Their Christian remnants wouldn’t involve the Law of the Torah.

Their Christian remnants wouldn’t involve the Law of the Torah. — Noah Te Stroete

What remnants are you talking about btw?

Do unto others as you would have done unto you (by others).

Do unto others as you would have done unto you (by others). — Noah Te Stroete

Are you saying that stripping away everything from religious texts, except love your neighbor, don't kill, etc is a great way to proceed in humane ways? ( ͡Ϙ ͜ʖ ͡o)

Because that my theistic friends, is how you get modern science and modern civilization.

No. As I mentioned earlier, the myths and parables have morals or lessons that also have value.

No. As I mentioned earlier, the myths and parables have morals or lessons that also have value. — Noah Te Stroete

Are you saying highly atheistic countries keep religious things with them, beyond loving thy neighbor, and the other nice ways to treat each other, or the other things currently maintained by law and order?

If so, what are these extra religious things that these atheists would keep?

Because that my theistic friends, is how you get modern science and modern civilization. — VoidDetector

Care to justify this with an actual argument? I’m open to one.

If so, what are these extra religious things that these atheists would keep? — VoidDetector

The story of the Good Samaritan is one example that comes to mind.

Care to justify this with an actual argument? I’m open to one — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, although what follows is not much of an argument, but rather a reporting of facts.

The point is that obviously, mankind had not always had modern science; notably, 'archaic science/religion' was replaced by modern science in the scientific revolution, and thereafter, 'archaic science/religion' no longer applies.

• (See an example of 'astrology/archaic science/religion' being removed from 'modern science/astronomy', in Wikipedia/Astrology and astronomy )
• Notably, astrology concerned deities and other religious baggage, and astrology is now regarded as pseudoscience, having been replaced by astronomy back then.

Most clerics don’t view Christianity as involving astrology. Furthermore, you haven’t refuted that the Scandinavian countries have remnants from their religious past that influences their normative ethics.

Most clerics don’t view Christianity as involving astrology. — Noah Te Stroete

Fact remains, astrology still concerns deity stuff. As we can see, it's no longer a part of modern science. When you strip away the silliness from archaic science or religion, you get modern science.

This may be a personal question, but you can chose to not grant me a response. What is your view on fornication, and how do you resist "temptation" in the absence of marriage?

Well, for one I’m not really strictly a Christian. I believe in an ineffable God, and I believe in Jesus’ teachings, but I am not a fundamentalist. I also found value in the Bhagavad Ghita, the Upanishads, and the Tao Te Ching. I also believe in science and western philosophy.

I don’t have a problem with premarital sex per se. My wife and I engaged in it. I do believe monogamy if only serial monogamy is most virtuous.

Well, and another problem is determining just which countries are "more atheist," determining the religious views of the person you're surveying, and determining what their relationship is to what they take to be their religious environment.

Determining someone's religious views can be far more complicated than it might seem to be if one hasn't gotten into a lot of in-depth discussions with others about just how they self-identify and what their religious views actually are. That can take some time to ferret out, and the answer to what their religious views actually are can be quite counterintuitive with respect to how they self-identify.

Fact remains, astrology still concerns deity stuff. — VoidDetector

You said that in the other thread, too, but I've not run into much of a connection between religion and astrology. I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

Instead of looking to or for the moral of a myth, legend, story, or parable (Yes, there is even Christian mythology. Only the dolts take it literally.); the atheist debunks the most literal interpretation of the text. That’s why so many atheists think the religious are stupid, or they think we are deluding ourselves. — Noah Te Stroete

I cast my vote for these wise words.

The endless comparisons between religion and science that dominate philosophy forums reveal that those making such comparisons are typically not interested enough in the topic to try to understand that which they are so eager to debunk. Such a blind faith "us vs. them" process tends to replicate some of the worst aspects of religion.

Religion is better compared to art. A novel or play can reveal deep truths about the human condition even though the plot is entirely fictional. It's helpful to remember that many of the stories religions present were written thousands of years ago for an audience very different than the culture we live in today. While such stories are ever more out of date in today's modern world, the messages about the human condition that the stories are trying to share are often still very relevant.

As example, the very first book of the Bible focuses on our relationship with knowledge, via the fable of Adam and Eve. Our relationship with knowledge is still the most fundamental fact about the human condition, and just as the Adam and Eve story predicted, the flaws in that relationship are causing us to eject ourselves from the "Garden Of Eden", ie. a healthy planet. All this, in a story written some 3,000 years ago, long before the age of technology.

No, I don't believe there was a guy named Adam and a girl named Eve, and a sneaky snake. But I do believe that whoever wrote that story had deep insights in to the human condition. But the story is now very old and in need of an update for modern audiences.

Science deals in fact about reality.

Religion deals with our relationship with reality.

What confuses many, especially those with no real interest in these topics, is that religion often makes factual claims in an attempt to help manage our relationship with reality.

As example, it would be highly rational for any of us to pursue a plan of falling in love with reality. But "reality" is too abstract a concept for most people, and so reality is often personalized in the form of a human-like character such as Jesus or God or Krishna etc. Everyone is free to decline this device of course, but the evidence shows that such a personalization method has been far more successful in inspiring a "falling in love" experience than anything science has been able to deliver.

