included about how it started. Imagine if TV coverage of athletics, swimming and car racing never showed the start of the race or the lead up to the race:D

Try an experiment for one week. Pretend you have zero knowledge on Bible/Christianity and see how you go. When you go back to work if someone tells you what they did on Good Friday, then you have to ask them "what is Good Friday" or "what is Easter" etc.

[davo]

You must be joking. The major holidays of the year. The private schools etc and etc and etc.

Even the churches themselves are struggling to get their own believers to define these as religious events. For most, they are just holidays. How are private schools part of our 'culture'? Wouldn't mean a thing if they weren't there, would not miss a thing.
Christmas is when people get presents. St valentines day is when you get flowers ow a weekend away for your partner or a nice bottle of Scotch if they are a bloke as it's cheaper and more fulfilling (or vice versa of course)


There is no change. I am simply saying if you remove all teachings related to Bible/Christianity then you need to remove it totally from our culture.


Why? I don't see why? I know heaps of people that know nothing of the bible and the worlds not this 'totally hard thing to deal with'. I really don't get this point you are trying to push, can you give any evidence regarding a person having this issue you are defining? Especially considering a huge amount of kids aren't taught the bible in school? indeed we have parents etc on here doing just that, and are products of generations that have done just that? and that's just the people on the forum let alone the big wide world?



Surely you are not suggesting if I employ one of these new school leavers I have to spend all last Monday explaining why there is a 4 day holiday period and all the other bullshit that goes with Easter. The list is endless.

why explain to them? so you reckon they should be taught the bible in school, because otherwise you have to sit them down for a whole day explaining the holiday period to them?

riiiiiiight

[Godless Ray]

I have this feeling it (This New Atheist drive) may grow quite a bit and some permenence about it. There is always a constant religious fight back this doesn't seem to me to come in batches. Mind you it does have it's fashions of the moment an example might be hillsung. I would love to see more popular books on the subject along the line of Dawkins recent one. These seem to get a much wider audience.

Godless Ray

[Godless Ray]

Thus surely for the purposes of a complete education on life something should be included about how it started. Imagine if TV coverage of athletics, swimming and car racing never showed the start of the race or the lead up to the race:D




This would be covered in any science class wouldn't it?

Godless

[davo]

I have this feeling it (This New Atheist drive) may grow quite a bit and some permenence about it. There is always a constant religious fight back this doesn't seem to me to come in batches. Mind you it does have it's fashions of the moment an example might be hillsung. I would love to see more popular books on the subject along the line of Dawkins recent one. These seem to get a much wider audience.


Great points Godless Ray, I've found the 'fight back' is more from the establishment of the religions than from the bulk of the members, you get a lot of people that will try, putting forward pretty lame excuses for it, but religion is dying. Education is the key here, and people being more educated is what's killing it. Rather than blind acceptance that 'it's needed'.

Looking forward to the next book with the same infuence as 'The God Delusion' myself!

[davo]

Agree with you on Easter but the reality is that Easter is taught in conjunction with the Bible/Christianity.

What gets me Mike, is you seem to be holding on for dear life to the christian teachings, your not looking at progression, your arguing for reinforcement of something thats dying.



Thus surely for the purposes of a complete education on life something should be included about how it started. Imagine if TV coverage of athletics, swimming and car racing never showed the start of the race or the lead up to the race:D

What's wrong with abiogenesis? What about Universal Wave Theory and the current stuff that's happening in science? Why place a god in this spot, and say it has to be there? Your trying to argue that we should be teaching children falsehoods (specifically christian falsehoods) to give them a holistic view of life. Why not give them a realistic view? What's wrong with having stuff we don't know yet that gives them something to strive for?


Try an experiment for one week. Pretend you have zero knowledge on Bible/Christianity and see how you go. When you go back to work if someone tells you what they did on Good Friday, then you have to ask them "what is Good Friday" or "what is Easter" etc.

totally useless experiment. I don't see any weight in your arguments. Easter is for chocolate and a holiday.

