A case for religion, and against AA.

[disappoint]

No not alcoholics anonymous, angry atheism.

So some atheists believe religion is harmful.

Harmful enough to necessitate stopping at almost nothing to squash it.

They feel that religion is just a bunch of lies, and lying to children is tantamount to child abuse.

I'm not for lying to children, but I want to make the case for religion not being this evil monster, destroyer of lives.

Why do I want to make this case? Because, maybe, just maybe if both sides see eye to eye better they will reduce their tendency to bicker which I believe can be a detriment to both sides learning from each other. And everyone else learning as well since threads will be shorter and less negatively emotionally charged making it easier for people to find nuggets of truth, reality, information and knowledge. It will also make it less likely people will leave that want to see less bickering. Ok enough on why and more how.

Suppose atheists are right and there is no good reason to believe in God. Suppose the God of religion is just a fake, is just fantasy and not real because humans don't have enough information to describe God correctly.

So suppose the God of religions, all of them, is fiction.

What harm is there believing in fiction for a spell?

You ever read a fictional book, watch a fictional movie and temporarily suspend all disbelief to enjoy it? If so how did it harm you?

Even if you believed that fictional story all your life is it that harmful?

Suppose a schizophrenic believes that a tree told him that there is a pink unicorn orbiting Proxima Centauri? So what?

As long as he doesn't try to harm anyone including himself, what's the harm in him believing nonsense?

Sure we shouldn't lie to children and tell them some religion is 100% right, because none really can be without 100% of the information in the universe.

Have a little faith that these children will figure that out for themselves sooner or later if they just become educated enough. After all they could just read this thread and believe it. But I wouldn't want them to believe it merely because I told them to.():hmm:

Now your turn, discuss! Agree or disagree. I'd like it if you agree, it makes me feel good, makes me feel that I'm on the right track. I'd like it if you disagree, makes me feel good, makes me feel like I was on the wrong track and that I get to learn something. For all tracks lead to their destination. All aboard!:whiste:

P.S. Angry atheism is actually even more harmful than polite religion. Even if you're a militant atheist you should see how. But then again, most people don't see reality for what it is, even if they think they do.

 

[Ancalagon44]

For one, since both sides form part of the argument, you cant just tell atheists to be nice. The reality is that BOTH sides need to agree to be nice.

In any case, fiction or not, people judge, kill and main for their gods. They discriminate against people who are different in gender, race, sexual orientation, and religion. That creates more hate in this world, not less. Are you okay with your child hating others?

If religion did not harm others, sure, believe what you want. But its not atheism that causes discrimination against gay people. Its not atheism that threatens the death sentence for apostasy. Its not atheism that carries out terrorist attacks.

 

[disappoint]

For one, since both sides form part of the argument, you cant just tell atheists to be nice. The reality is that BOTH sides need to agree to be nice.

In any case, fiction or not, people judge, kill and main for their gods. They discriminate against people who are different in gender, race, sexual orientation, and religion. That creates more hate in this world, not less.

I Agree.

Are you okay with your child hating others?

I've got some bad news for you. Children will hate whether you tell them to or not to. That is because they lack the knowledge to know any better. Those children could be any age humanly possible.

If religion did not harm others, sure, believe what you want. But its not atheism that causes discrimination against gay people. Its not atheism that threatens the death sentence for apostasy. Its not atheism that carries out terrorist attacks.

Atheism doesn't discriminate against gay people? What if those gay people are religious?

Maybe your version of atheism doesn't discriminate against anyone, but you're not making the mistake of thinking all atheists are just like you are you?

Suppose there were a schizophrenic atheist who for some reason that makes no sense to us decides he should harm theists? Is atheism at fault or the illness that particular human suffers from?

Suppose now that theists that are 100% sure there is a God suffer from an illness that makes them believe that they are 100% sure. It might be an illness that makes their brain feel better if it deludes itself into believing it knows more than it does. Because not knowing is more painful than knowing. Even if that knowledge is incorrect because how would anyone know it is?

