Religion is not evil

[Nicole Friedman]

Seriously? You feel there may be some truth in it because it's a really really old story?

I cannot explain a feeling. I never claimed that a feeling was evidence so take it for what it is.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Religion has influence beyond the doors of the church. I can't believe you seriously think the answer to unpleasant ideas is to let the people who believe them just get on with it unchallenged.

No but you're lumping together horrible atrocities with benign beliefs as many others on here are doing. If people are plotting suicide bombings, of course we should stop them. But how can you possibly compare that to a typical neighborhood church?

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Your personal experience may not a reliable guide to the decline of country or world-wide religious belief. Try googling for 'increase in secularism' and you'll find plenty of evidence that contradicts it.


It strikes me as wrong that if only one of those worldviews is correct, so many people believe deeply in something that is false.

But which one is correct? Atheism? None of the above? I think you're also missing a big point of religion in that it shapes your values and provides rich cultural traditions. Again, the thought of everyone believing the same thing just scares me more than the idea that some of those beliefs could be wrong.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Then why did you bring up only the one side? Do you think atheists are more apt to disrespect theists who've lost loved ones, than vice versa?

Honestly, the most well-known example of obvious disrespect at funerals that I can think of, comes from the Westboro Baptist Church, who usually target fellow Christians as well as other theists. Fortunately they're considered fringe nutjobs by most people, regardless of faith or lack thereof.

I only brought up one side because most people on this thread are attacking religion, so defending atheism has pretty much been covered already:}

 

[dlorde]

No but you're lumping together horrible atrocities with benign beliefs as many others on here are doing. If people are plotting suicide bombings, of course we should stop them. But how can you possibly compare that to a typical neighborhood church?

Fundamentalist terrorists are a small minority we all abhor, but there is an ugly middle ground that you've missed. Here in the UK, being an atheist is unremarkable. However, there are members of these forums living in parts of the USA who are discriminated against for their atheism, both socially and in the workplace, and sometimes violently. Others find it necessary to conceal their atheism to get equable treatment. This isn't so benign.

 

[dlorde]

But which one is correct? Atheism? None of the above?

As far as the point is concerned, it doesn't matter which - the point is that, to me, it is undesirable that so many have false beliefs, whereas you seem think it would be wrong (and scary) if it was otherwise - why?

No offense, but many of your responses seem to be based on emotion and 'gut feel' rather than reasoned argument. Many people here have found that emotion and intuition are unreliable guides to what is true about the world, which is why we argue strongly for critical thinking when examining our lives and motivations. There is a place for emotion and intuition, but it helps to be aware of their limitations. Richard Feynman said: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool".

 

[westprog]

Fundamentalist terrorists are a small minority we all abhor, but there is an ugly middle ground that you've missed. Here in the UK, being an atheist is unremarkable. However, there are members of these forums living in parts of the USA who are discriminated against for their atheism, both socially and in the workplace, and sometimes violently. Others find it necessary to conceal their atheism to get equable treatment. This isn't so benign.

Yes, and there are parts of the world where people have been jailed by atheists for having religious beliefs. There are people persecuted for religious beliefs by people who hold different religious beliefs. There are people who are atheists who are persecuted by other atheists for having the wrong kind of atheist beliefs. I doubt if the atheists in the USA have the worst of it.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Good OP, Arth. Despite my atheism, I am inclined to agree with most of your points.

The one thing I will add is this: my particular bone to pick with religion has more to do with the theme in religion of appealing to an all-powerful authority which one cannot question. When you base your entire worldview on such a principle - following along blindly without question - is it any wonder that terrible things can (and do) occur?

Like George Carlin once said: for many people religion is like lifts for your shoes - if it helps you stand a little taller and walk a little straighter, fine by me. Just don't try to nail your shoes to my feet

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Fundamentalist terrorists are a small minority we all abhor, but there is an ugly middle ground that you've missed. Here in the UK, being an atheist is unremarkable. However, there are members of these forums living in parts of the USA who are discriminated against for their atheism, both socially and in the workplace, and sometimes violently. Others find it necessary to conceal their atheism to get equable treatment. This isn't so benign.