[Kid]

Agree with you on Easter but the reality is that Easter is taught in conjunction with the Bible/Christianity.

Yes it is taught, and it's a lie. There's nothing in the bible about Easter or Xmas; there are no dates for Jesus's birth or death, and his life has nothing to do with these events. You are asking to teach lies. I have not taught my children about the bible and it has not in any way harmed their skills to live in this world. I do tell them, if they're keen to know, the roots of Easter and Xmas, and again, these things have nothing to do with the bible--which is in essence a Hebrew text anyway, co-opted by the early Xians, as they co-opted everything else that was pre-Xian. The bible is irrelevant to these things, our holidays and our schools. It does speak of the Jewish Passover (a very nasty event) and we're not Jewish. So I say it again; the bible is irrelevant to these holidays. Teach children the truth if they need to know, or add on top of it, the lies of the Xian church.

as for how life began; I do think there's some hypothesis concerning the chemical reactions in the 'primordial soup', reacting with light and heat from the sun and so on, causing chemical reactions, or chemical catalysts to start forming early and very primitive life. I'm not a scientist, but I think that the beginning of life on this planet will turn out to be a lot more prosaic than what we like to imagine. Yes, maybe it will all come down to chemical reactions in a big boiling primordial soup. Is that so hard to accept? Not for me.

[davo]

he doesn't care it's a lie Kid, he is trying to justify teaching religion as there is religion .. wooo wooo

[MikeM]

I would probably advocate that the Bible/Christianity was taught as a type of social studies, perhaps history and so on.

If the Bible/Christianity is the biggest piece of bullshit ever put forward then that is even more reason why it should be taught.

When the dinosaur Brontosaurus was first discovered they had the wrong head for it. Years later the problem was corrected. Should dinosaur literate leave out that fact because what was put forward as brontosausus was wrong.

One thing I would say, you blokes would give the born agains a run for their money:D

[MikeM]

Let's say it turns out that Osam bin Laden had nothing to do with September 11.

Are you saying if history is being taught in American schools then all reference to bin Laden is removed when discussing 9/11?

[Kid]

what the??? If Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 then teach that! simple. If you teach the bible, then make sure the children know what it really is: a collection of ancient Hebrew texts and creation myths that religionists, mostly Xian religionists, then taught as FACT and not fiction.

No one is suggesting taking facts out of history, but putting them back in. It is the religionists who removed fact; they taught fiction as a reality, that is, they fictionalised reality. IF you teach the bible to children in schools, then they need to have it taught as what it really is, not as some great and truthful foundation of all our society, but something that was used by Xianity to 'prove' their view of the world was right and everyone else's was wrong. Great wrongs have been done in the name of the bible; time to get rid of it, or else, keep it as i said before, as an example of how primitive human beings once were, and how it was used by later religionists to control society to their own ends.

ps - Davo, just watched your Abinogenesis video...fantastic stuff! I learned something myself today.

[MikeM]

what the??? If Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 then teach that! simple. If you teach the bible, then make sure the children know what it really is: a collection of ancient Hebrew texts and creation myths that religionists, mostly Xian religionists, then taught as FACT and not fiction.

Exactly. I am in 100% agreement.

I fi may say so, I think atheists make a similar mistake to the born agains. They assume that someone not in agreement has certain beliefs.

It has been abundantly clear in my postings that I am a deist and also at times a believer that their are beings that are super advanced in technology and could infleunce what happens here.

Just to be clear so we don't get into definitions by deist I mean a belief in something superior which could be a God or gods but with no relationship with us.

I think the Bible has an element of truth but in terms of how it is presented, that is, an all powerful all knowing God, I think that is pure bullshit.

Thus I agree with your statement on how the Bible/Christianity should be taught.

[MikeM]

ps - Davo, just watched your Abinogenesis video...fantastic stuff! I learned something myself today.

I have just opened the thread and saved to favourite.

My Optus wireless is very slow today and videos jerk their way through. I downloaded one of those programs the other day that allows downloading Youtube.

