Zippy

Brian,

I disagree. It is fundamentalism and ignorance that is largely responsible for much of the items you mention, NOT religion.

But fundamentalism is the inevitable product of any religion. It is, if you like, PURE religion. It's about someone living their life with no moral constraints apart from those that the individual reads into his or her chosen religious texts. Religion is all about ditching our social conscience and tradiing it in for an inferior ancient one. And that is wrong, and it's dangerous - whether it infects someone to a small degree or a large degree, it's dangerous because it is changing the way people think in a negative, backward-thinking way.

Similarly, when some (but certainly not all) nontheists that are hostile to religion argue for their position, they commit the same flaw but, the reverse of it. They will usually mention only the harmful consequences of religion throughout history and IGNORE the beneficial aspects of it.

To my mind there is no justification for the above statement, if only because the beneficial aspects of it are non existent. Is there research to show that atheists are more prone to depression or general unhappiness than Christians? That they are less hopeful? I don't think so. I think the psychological benefits are invented.

Perhaps religion has social benefits, but these are not benefits of the religion per se. They are just the usual benefits of having a community in which to belong.

It may be the case that you have personally made up your mind permanently that all religions are false and you will never change from that position, but for some of us atheism is more of a tentative position, and we are open to changing our beliefs should the evidence warrant it.

I find that very insulting.

I don't think that any thinking atheist would ever claim that there was no god and that nothing could force them to change their view. I could easily change my view, all I require is some reliable evidence.

I would suggest that you read the thread that I linked to at the top of this page. Bill offers several ways in which religion (even if false) is still beneficial to society.

I'll give it a look, but I don't hold out much hope. I've seen what religion does to people, and nothing can justify it.

Paul

Zippy

Wildernesse,

Even if I am having a delusion, that doesn't mean that I was deluded. Who deluded me? Who deluded them? Can you prove it was intentional trickery?

A delusion is not necessarily inflicted upon you as a means of trickery. It's a delusion that is passed through the generations. You seem to slightly misunderstand the usage of the word in this context.

I think that to delude someone you are intentionally telling them something that you know to be false.

Correct, but nobody is deluding you, they are simply sharing their delusion with you.

But I also don't think that my beliefs are false. Your saying so isn't proof.

No, but our examination of the facts provides pretty compelling evidence.

That's all I have to say about the word deluded. I will try not to continue talking about this particular topic, because it's not very constructive and I feel I can spend my time better than discussing the meanings/connotations of the word "deluded".

But you started it!

Paul

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Zippy ]</p>

Zippy

I didn't mean it in that sense. I meant that the intentional spreading of ignorance.

Paul

Buffman

Brian63

As I said before, based upon the evidence/arguments that I have seen thus far, the case that religion is inherently harmful is a weak one in my (admittedly humble and perhaps naive) opinion. If new evidence comes to light, I will of course modify my view.

Physical slavery is inherently harmless if you have a benevolent master, isn't it? Now ask yourself if mental slavery is inherently harmless if you have a benevolent God in which to believe. Now try and provide yourself with a list of truly benevolent Gods. What would a truly benevolent God do for his/her/its worshipers? Remove the fear of death and the unknown by promising eternal life to the "true believer?" And how does one attain the status of "true believer?" Follow the divinely inspired writings in the OT? The NT? The Koran? The Upanishads? Exactly how does one pass the "true believer" entrance exam? (Slam themselves into buildings? Carry crosses? Beat themselves about the head and shoulders until bloody? Go on the "Hadj?") Religious faith belief is the mechanism by which the unknowing and animalistic masses are brought under some control. Is that a "good" thing? It used to be when religion served a superstitious and easily frightened society. However, organized religion now demands that society serve it. And who determines the goals of organized religion? MEN! Those same men that are merely evolutionary, omnivorous, primates with a genetic drive for survival and fear of the unknown...among all the other genetic drives.

Believing in an afterlife allows them to cope with death much easier, for an obvious example. However, their belief in an afterlife really doesn't affect their views in other ways, such as trashing the things in "this world." Their views are fairly similar to wildernesse's as outlined in another thread-New Worries. Their religious views compel them to care for other people and the planet that we live on, which is great!