I actually didn't know that; what do you think the reason is that there is so much ant-atheism in England? Obviously attacks on anyone is wrong and not benign. But for the record, by benign I mean exactly that- your typical neighborhood church/synagogue/mosque that is not spewing hate against anyone.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

As far as the point is concerned, it doesn't matter which - the point is that, to me, it is undesirable that so many have false beliefs, whereas you seem think it would be wrong (and scary) if it was otherwise - why?

No offense, but many of your responses seem to be based on emotion and 'gut feel' rather than reasoned argument. Many people here have found that emotion and intuition are unreliable guides to what is true about the world, which is why we argue strongly for critical thinking when examining our lives and motivations. There is a place for emotion and intuition, but it helps to be aware of their limitations. Richard Feynman said: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool".

I openly admit that many of my responses are based on emotion. I admit my biases. For years I tried to be as objective as possible to most things in life, religion included. I used to get into major arguments with my best friend because I always needed physical, tangible evidence for everything or I couldn't believe in it- he always counterpointed that there are things that you can just "know"- he never said in your gut but that's what he implied. Maybe it's due to the changes in my life but something's happened- I'm starting to realize that there is some truth to that statement. I know I love my husband more than life, but there is no actual tangible evidence to fully explain my feeling. I just know. That's certainly not scientific, but is there a scientific test that can "prove" how much I love him? I highly doubt it.

 

[Fascination]

You don't grok the water sharing ritual, bro?

Great reference!!

 

[Fascination]

I openly admit that many of my responses are based on emotion. I admit my biases. For years I tried to be as objective as possible to most things in life, religion included. I used to get into major arguments with my best friend because I always needed physical, tangible evidence for everything or I couldn't believe in it- he always counterpointed that there are things that you can just "know"- he never said in your gut but that's what he implied. Maybe it's due to the changes in my life but something's happened- I'm starting to realize that there is some truth to that statement. I know I love my husband more than life, but there is no actual tangible evidence to fully explain my feeling. I just know. That's certainly not scientific, but is there a scientific test that can "prove" how much I love him? I highly doubt it.

Here's a great webpage discussing how love is very different (and much easier to prove to yourself than God(s) ) than belief in God.

http://www.asktheatheists.com/quest...-that-says-you-cant-prove-love-either-but-it/
BTW, welcome to the forum! I am an Atheist but I think your posts are very thoughtful. Its great that you're searching for your own answers to life's big questions. Most people never even bother.

 

[Fascination]

Hmmm... My link isn't working. Try this link and click on the second webpage listed. That's the one.
http://www.google.com/search?q=athe...someone&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
Sorry, don't know why the first one didn't work.

 

[Ausmerican]

As for my rabbi's personal beliefs, he absolutely believes in interfaith marriage (he'd prefer Jews marry other Jews to keep our numbers up but he realizes that love trumps all) and accepts homosexuality.

That's great. I and a lot of other agnostics and atheists, as well as believers, share those personal beliefs. Tell me, does his religion share those beliefs too? Because we are talking about religions after all.

That's semantics; the lack of a belief is a belief that something is not there.

Really?
Is +1 the same thing as -1?
Lacking a belief in something is not in any way the same as having a belief in the lack of it. (Hint, some non-believers would actually like to believe in god, they just lack the ability to believe in the concept.

I actually didn't know that; what do you think the reason is that there is so much ant-atheism in England? Obviously attacks on anyone is wrong and not benign. But for the record, by benign I mean exactly that- your typical neighborhood church/synagogue/mosque that is not spewing hate against anyone.

Reread the post. He/she is talking about anti-atheism in the USA, not England.