While we're on this fast track to somewhere on the train called supposition we could also suppose that the reason it hurts to realize you don't know something is that we want to know everything. Suppose we want to know everything because our reason for being here is to become God. All knowing.

Such a thing doesn't exist because if it did there would be no human suffering, which we all know does exist.

It wouldn't make sense for an omniscient being to exist at the same time as human suffering. If so then what is such a being waiting for to end human suffering? He would know how including how to defeat any malevolent being. He would also know how to end the mystery for humanity, hence it doesn't make sense to say he works in mysterious ways, just that those ways are mysterious to humans now.

The answer then becomes a question of?

Spoiler

Time.

Good day!

 

[Mursilis]

For one, since both sides form part of the argument, you cant just tell atheists to be nice. The reality is that BOTH sides need to agree to be nice.

In any case, fiction or not, people judge, kill and main for their gods. They discriminate against people who are different in gender, race, sexual orientation, and religion. That creates more hate in this world, not less. Are you okay with your child hating others?

If religion did not harm others, sure, believe what you want. But its not atheism that causes discrimination against gay people. Its not atheism that threatens the death sentence for apostasy. Its not atheism that carries out terrorist attacks.

People commit crimes for all sorts of reasons - it's merely human nature. Do you honestly think this will change if the majority were atheistic?

 

[Harabec]

Atheism doesn't discriminate against gay people? What if those gay people are religious?

That is an absurd question. Did you honestly just ask that?

Maybe your version of atheism doesn't discriminate against anyone, but you're not making the mistake of thinking all atheists are just like you are you?

You're making the mistake of thinking about atheism in terms of a religion, which it is not. It is simply a lack of belief in Spaghetti Monsters and fairies.
People are different and will hate\fear\love\discriminate\support based on their ideals, which are not copies of each other.
Again, stop thinking of atheism in terms of an organized religion..."them".

 

[Ancalagon44]

I'll leave you with this quote which sums it up perfectly:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

@Harabec

Usually I think debate between theists and atheists is impossible because we can't agree on several important facts, such as atheism not being a religion and not needing god or gods to be good.

 

[Mursilis]

Quotes aren't facts, and that quote makes no sense. If good people do good things and evil people do evil things (first part of the quote), how can good people also do evil things? Aren't they then evil people (because they're doing evil things)?

 

[Ancalagon44]

Religion makes good people think they are doing good things, when they are in fact doing bad things.

Discrimination is a prime example. Suicide bombing is another.

 

[Mursilis]

What harm is there believing in fiction for a spell?

You ever read a fictional book, watch a fictional movie and temporarily suspend all disbelief to enjoy it? If so how did it harm you?

Even if you believed that fictional story all your life is it that harmful?

Suppose a schizophrenic believes that a tree told him that there is a pink unicorn orbiting Proxima Centauri? So what?

As long as he doesn't try to harm anyone including himself, what's the harm in him believing nonsense?

There's a huge difference between suspending disbelief knowingly, and being misled. I wouldn't want to be a part of perpetrating a fraud, personally.

 

[Mursilis]

Religion makes good people think they are doing good things, when they are in fact doing bad things.

Discrimination is a prime example. Suicide bombing is another.

A few questions then:

If religion causes people to discriminate, how can this quote (copied from the Wikipedia entry on Abolitionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#United_States) be true:

Later, in the 17th century, English Quakers and evangelical religious groups condemned slavery (by then applied mostly to Africans) as un-Christian.

Who decides what are "bad things"? Do atheists never do "bad things"? If they do, how?

Regarding suicide bombings, approximately 70% of Americans self-identify as Christians. Why aren't suicide bombings more common in the US then, if religion causes them? What religion were Japanese kamikaze pilots?

 

[Ancalagon44]

Okay, you are right, religion does not cause people to discriminate.

Let everybody know that gay marriage is okay because the religious right are not discriminating anymore. Please tell all of the Conservatives that according to you, they are fine with gay marriage.

Because suicide bombing is not part of the Christian religion? Heck I would have thought that was obvious.

 

[Mursilis]

Okay, you are right, religion does not cause people to discriminate.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Let everybody know that gay marriage is okay because the religious right are not discriminating anymore. Please tell all of the Conservatives that according to you, they are fine with gay marriage.