The acceptance of personal responsibility is the key to exposing this thought for the half-truth that I believe that it is. Why should coping with death be the primary justification for a belief in the supernatural? That is the blind faith pitch of the "Eternal Life Insurance" salesperson. (Just tithe 10% and believe. That's all it takes!) Humankind has been around for far longer than 6,000 years. Religious faith beliefs aren't the only means that compel humans to care for other people and the planet we live on. Vested self-interests are the motivating factor. Groups hunt better, and provide more sustenance, than does the individual. A group can harvest a field better than an individual. The more slaves you have, the more you can plant, care for and harvest...to feed the most people. (Isn't that wonderful? Of course I will make sure that my family is fed first.) ---If some people cause the destruction of the ozone layer, or global warming, then they are causing deleterious effects for all of humanity...whether theist or atheist. However, if these destructive people have been conditioned to believe that there is a supernatural God governing the universe, and that all they have to do is pray to him/her/it in order to correct whatever is going wrong, then they have passed the responsibility for "their" actions on to that supernatural being. ("It must be God's will." God as the human scapegoat.)

Again, I do not see religion as a problem for society to fix, but it is fundamentalism that is unhealthy. I am a big fan of liberal religious beliefs, and Christianity in particular although I do not believe they are based on literal truth.

From whence does fundamentalism arise? ---Concerning the rest of your thought, "Does religious faith belief have sole ownership of the positive and productive philosophies of humankind (social interaction)? They work very hard on trying to sell that belief. "Our moral/ethical values are God given...therefore they must be the only right/true ones." IMO, God is man's creation and so are all the philosophies...the positive and negative ones. All come directly from the minds of MEN. Thomas Jefferson found some outstanding social philosophies in the teachings of the NT. He simple sifted the wheat from the chaff. The Christian miracles (supernatural stuff) were the chaff. However, even Jefferson believed in a supernatural God because he had no other explanation for the universe and life...especially human life. But we do...if we have the kind of education that allows us to apply a critical thinking process to every issue.

However, suppose that theism (Christian theism in particular, for instance) is actually true; then it changes the entire makeup of the debate. I really do not see (although I have not given it a whole lot of thought) how Christian theism can be argued to be overall harmful, if it is in fact true. Presumably, God has a plan for humanity that involves achieving some sort of "greatest good." Much of the debate on the issue of whether religion is overall harmful/beneficial rests on whether religion is in fact true or not, I believe.

I can only gather that you now accept the possibility of there being a supernatural world co-incident with the natural world. I have found, seen, know of nothing that would provide a basis for such a possibility. If you have some verifiable evidence, I would be only too happy to hear it and work with it.

Brian63

Well, this is becoming quite the interesting thread. I will have to bookmark it for future reference.

ManM
Tough question. I think I'll allow a fellow infidel poster to chime in. Here's what <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=57&t=000073&p=" target="_blank">Sauron had said</a> in a thread a while back, which stated it very well, I believe:

I generally agree with this, except I believe that there can be "atheist fundamentalists" as well. They adopt atheism with the same emotional intensity and irrationality as religious fundamentalists.

Brian

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Brian63 ]</p>

Brian63

Zippy



I do not agree with that. Only a few people I know in real life are fundamentalists, although a large portion are "mildly religious" or liberal theists, if you prefer. There are LOTS of people that are religious but not fundamentalists, including several at this message board.



I agree with this 100%, if you substitute fundamentalism for religion.


You are suggesting that no person has ever done anything "positive" in the name of their religion? I am having trouble reading into your statement what you are getting at.

Quote:

Is there research to show that atheists are more prone to depression or general unhappiness than Christians? That they are less hopeful? I don't think so. I think the psychological benefits are invented.

I believe such research results would be irrelevant to our discussion, even if they do exist. What I am suggesting is that *certain* people would probably be happier and more committed members of society as Christians than they would be as atheists, NOT that Christians on the whole are happier and more committed members of society than atheists on the whole.

Quote:

Perhaps religion has social benefits, but these are not benefits of the religion per se. They are just the usual benefits of having a community in which to belong.