 

[Fascination]

Okay, I tried my second link and it too is not working! Can someone tell me if it's working when you click on it?
Anyway, the page will come up as the second search result if you type "Atheism but you can't prove you love someone" into google. I think these people articulate it better than I would.

 

[Fascination]

Actually its "Atheism but can you prove you love someone". I guess I'm having a bad night, lol. Just type that into google. Second search result was my first link

 

[FattyCatty]

Archeological and historical evidence point toward that the exodus is a mythical event that never took place in history. What do you make of that?

That your post didn't address the post you quoted.

If someone came up to me and told me that a dead loved one was in heaven, that person also would not know what exists after death, for the same reason. That person would also be trying to take away the comfort I feel in accepting death immediately, rather than going into denial where I'd need to drag out the stages of grief.

Unfortunately, many theists think that because atheism wouldn't provide comfort and closure to them, then the way I as an atheist deal with grief must be irrelevant and worthy of no respect.

Do you think theists usually avoid telling an atheist that his recently-deceased loved one is in heaven?

Do you think I would be justified in punching a theist in the face, if they did tell me that?

Or are only theists allowed to silence others with violence, when they feel like it?

No one needs to resort to violence when, as this thread subforum shows, mean words will work just as well. In the case of a death, respecting whatever beliefs the grieving person has would be the compassionate, polite, and generous thing to do, regardless of your own beliefs. Would you accord a religious person the same respect you demand for your belief?

Dear, dear, dear. Perhaps now is a good time to review the rules about holes.

Pray tell, what are the rules about holes? I'm curious.

The world is full of crazy people who just refuse to SEE THINGS THE RIGHT WAY. They must be BRAINWASHED. HAVE TO BE.

If they would only agree with me.

No, atheism is not a religion. That doesn't seem to stop some people from treating it like one, though.

I agree that atheism is not a religion. It is a belief, though. I also agree that some people treat it like a religion (and a fundamentalist one at that); I call them Avid Atheists^TM.

Your personal experience may not a reliable guide to the decline of country or world-wide religious belief. Try googling for 'increase in secularism' and you'll find plenty of evidence that contradicts it.


It strikes me as wrong that if only one of those worldviews is correct, so many people believe deeply in something that is false.

It is only your opinion that something is false.

Actually its "Atheism but can you prove you love someone". I guess I'm having a bad night, lol. Just type that into google. Second search result was my first link

I looked at the link and don't think I agree with their argument. God doesn't exist in the way a dog or sunlight exists; God just is. They mention truth. Can you prove truth? Does truth exist?

 

[arthwollipot]

A huge number of posts can happen in 24 hours, and I'm sorry that I won't be able to address all of them. There have been some really good posts on both sides of the discussion. Some really pointless ones on both sides too. Some that have made me wonder why the poster has continued to participate in this thread at all.

I'd like to address this: Someone asked me if I felt that the good of religion outweighs the evil. My answer is that I don't know. Some days I think it does - other days I think it doesn't. As I said yesterday, I don't believe such a comparison is quantifiable. Metaphors seem to be popular right now, so I'll offer this one:

We can all agree that the bathwater is putrid. But can't we recognise that there's still a baby in it? Let's rescue the baby and clean it up so that we can put it in some clean water. Yes, I think that religion can be reformed and changed to get rid of the bad parts. The change will inevitably be slow - most likely over a number of generations. And once this happens, I believe that religion itself will probably atrophy and become redundant - again over several generations. I can imagine a future where the good that religion provides becomes redundant and is completely replaced with secular motivations. But we're not living in the future, we're living now, and religion isn't going away any time soon.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for remaining civil and polite in this thread. When I posted it I felt that there was a real risk of heated arguments and multiple reports and splits to AAH. I'm happy that such a contentious subject (on this forum, at least) can be discussed with such politeness and good humour.

