Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radorth · 03-06-2003, 10:15 PM

Quote:

And part of that is exclusivity. Jesus taught that (paraphrasing) "he who is not with me is against me." And believers are commissioned to actively evangelize and convert non-believers. This is the problem. Orthodox Christian doctrine (and Islam, too) does not have a laissez-faire attitude towards non-Christians. Taking Jesus's words literally, non believers would be looked upon as antagonistic and must be converted. Combine this with organization and power, and you have a potentially dangerous brew which is likely to promote or maintain tribalist inclinations. And I would agree that if any atheistic belief could attain a similar degree of organization, and had a similar adversarial attitude towards other religions, then it too would be worrisome. But the non-doctrinaire and unorganized nature of atheism, I think, makes this highly unlikley.

I agree to a point. But there is plenty of evidence in history and on this site that atheism has not bred any more tolerance than Christianity. Maybe Christians have not seen fit to "live and let live" but I'm asking you to show me how atheists have done any better. Some do, some don't I suppose. People who have no religion have been incredibly intolerant and exclusive in their actions over time, and even more so in the last century when some finally had the power to oppress people they disagreed with.

You are also failing to note, I think, that some "religious" people actually have more restraints which prevent them from killing off the competition- restraints an atheist has put off because they are "supersticious." We have a little historic conundrum here. The "enlightenment" and the widespread publication of the NT just happen to coincide. I think Christians decided they were being used and lied to, and for the first time saw the heart and example of Jesus.

I still assert we get to be sarcastic and break table legs and if we go much further, we will suffer judgement, and not only in the next world. Guess what? You would never believe it but we do. Some of us will go no further under any circumstances, and some of us are learning to. So there are checks and limits on how "exclusive" a Christian can be which the atheist could not have.

It's not about atheists and Christians. It's about the human condition, and the human heart, which no philosophy will ever change, and certainly no lack of one.

Rad

Sabine Grant · 03-07-2003, 05:30 AM

To a disabled individual who can not walk without any assistance, a crutch is an improvement to his condition. I have wondered why faith has to be demeaned if it effectively improves an individual's condition. Some may deny that faith has no effectiveness in transforming a person's character and giving him or her the means to respond to circumstances with more strength.
I consider faith to be enabling rather than disabling.
The number of believers who have come out of addictive or self destructive lifestyles is a testimony that faith can be effective.

JerryM · 03-07-2003, 09:40 AM

I really don't disagree with any of the above posts. I have no doubt that personal religious faith is a source of strength and comfort for many people. My issue is with organized religion, which I believe has an unfortunate tendency to bring out or aggravate some of the negative aspects of human nature. People should be free to observe whatever belief or life philosophy brings them peace of mind, and should just be left alone. Theist or non-theist alike should not impose themselves on others. I wonder why this is so difficult to achieve.

Starboy · 03-07-2003, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JerryM
I really don't disagree with any of the above posts. I have no doubt that personal religious faith is a source of strength and comfort for many people. My issue is with organized religion, which I believe has an unfortunate tendency to bring out or aggravate some of the negative aspects of human nature. People should be free to observe whatever belief or life philosophy brings them peace of mind, and should just be left alone. Theist or non-theist alike should not impose themselves on others. I wonder why this is so difficult to achieve.

Spot on JerryM! The unfortunate part is that we must be constantly reminding Christians of the democratic principles this country was founded on. It doesn't surprise me since at heart most Christians are monarchists and just don't get democracy.

Starboy

TomboyMom · 03-07-2003, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PopeInTheWoods
No, I think many religions started as ways to explain why the world is how it is. The control thing probably didn't start for a week or two after that.

Probably true, except for mormonism which, like some other cults, was a cynical con from the get go.

Rene

Sabine Grant · 03-07-2003, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JerryM
I really don't disagree with any of the above posts. I have no doubt that personal religious faith is a source of strength and comfort for many people. My issue is with organized religion, which I believe has an unfortunate tendency to bring out or aggravate some of the negative aspects of human nature. People should be free to observe whatever belief or life philosophy brings them peace of mind, and should just be left alone. Theist or non-theist alike should not impose themselves on others. I wonder why this is so difficult to achieve.

I agree with you. I have distanced myself from organized religion though I cultivate my faith. I look for what is productive if I am involved with a group which pertains to improve any social condition. IMO both theists and non theists do have common goals when it comes to improve social conditions among other human beings. I think it is achievable if both sides focus on what needs to be accomplished rather than what should be believed or what should not be believed. It is often in the midst of a tragedy which affects all kinds of people of various backgrounds that those differences disappear.

