Richard Back wrote:
> You say the judges to such claims would be religious people. Why?
I believe that one main purpose of atheism is to abolish religious beliefs
that are the source of so much of the trouble in the world.
> You don't think full atheism can ever be reached, because society only
> requires a certain number of scientists.. For the individual it should
> can. However I do not believe that the number of scientists employed by
> the population is a limiting factor to the number of atheists.
> You say that the secret is to make science more main-stream, but what do
> you mean by that?
In short, an atheist must be aware of biology (evolution), physics and the
like in order to avoid terms like 'miracle', 'ghost', 'karma' and 'jinx'.
> Science is science, its not mainstream. There are
> already ways of representing science for a mainstream audience, so what
> would you like to see?
You are right. But let me clarify myself. Science is still not acknowledge
and recognised by the entire population. Many people in the world wouldn't
even trust a computer (and I mean _world_, not westernised world).
Roy
|