I think religion may be capable of "bringing out" the best in some people, and the worst in others, when those qualities are already present but hidden. In other words, religion is often used either as an excuse to do horrendous things that people wanted to do anyway, or it can offer them a good reason to help people in certain ways that they wanted to anyway, but did not really have the drive to do it.

I really do not mean to offend. This thread is progressing very nicely without offenses being made. I tried to preface my statement by explicitly stating "It MAY be the case that..." rather than "It IS the case that..." because I really don't know you. There was no offense intended.

Anyway, there have been millions upon millions of atheists that have existed throughout time, and they are atheists for a variety of different reasons. Some of them are not "thinking atheists," and I will venture to guess that for at least some of those "non-thinking" atheists, my contention would be true. I only implied that my contention is true of some atheists, not necessarily "thinking atheists," and they are more closed-minded atheists, in my opinion.

Quote:

I would suggest that you read the thread that I linked to at the top of this page. Bill offers several ways in which religion (even if false) is still beneficial to society.

Brian

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Brian63 ]</p>

Brian63

Buffman
I do not see religion as a form of slavery, so the analogy doesn't quite work, I believe. People are not coerced into becoming religious (with exceptions, but I would not defend those instances).



That's a slightly demeaning take on it, but even if literally true, that is not such a disagreeable thing. Again, I would suggest reading <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000150&p=" target="_blank">this thread</a>, and particularly Bill's comments to understand why (James Still has some interesting points as well). They explain it much better than I can currently.



Agreed, definitely. But for some people, the secular reasons that could be offered would probably not sound as inspiring or motivating as the religious ones. For others of us, it would not matter.

Those are the more fundamentalist theists. Not all theists are like that, as evidenced by wildernesse herself- a theistic conservationist.

Quote:

Concerning the rest of your thought, "Does religious faith belief have sole ownership of the positive and productive philosophies of humankind (social interaction)?

Huh? I would never suggest that religious belief has "sole ownership" of positive philosophies of mankind. I'm merely arguing that it has contributed "some," in contrast to the arguments that religion provides NO social merit.

Quote:

I can only gather that you now accept the possibility of there being a supernatural world co-incident with the natural world. I have found, seen, know of nothing that would provide a basis for such a possibility. If you have some verifiable evidence, I would be only too happy to hear it and work with it.

Given that I am not omniscient, I cannot state with certainty that the supernatural realm does not exist, so of course it's a possibility from my perspective. The absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence. I'm extremely curious to hear how you have ruled out the possibility of a supernatural realm.

Brian

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Brian63 ]</p>

nyx

Wildernesse,

Let's see if I can communicate this.

It goes back to the cafeteria thing.

If Christians can select which parts of the OT and NT to take literally, how do the books provide guidance? It seems like an all or nothing thing to me. What's the point in using it at all?

What do you think?

Nyx

Starboy

Greetings Christians,

Just curious, how many of you have heard of the gospel of Thomas? I ask this question because, say what you will, the Bible is the basis of all Christian faith, yet it never ceases to amaze me how little Christians actually know about it. But what is most interesting about the bible is not what is in it, but what is not.

Starboy

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

wildernesse

nyx:

So if something is not literally true, there’s nothing to learn from it? Why read fiction? How does a fable teach a moral lesson? Not that I believe that the Bible is fables and fiction.

I don’t think that most people take the ENTIRE Bible as literal—such as Revelation and Song of Solomon. Are there really going to be locusts with human faces and lions’ teeth tormenting people at the end of the world? (Rev. 9:7-8)

And just because the tower of Babel is likely to be a ziggurat that ancient Hebrews saw, how does that invalidate the teachings of Jesus that tell me to love my neighbor and do good to those who curse me?

I don’t think that it’s all or nothing. I think that we should study as much as possible—learn more about the people, the language, the history—and as a believer, seek God’s guidance today for understanding—and think about our lives and our world. I don’t know everything that I should about the Bible, it’s likely that I believe things that are incorrect because I’m uninformed. When I learn and discover those things, I’ll change my mind.

Starboy, thank you for starting your own link about your post. I hope that people will respond to you there mostly, but I have heard of the Gospel of Thomas, although I haven’t read it.

--tiba