well…
your atheist eh…?
your view upon a good philosopher and mine are completely different…
and most of this country is practically atheist b.c they dont act how religion preaches…
and they dont really select religion… jus go w. wat theyr parents are…
=D> I loved this response…
Duder
By this argument, people who learn to read and write are weird, too.
Religon is another end to intellectual growth IMO…
You spend your entire life trying to know everything your preacher claims to know. He holds your hand until you are dead…YUCK!
It would seem weird to a person in the first stages of homo-sapien.
Well I don’t know what you’re trying to prove by comparing atheists to Neanderthals, but whatever…my point was that what people believe or do when they are born is completely irrelevant. Obviously in the modern, Western world, being illiterate is the exception, it is what’s weird, even though we are all born that way.
Religion AND philosophy are narcotics (we seem to be forgetting that they often come together - many brilliant philosophers actually were religious, however peculier that might sound. While we yammer on about mental phenomena and sense-experiences, the basic philosophy giving rise to that was started by BERKELEY, a Christian Bishop). Both can be imbided in you from birth. Both give you a sense of security and well-being, because you can feel, to an extent, satisified with answers to hard questions.
The serious athiests I know either have incredibly athiestic parents or have had terrible experiences of religion. And so, athiesm is, much like religion, a reaction against/with your surroundings. So who is making a rational decision now? Rather depressingly, I’d say no one. Our surroundings seem to absolutely shape our beliefs, whether they are rational or not.
Most primitive cultures are religious – including Neandrathals’. Support: flowers found in N. funeral pit, the body in what may be a “fetal position”. With the way man wonders, it would be surprising if we did not have thoughts on the world we wonder about, even in the earliest stages of our development.
I wondered if Duder meant few philosophers throughout history, or few philosophers in the present age. I found it odd, that the only example of a religious philosopher someone could give was of a clergyman who denied the existence of the material world.
Having done a Great Books program, the first demonstrable atheists in history were “Enlightenment” philosophers such as Comte, father of statistics (which ignores causality), and Fuerbach (“Father of Modern Atheism”) came in in the mid-19th century.
Until then, in the West, most philosophers were Christian, if not actually clergymen. In BC times they did believe in some form of God (with Plato and Aristotle being basically monotheists), and piety was a virtue.
As for today, there are still currents of theism alive, although to count and classify contemporary philosophers by their religion is beyond me. But in any case, truth is not democratic; one person could be right versus the world: and He was.
Oh, and P.S.: Love is the best narcotic, and religion is the highest form of love.
mrn
A. J. Ayer and Anthony Flew anyone? They both eventually became theists, despite their initial athiestic persuasion.
And why does the fact that Berkeley denied the existence of the material world mean anything? He is an absolutely seminal philosopher in the philosophy of perception. David Hume owes a massive chunk of his work to Berkeley, as do many philosophers. Despite what you may think about his other work, Berkeley cannot be ignored and is an example of an incredibly influential theistic philosopher.
Ayer too? Is there a place on the net that talks about this? I can’t find a reference.
Atheists are far more sexy then theists. 
To my knowledge few religious people(none actually) use their religion to love, but to hate.
Every religion is open to interpretation. There is no right or wrong way to be a religious man.
Well, it’s not just that saying God did not create reality, but illusions, lessens the estimation of His power. That clergyman’s doctrine is also a heresy against the first line of the Apostle’s Creed: “I believe in one God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth”.
mrn
No, it isn’t. The nature of “heaven and earth” is unspecified in the Bible, it merely notes that God certainly created something that we may call “heaven and earth”.
Also, why does this lessen the estimation of his power? Why is an illusion necessarily of lesser value than “reality”? 1) You’ve supplied an independant value judgement of no relevance. 2) You seem to have misunderstood Berkeley somewhat. He did not state that “reality” is illusory, because that statement is a logical contradiction. In order for something to be called “reality”, it must exist in some real way. Berkely argued that reality consists of the mental phenomena that we receive through the senses. He denied the existence of “matter” and deemed it illusory.
That, my friend, depends entirely on the methodology of/for salvation.
Karma vs piety, as an example… Which one is better?
The innocents and purity of a new soul. Everything else is just calousness or experiance.
Imagine a world that perpetuated calousness. Well, that would be us. God is unconditional love. He just hates the actions.
Athiesm is might is right. Socially acceptance is the driving force. Social outcast is independence. Calousness would allow thevory from other groups to ensure the survival of the stronger group.
Atheism would lead to inspire people to overcome oppression with an equal and opposite force,… like big brother.
economic pressures lead poverty victums to black market crimes.
Schools in the US have lower funding / higher bills, in lower economy areas.
The liberalist cure is a police state. Get rid of guns,… and anialate bad drugs. Then assemulate other motivations. Then a camera on every corner when people don’t follow orders.
A loving solution would be to give “tough love” and “teach a man to fish.”
A good father would give sound advice of experiance.