[davo]

I fi may say so, I think atheists make a similar mistake to the born agains. They assume that someone not in agreement has certain beliefs.


Not in agreement with what has made any of us say you have 'certain beliefs'? You have said what you said, and I have stated my opinion, where have I said you have certain beliefs? I have approached them.


It has been abundantly clear in my postings that I am a deist and also at times a believer that their are beings that are super advanced in technology and could infleunce what happens here.

Just to be clear so we don't get into definitions by deist I mean a belief in something superior which could be a God or gods but with no relationship with us.


A deist is a type of theist :

http://atheism.about.com/od/theismtheists/p/theismvarieties.htm

[davo]

I have just opened the thread and saved to favourite.

My Optus wireless is very slow today and videos jerk their way through. I downloaded one of those programs the other day that allows downloading Youtube.

to sum it up, to the point of evolution taking over :

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3342/3433622500_fef354e878_o.jpg

[MikeM]

I would probaly "in general" fit the wikipedia definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

But whatever definition I fit or don't fit I don't believe we have some type of relationship with God or gods.

I don't believe there is an after life. But lack of belief in an after life does not exclude the possibility of beings that are far more advanced than us.

[MikeM]

As to life starting (I have not yet watched the video) my belief is that life will start if the conditions for life exist.

In fact I can't see how there can be an agument to the contrary.

That view is quite common with people who have kept reptiles and also insect keepers.

In my a lot of what Dawkins says is funding related. Common when there is no simple 2 + 2 = 4

Mutations is what it is about and then natural selection.

As you know the bomadier beetle is a favourite of the "born agains" but "mutation" stops their argument cold.

Lizard skull to snake skull is a difficult one. But of course it might be the case that the snake never evolved from lizard.

[davo]

I would probaly "in general" fit the wikipedia definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

But whatever definition I fit or don't fit I don't believe we have some type of relationship with God or gods.

I don't believe there is an after life. But lack of belief in an after life does not exclude the possibility of beings that are far more advanced than us.

? You are confusing.

Why don't you actually sit down and work out in your head what you do or don't believe, based on the evidence, rather than trying to look for something that best describes what you think. Try doing the thinking yourself. Then, approach the subjects with a solid grounding whatever it is, rather than just flipping around with different ideas etc etc based on no thought process over it. Learn how to communicate those ideas clearly from the start, rather than trying to define them as you progress, using everyone else to have you basically do that by debate, as then you just take a defensive mode as you try and work out your actual position on something.

Stop putting the concept of extraterrestrials as 'gods' as it is not the proper definition at all.

[Seamus]

Yeah,I remember the Time cover "God Is Dead"

-and what I thought was neat piece of grafitto at the time:


" God is dead" (Sartre)

"Sartre is dead" (God)

[davo]

As to life starting (I have not yet watched the video) my belief is that life will start if the conditions for life exist.

Oh right, that .. kinda .. makes ... sense :cool:

So life just springs out of the conditions for life existing. Like life could exist in my toilet, so it just springs out of my toilet. makes perfect sense.


In fact I can't see how there can be an agument to the contrary.


well, you know you may have something there, life not being able to spring out of where life could not exist and all.


That view is quite common with people who have kept reptiles and also insect keepers.


Are you taking illicit substances? go on ... you can tell us ;)

In my a lot of what Dawkins says is funding related. Common when there is no simple 2 + 2 = 4


Funding related ... 2 +2 =4 ... huh?


Mutations is what it is about and then natural selection.


I'm glad you have sorted out the whole current scientific standing and lumped all the other Thoery of Evolution discoveries into one term 'mutations'

Otherwise, prove the three main mechanisms that produce evolution in the theory, are not natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow.

Most all of the leading evolutionary biologists in the world are hanging on your answer ...

[davo]

I honestly don't believe that there will be a way for religion to recover. Nothing like it did as described in the past ..