So who is it that is discriminating, exactly - conservatives or the religious right? You seem to be using those terms interchangeably, although not all political conservatives are religious, and not all religious people are politically conservative.

Because suicide bombing is not part of the Christian religion? Heck I would have thought that was obvious.

I thought it was obvious as well, but it's still the example you used above.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Religion makes good people think they are doing good things, when they are in fact doing bad things.

That is such a moronic statement....
Even if there was no such thing as religion there would still be good and bad in this world....duh....

 

[sandorski]

A few questions then:

If religion causes people to discriminate, how can this quote (copied from the Wikipedia entry on Abolitionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#United_States) be true:

Later, in the 17th century, English Quakers and evangelical religious groups condemned slavery (by then applied mostly to Africans) as un-Christian.

Who decides what are "bad things"? Do atheists never do "bad things"? If they do, how?

Regarding suicide bombings, approximately 70% of Americans self-identify as Christians. Why aren't suicide bombings more common in the US then, if religion causes them? What religion were Japanese kamikaze pilots?

Good for them. However, other Christians, especially Slave Owners, were using their Religion to justify Slavery. That's because the Bible itself endorses Slavery.

 

[sandorski]

That is such a moronic statement....
Even if there was no such thing as religion there would still be good and bad in this world....duh....

That quote covers that and doesn't deny it.

 

[disappoint]

That is an absurd question. Did you honestly just ask that?

Did you honestly take it out of context or did you dishonestly take it out of context? Of course it's an absurd question, the rhetorical kinds usually are. They are absurd to make a point.

You're making the mistake of thinking about atheism in terms of a religion, which it is not. It is simply a lack of belief in Spaghetti Monsters and fairies.
People are different and will hate\fear\love\discriminate\support based on their ideals, which are not copies of each other.
Again, stop thinking of atheism in terms of an organized religion..."them".

I don't think atheism is a religion. You "supposed" a little too far into things I didn't say. I didn't say them because I didn't think that way. I alluded to your example of Spaghetti Monsters with an orbiting tea pot of sorts when I wrote:

"Suppose a schizophrenic believes that a tree told him that there is a pink unicorn orbiting Proxima Centauri?"

The whole point, which you either missed or decided for one reason or another to avoid discussing, is that there is no harm in believing things that aren't so as long as no one is harmed.

 

[disappoint]

There's a huge difference between suspending disbelief knowingly, and being misled. I wouldn't want to be a part of perpetrating a fraud, personally.

True, there is a huge difference between suspending disbelief knowingly, and being misled. The difference is that for one, suspending disbelief, you are perpetrating it on yourself. For the other, being misled, you are perpetrating it on yourself. Who is in control of your own thoughts if not you?

 

[Mursilis]

Good for them. However, other Christians, especially Slave Owners, were using their Religion to justify Slavery. That's because the Bible itself endorses Slavery.

And yet, you concede that other Christians (presumably also inspired by the same Bible) were anti-slavery. So ultimately what we have here is some people (slave holders) picking and choosing theological bits and pieces to justify a controversial practice, and other people (abolitionists) picking and choosing theological bits and pieces from the same source (the Bible) to oppose that practice. So how exactly does the Bible endorse slavery?

Your signature is interesting: Science inspires us towards a better tomorrow. It suggests science is not value-neutral (which I think it is). Science, we can all agree, is generally pretty great. Just looking at the field of medicine alone, science has saved countless lives, and technology has made those lives less burdensome and more enjoyable (unless you're a Luddite). But has it always made things better?

Wars are more lethal now, for one. If you wanted to raze a whole city and kill everyone in it, you used to have to do that sort of work by hand (or sword), but now, all it takes is one person pushing a button from 1000+ miles away. Is that better? Agricultural science has eliminated starvation as a serious threat to human health, but replaced it with obesity, a new health threat. Food is so cheap and plentiful, we're approaching a majority of Americans having current or future weight-related health issues. Science has also led to climate change, which most scientists say isn't good.