Like George Carlin once said: for many people religion is like lifts for your shoes - if it helps you stand a little taller and walk a little straighter, fine by me. Just don't try to nail your shoes to my feet

Another one that's making the rounds at the moment is this: Religion is like a penis. It's all very fine to have one, and even to be proud of it. But please don't whip it out in public and wave it about, and don't shove it down my children's throats.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

No but you're lumping together horrible atrocities with benign beliefs as many others on here are doing. If people are plotting suicide bombings, of course we should stop them. But how can you possibly compare that to a typical neighborhood church?

We are talking about religions here, not individual churches or believers, right? So it's kind of religions that do the whole, lumping together horrible atrocities with benign beliefs, not me.

Would you appreciate an examination of Nazi Germany that looked at the economic and technological achievements of Nazi Germany separate from the whole Holocaust and World War II elements and tried to hand-wave those away by saying 'you can't lump together atrocities with benign beliefs, some Nazis were nice people'?

And you didn't address my earlier point? Why haven't these nice, fluffy, valuable religions eliminated the nasty elements of their dogma in the past centuries?

Why does the Catholic Church continue it's stance against contraception when we know the issues it causes? If God is an unknowable force for good in the universe, then the Catholic Church just made up this requirement, right? They can just as easily decide it's no longer the case.

Why do many Christian churches continue their stance against homosexuality, same sex marriage, when we know the issues it causes? If God is an unknowable force for good in the universe, then they just made up this requirement, right? They can just as easily decide it's no longer the case

Why does Judaism encourage parents to cut off a bit of their sons anatomy in order to be part of the club?If God is an unknowable force for good in the universe, then they just made up this requirement, right? They can just as easily decide it's no longer the case.

And if the good outnumber the bad in religion why don't they rise up and sort these things out? Why aren't all the religious charities doing good work in Africa, uniting to spread the word that God doesn't mind if you wear a condom and that the Catholic Church are nasty ****s for perpetuating this nonsense?

But which one is correct? Atheism? None of the above? I think you're also missing a big point of religion in that it shapes your values and provides rich cultural traditions. Again, the thought of everyone believing the same thing just scares me more than the idea that some of those beliefs could be wrong.

Why does the thought of everyone understanding reality frighten you? Do you find it frightening that people all believe the same thing about gravity? After all, whatever the answer is, there can only be one correct one. You are basically arguing that you hope some people continue to be wrong about something as important as this?

I openly admit that many of my responses are based on emotion. I admit my biases. For years I tried to be as objective as possible to most things in life, religion included. I used to get into major arguments with my best friend because I always needed physical, tangible evidence for everything or I couldn't believe in it- he always counterpointed that there are things that you can just "know"- he never said in your gut but that's what he implied. Maybe it's due to the changes in my life but something's happened- I'm starting to realize that there is some truth to that statement. I know I love my husband more than life, but there is no actual tangible evidence to fully explain my feeling. I just know. That's certainly not scientific, but is there a scientific test that can "prove" how much I love him? I highly doubt it.

Oh, I could think of a test that would demonstrate whether you truly value your husband more than your own life, though I doubt that anyone would let me run it, but anyway...

..surely you accept that 'just knowing' is not an argument for anything? It could be used as a justification for absolutely anything at all. It's also demonstrably an unreliable way to assess anything. I'm sure plenty people 'just knew' they loved their spouses and would do so forever and then got divorced not too long after.

This is an argument for not thinking and it's the kind of nonsense that religion peddles that doesn't help anyone.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

We can all agree that the bathwater is putrid. But can't we recognise that there's still a baby in it? Let's rescue the baby and clean it up so that we can put it in some clean water. Yes, I think that religion can be reformed and changed to get rid of the bad parts.

And yet, centuries and centuries of history have passed since these religions were invented and they still cling to their putrid bathwater for dear life because they simply don't want to give it up.

If religions are going to be reformed then it seems its not going to come from the religious doing so through choice.