Education is what has killed religion over time, and the internet is allowing people to educate themselves. The exposure to different point of view is putting people in the position they are starting to think more and more for themselves, and for religion, that's dangerous

[davo]

How does this relate to the OP of
How Long Will The New Atheism Last?

If you want to discuss evolution please create a new thread.

cheers

http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=388

[SchizoDeluxe]

Because it is a fundamental part of our culture in both social, domestic, business and language.

If someone left school and had been shielded from every and anything to do with the Bible then they would find it hard going.


I dunno, I think most of us could live without slavery and prejudice just fine, don't ya think? :D


I could be wrong here but although evolution is accepted I don't think there is a scientific accepted explanation for the actual start of life. If that is correct then something else would need to be presented in conjunction with evolution.

Not yet but give it time ;)

[SchizoDeluxe]

Let's say it turns out that Osam bin Laden had nothing to do with September 11.

Are you saying if history is being taught in American schools then all reference to bin Laden is removed when discussing 9/11?

Good point but history in education has changed more than we could count whenever further factual evidence came up. There was a time when the earth being flat was regarded as fact but that has since changed. A particular scientific explanation has never been a be all to end all for something it is applied to, it does not work that way and that's the problem with anti-science/pro creationsim/and other religious garbage that opposes scientific thinking. It is a never ending quest to find the best answers at that time which fits, evolution is just that, it is the best theory based on factual evidence to support it. Religion on the other hand, is based on philosophy, hersy and ignorant people trying to control others so that they may stay in power, kinda like governments of today, there is nothing in the bible or other scripture that explains where we come from, just ideas, mythology and stories which were the first attempts at trying to explain who we are and where we came from, it may have served some purpose thousands of years ago but not anymore. I mean we don't exactly use every scientific book from 300 years ago as the basis for everything scientific today, we have made so many discoveries since then which have overtaken many of those theories which make more sense now, even the origin of species has things which were unexplained at the time which we now can explain, that is evolution on a learning scale, we learn more and more as we grow older as a species. Religion does the opposite, stays stagnant and relies on the same text over time.

[youngmoigle]

The argument usually goes like this:

Theist: I believe that God exists
Atheist: I don't
Theist: So you accept evolution
Atheist: Yes
Theist: Prove that evolution works

Notice how the debate has been hijacked?

Well I am one atheist who has no idea how evolution works - but then I don't know how my refrigerator works either. We don't have to know everything do we?

My point:

If a theist declares that god exists, the theist should describe his god (in fine detail) and then prove that he actually exists.

At no time should the theist be allowed to hijack the debate and turn it from a proof of god discussion into something about evolution.

Let's say that evolutionary theory is wrong - What does that tell us about god's existence? Nothing at all! The two subjects are basically unrelated. Disproving evolution does not prove god.

[SchizoDeluxe]

Let's say that evolutionary theory is wrong - What does that tell us about god's existence? Nothing at all! The two subjects are basically unrelated. Disproving evolution does not prove god.

Exactly. I think that little tidbit gets lost amongst all the hoopla and chest beating over who is more right, religion or science. It's just another part of the male bigger dick syndrome

[davo]

MikeM, your taking the whole thread off topic. If you have something to say not on topic, create another thread about it.

The posts were moved to the evolution thread

Evolution thread
http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=388

[davo]

Yeah, thanks, Davo, that's the other side of the coin I was trying (rather badly today) to describe above.

Knowledge gets to be free for the looking, hierarchies are loosened because net traffic does not recognise geographical or social structures, and everybody has the potential a media organisation of some size.

Oh, there will be attempts to control the net (hi, Stephen (http://stephenconroyisacunt.wordpress.com/)!), but nobody's ever going to get all the smoke back in the bottle.

The birth of the internet is very much like the printing press, only it's moving a hell of a lot faster .. especially when it comes to religion, suddenly people are faced with a multitude of beliefs, and access to facts at their fingertips.

Those looking up stuff about their religion, cannot avoid coming across critique, where in the past, you were able too.