Science inspires nothing but the quest for knowledge. It tells us little about to what ends to use that knowledge.

 

[Mursilis]

True, there is a huge difference between suspending disbelief knowingly, and being misled. The difference is that for one, suspending disbelief, you are perpetrating it on yourself. For the other, being misled, you are perpetrating it on yourself. Who is in control of your own thoughts if not you?

If you're "being misled", someone else is perpetrating a fraud upon you, which is not the same as willingly suspending disbelief. It's the difference between emptying out your 401K yourself and attempting to double your money at the casino, and your broker, after you told her to put it in bonds, emptying out your 401K to "invest" it at the casino instead.

 

[sandorski]

And yet, you concede that other Christians (presumably also inspired by the same Bible) were anti-slavery. So ultimately what we have here is some people (slave holders) picking and choosing theological bits and pieces to justify a controversial practice, and other people (abolitionists) picking and choosing theological bits and pieces from the same source (the Bible) to oppose that practice. So how exactly does the Bible endorse slavery?

Your signature is interesting: Science inspires us towards a better tomorrow. It suggests science is not value-neutral (which I think it is). Science, we can all agree, is generally pretty great. Just looking at the field of medicine alone, science has saved countless lives, and technology has made those lives less burdensome and more enjoyable (unless you're a Luddite). But has it always made things better?

Wars are more lethal now, for one. If you wanted to raze a whole city and kill everyone in it, you used to have to do that sort of work by hand (or sword), but now, all it takes is one person pushing a button from 1000+ miles away. Is that better? Agricultural science has eliminated starvation as a serious threat to human health, but replaced it with obesity, a new health threat. Food is so cheap and plentiful, we're approaching a majority of Americans having current or future weight-related health issues. Science has also led to climate change, which most scientists say isn't good.

Science inspires nothing but the quest for knowledge. It tells us little about to what ends to use that knowledge.

Just read what the Bible says about Slavery.

Science has improved our lives more than anything else in History. That some parts of its' discoveries have been used to kill others is unfortunate, but not the fault of Science.

 

[Retro Rob]

Just read what the Bible says about Slavery.

Science has improved our lives more than anything else in History. That some parts of its' discoveries have been used to kill others is unfortunate, but not the fault of Science.

How is this logically consistent? People kill in the name of religion, its the fault of religion, people use science to kill, its not the fault of science?

And he's right, without science, I wouldn't be able to kill an entire country full of people at the push of a button, yet in the days of religion, the best I could do is run someone through with a sword...and I had to be pretty close and put myself at risk to do that.

No one's criticizing science for the wonders its done, but you're ignoring a human problem you have...and its all to easy to point the finger at religion when I can also point the finger at advances in science and technology which have given religious fanatics more sophisticated means to kill more people with relative ease.

Time for you to start being intellecually honest, Sandorski, because you've spent way to much time avoiding it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

How is this logically consistent? People kill in the name of religion, its the fault of religion, people use science to kill, its not the fault of science?

Science is descriptive. Religion is prescriptive. You need to learn the difference.

 

[Ancalagon44]

How is this logically consistent? People kill in the name of religion, its the fault of religion, people use science to kill, its not the fault of science?

And he's right, without science, I wouldn't be able to kill an entire country full of people at the push of a button, yet in the days of religion, the best I could do is run someone through with a sword...and I had to be pretty close and put myself at risk to do that.

No one's criticizing science for the wonders its done, but you're ignoring a human problem you have...and its all to easy to point the finger at religion when I can also point the finger at advances in science and technology which have given religious fanatics more sophisticated means to kill more people with relative ease.

Time for you to start being intellecually honest, Sandorski, because you've spent way to much time avoiding it.

Science will give you the means to do so, but religion will give you the reason to do.

 

[Retro Rob]

Science is descriptive. Religion is prescriptive. You need to learn the difference.

Well, you have religions which are non-political, and don't go to war, and simply don't physically harm people.

So I can say religion is a promoter of peace, right?

 

[Retro Rob]

Science will give you the means to do so, but religion will give you the reason to do.

Agreed.