(November 10, 2013 at 11:48 am)arvind13 Wrote: You see, the 'fact' that that atheism is found all over the world, only makes sense if one assumes that religion is found all over the world i.e a cultural universal. Most (99.99999%) anthropologists agree that this is the case. But there is new research coming out challenging this assumption that religion is found in all (or most) societies.
I think you are missing the larger point I was making.
The john Grey statement you quoted in your op was making the point that atheism exists and will have a future in a Christians world. He seems to be making 2 mistakes from what I can tell:
1. atheism is the opposite of Christianity (or at least the opposite of theistic religions). Which is wrong.
2. that atheism, as the position of having no beliefs in the existence of gods, needs theism to exist at all.
Then you replied,
Quote:You see, the 'fact' that that atheism is found all over the world, only makes sense if one assumes that religion is found all over the world i.e a cultural universal. Most (99.99999%) anthropologists agree that this is the case.
Which I also disagree with.
Seems you might be confusing the label 'atheist' or 'atheism' with the actual meaning of the terms. And so does John Grey.
If theistic religions disappeared tomorrow, atheists would still exist, in that people would not believe in the existence of gods, but the label would no longer be necessary.
Think about it this way, do you feel the need to label yourself a 'spherical earther'?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.