Our emotional relationship with reality. Focus on that. If religion doesn't help a particular person develop that emotional relationship, ok, no problem, so walk away, and find something else that does work. That's the rational course of action.

Well said.

The problem I have with religion from that perspective, though, is that I don't agree with most of its views about "the human condition," about morality, about customs, etc.

Plus the formal ritual most of it is wrapped up in is very distasteful to me, and not agreeing with its morality, etc., I find its influence on law and mores very bothersome.

I'm fine with leaving religious folks to be religious--I'm an extremely laissez-faire kind of guy, but the problem is that religion doesn't tend to be laissez-faire towards different behavior, different beliefs, different religions, etc.

I find it useful to always make a distinction between a belief in god and a belief in religion, its an efficient means of parsing what exactly a person believes and what you might think they believe.
Anyway, sounds like we agree the data and conclusion bears more scrutiny, but I would still maintain that the correlation is significant and worth serious consideration.

You said that in the other thread, too, but I've not run into much of a connection between religion and astrology. I'm not sure what you're referring to there. — Terrapin Station

Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy may help.

Note that Wikipedia/astrology states that astrology may be seen as a “Greek system of planetary Gods”, see also Wikipedia/planets in astrology, which concerns deities. It becomes quite clear here that Modern science having dropped astrology, disregards deities, where Modern Science need not make any positive claims about the in-existence of deities, although Modern Science clearly rejects belief in deities i.e. Modern Science is inherently atheistic.

“Greek system of planetary Gods”, — VoidDetector

I don't actually see that quote on the astrology page.

The problem I have with religion from that perspective, though, is.... — Terrapin Station

The solution here is to simply discard that which isn't working for a person, and look for other methods of developing one's emotional relationship with reality.

Again, "reality" is likely still too much of an abstraction to facilitate the development of an emotional relationship, so one may wish to focus on a particular place and form bonds of attachment with that place. The process is much the same as making friends with a person. You have to invest a lot of time and open yourself up. No religion required.

Newborns are inherently atheistic.

The problem with atheistic scientists analyzing the truth value of religions is that they are usually more literal and fundamentalist about analyzing religious texts than many if not most religious believers. Instead of looking to or for the moral of a myth, legend, story, or parable (Yes, there is even Christian mythology. Only the dolts take it literally.); the atheist debunks the most literal interpretation of the text. That’s why so many atheists think the religious are stupid, or they think we are deluding ourselves. This is a mistake that religious texts can’t impart wisdom and that science alone can address all truths wrt humanity. — Noah Te Stroete

Nicely put. :up:

Newborns are inherently atheistic. — Harry Hindu

Newborns are born ignorant of more or less everything, including knowledge of God.

I don't actually see that quote on the astrology page. — Terrapin Station

See it in the 4th sentence of this section, on the same page.

Newborns are born ignorant of more or less everything, including knowledge of God. — Pattern-chaser

..and unicorns and elves and leprechauns, etc...

If the answer to do you “believe in god?” is anything other than “yes”, you are an atheist. You can also be an antitheist and/or agnostic. They are not mutually exclusive. Atheism means “without belief”, anti-theism is when you are against religion(s) and agnostic is a stance on whether or not the existence of god can be known. If you are just the classic fence sitting agnostic, you are also an atheist. — DingoJones

Disagree. Here are some dictionary definitions of 'atheist':

"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist)

"1. someone who does not believe in any God or gods
2. someone who believes that God does not exist"
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheist)

"1. (n British) a person who does not believe in God or gods
2. (in American) a person who believes that there is no God"
(SYNONYMY NOTE: an atheist rejects all religious belief and denies the existence of God)
(https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/atheist)

"Atheism: 1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. "
(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)

'Atheism' certainly does not mean 'without belief'. A lot of people seem to think it means either that or 'without god', and cite the Greek roots of the word ('a-' meaning 'without', 'theism' from 'theos' meaning 'god'); but to believe that a word's current meaning is determined by its origins is to commit the etymological fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy).

As the above examples from dictionaries make clear, the current meaning of 'I am an atheist' is ambiguous between 'I do not believe there is a God' (agnostic) and 'I believe there is no God' (anti-theist).

Atheism broadly means lack of belief in deities... — VoidDetector

In the real world, atheism means a belief in the ability of human reason to meaningfully analyze assertions about the most fundamental nature of all reality, the scope of God claims. The "lack of belief" is based upon something, a competing belief.

Wikipedia/atheism describes atheism to broadly mean lack of belief in deities. — VoidDetector

Who cares what Wikipedia says? Why should Wikipedia volunteers be expected to have any deeper understanding of atheism than the average man on the street?

Most people, including almost everybody on philosophy forums, blindly chant the memorized definition "atheism equals lack of belief in God" without bothering to ask where that lack of belief comes from, what is it built upon, what is it's source?

Atheism is no more merely a "lack of belief" in gods than theism is merely a "lack of belief" in Christopher Hitchens.