Gemma Therese · 03-07-2003, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sullster
I agree with the old saying which says: "Religion is the weak man's crutch". The addition of a person being weak is instructive. If one is "strong", then there will be no need for the crutch of religion. Yet, few are so strong as to face all of life's traumas without the solace of the fantasy world of religion and the creators of religion know this.

If you don't think Joan of Arc, Teresa of Avila or Catherine of Siena were strong women, then maybe you should reread your history.

Gemma Therese

Sabine Grant · 03-08-2003, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sullster
I agree with the old saying which says: "Religion is the weak man's crutch". The addition of a person being weak is instructive. If one is "strong", then there will be no need for the crutch of religion. Yet, few are so strong as to face all of life's traumas without the solace of the fantasy world of religion and the creators of religion know this.

Religion is very skillful at taking advantage of human fears and mental trauma. This is their genius. Accentuate the feeling of weakness and the crutch of religion can be grafted onto the mind.

In some sense religion does a good service at consoling many with its illusions, yet by promoting human frailty so much, they actually do humanity a disservice by not allowing people to create lives of mental strength and critical thinking.

Would you qualify Dr. Martin Luther King as a " weak man" ? His faith is what enabled him to fight for the rights of black people. He was inspired by his faith to conduct himself with strength and determination in his so justified and valuable to mankind battle.

As I wrote earlier, we need to focus on the accomplishments rather than be critical of what or whom the inspiration is to be. It is so important to value any improvement of the human condition. I think it is narrow minded to claim that only one way works for the betterment of mankind.
If my faith is what enables me to find solace in other human beings rather than be critical of them, I am quite content with that.

copernicus · 03-08-2003, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Would you qualify Dr. Martin Luther King as a " weak man" ? His faith is what enabled him to fight for the rights of black people. He was inspired by his faith to conduct himself with strength and determination in his so justified and valuable to mankind battle.

If one can claim that the courage of religious people derives from their religion, then it also makes sense to claim that the cruelty of religious people derives from their religion. Faith may provide an excuse for any form of behavior, even brutal acts of terrorism and torture. The best you can say about religious heros and villains is that they used their religion to rationalize or explain their motives sometimes. Atheists can find lame excuses for their behavior, too. They just don't get to blame it on an imaginary alpha male primate that dominates their human social structure.

Quote:

As I wrote earlier, we need to focus on the accomplishments rather than be critical of what or whom the inspiration is to be. It is so important to value any improvement of the human condition. I think it is narrow minded to claim that only one way works for the betterment of mankind. If my faith is what enables me to find solace in other human beings rather than be critical of them, I am quite content with that.

That sounds very reasonable. We all agree that the improvement of the human condition is good and desirable. It remains true, however, that you can find solace in other human beings without religious faith. You are juxtaposing two things that are not mutually dependent on each other--the motivation to do good things and belief in a supernatural being.

More importantly, your constant dependence on the supernatural to motivate and inspire does weaken the spirit in one way. If you spend your life depending on an imaginary being for protection, then you have to reconcile the behavior of that protective being with the bad things that happen to you. It is a constant struggle to make up excuses for what our gods do to us or allow to happen to us. At some point, the priest always has to shrug and admit that his god's motives are unfathomable. If religious faith works to provide you strength, it can also work to rob you of strength.

hinduwoman · 03-08-2003, 07:12 PM

Atheists can be as nasty as anyone else, but the difference is they cannot justify it in the name of God. On the other hand,
"for a good man to do evil, it takes religion' [sorry if I am misquoting].

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-07-2003, 05:30 AM	#32
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	To a disabled individual who can not walk without any assistance, a crutch is an improvement to his condition. I have wondered why faith has to be demeaned if it effectively improves an individual's condition. Some may deny that faith has no effectiveness in transforming a person's character and giving him or her the means to respond to circumstances with more strength. I consider faith to be enabling rather than disabling. The number of believers who have come out of addictive or self destructive lifestyles is a testimony that faith can be effective.

03-07-2003, 09:40 AM	#33
JerryM Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO. Posts: 1,100	I really don't disagree with any of the above posts. I have no doubt that personal religious faith is a source of strength and comfort for many people. My issue is with organized religion, which I believe has an unfortunate tendency to bring out or aggravate some of the negative aspects of human nature. People should be free to observe whatever belief or life philosophy brings them peace of mind, and should just be left alone. Theist or non-theist alike should not impose themselves on others. I wonder why this is so difficult to achieve.

03-08-2003, 07:12 PM	#40
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	Atheists can be as nasty as anyone else, but the difference is they cannot justify it in the name of God. On the other hand, "for a good man to do evil, it takes religion' [sorry if I am misquoting].

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.