What exaclty is so bad about other people believing in God?
Offline I don't know if many of you saw the why Christians are delusional video. But it made me think, has not religion also done some good things for humanity? Bring people together, provide some type of fundamental belief for the start of countless civilizations (prehistoric on up, Egyptian and Greek civilizations largely based on religion/mythology), gives us at aleast some days to look forward to like holidays, and also relieve the fear of death and the harsh realities of life?
Is it really all that bad for others to believe? I mean, I don't care what you believe in, but is it truly necessary to free humanity from a "disorder" when this disorder makes them happy and at peace within their own lives?
Also the video said that believing in Christianity/Islam/whatever provides some dangerous viewpoints. Yes, some of these viewpoints are terrifying for kids to believe, but science doesn't exaclty make a fool proof society. Findings in science educate us, but can also make society quite dangerous, for example the atom bomb or social darwinism that led to racism/classism. Without religion, people would just take up another bullshit excuse to kill or hate eachother (race anyone? also nationality, ethnic group, social class).
Do you believe relgion has been beneficial to the world at least in some ways?
- Login to post comments
All of these could be done without religion. There is not a single positive thing that religious people do, that we couldn't have done without religion.
I am not relieved by lying to myself, and I have a hard time grasping how others are. If you mean that their lies become so real that they literally believe them, I can't condone people self deluding themselves.
What's "that bad?"
I think it's horrible that people live a lie wasting the only life we know for sure that they get on superstition, but that's just me. Some people are good people and it doesn't affect them much it just brings them comfort. However those people are enablers for the fundamentalists. And so in that sense all belief based on faith can be dangerous, especially if one embraces faith as a means to gain knowledge about the world in their everyday life.
They can have peace without the disorder. To think they can't is an insult to human dignity.
Sure, and so have atheists and scientists. My point is religion was never needed for people to do good in the world. We could've accomplished all the good we've accomplished, without religion. Without religion holding back science we could've been much further along as a society as well.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
You're right that it wasn't really needed. But that doesn't change the fact that it still existed and did motivate people in some ways. yes, they could've been done without religion, but in some instances it wasn't.
Another thing I have to say about the lying to ourselves. I have this fear of death. With each day passing I come to think there will be nothing after death (to say that there is nothing to fear in death means nothing to me- we stop living and I will never see the people I love again frightens me to well, death). When I was younger and believed that I would enter into heaven, I found that my fear went away and I was able to live normally. If this works for people, if this rids them of their fear, then why not. All I know is my depression would be gone if I knew that I could be with the people I love forever.
I remember from one of my classes in highschool, my world history teacher posed the question, why would the European explorers/missionaries believe that it was necessary to civilize people when they had been living their ways of life for centuries, and were just fine. Why was only one way of life, one pattern of thinking okay? I kind of think the same way with religion. People have been believing in God/gods for centuries; their religions have shaped their culture (think Hinduism and India, Islam and the Mid East, tribal people and their religions, Europe and lal the cathedrals, legends, etc and Christianity). In some ways religion has worked, in some ways it has not. But the same could be said for most things in life.
Oh several states making laws saying that atheists can't hold a public office, the general crappyness of the US.
Yep, and I defy any Christian to show me any exclusionary language in the U.S. Constitution that says if you hold certain position, any position on the existance of a deity, you are forbiden to run for office? NOT THERE ASSHATS!
In fact the U.S. Constitution forbids religious tests to be applied for condition to hold office, 'No religious test".
The U.S. Constition only has age and citizenship requirements regarding office. THATS IT!
The jackass revisionists have attempted to take "Freedom of religion" to mean a right to a monopoly through fiat of goverment as to what it means to be an American and who should be allowed to hold office. This is not the doing of the Constution. This is the doing of fearmongers and theocrats.
If you are born in this country you have a right to run for the office of President, you only need be a certain age, and goes without saying having no criminal record would help as well.
We have always been a nation of people who either came from somewhere else or had ansestors from somewhere else. Those people come from every nation and every religion and every background. MOST people are law abiding people no matter what their religion is.
I dont just type these words for the benifit of atheists, but any person who is a United States Citizen who might want to run for public office. If it stands to reason that you have a neighbor you like of a different label of religion than you, and you find them to be moral and decent, why would you preclude them from consideration simply because they dont share the same religious label.
I want to see more diversity in government. Not as a politically correct goal. If you screw up in office you should pay like anyone else, all labels asside. I dont think a republican, democrate, Jew, Christian or Muslim congressperson should get a pass if they fuck up.
But Christians have unfortantly limited their political choices to polar oposites and ignoring the full spectrum of voices that might potentially provide better choices. It is way past time to break the two gang system. If someone is a citizen pays taxes and obeys the common law then it is our duty as citizens to give them the same consideration we would want ourselves.
But no politician should get a pass, simply because they are a minority be it woman, black, Jew or atheist. I think the people in Congress are too busy listing to the special intrests of the radical left and radical right Christians that they fail to listen to all the other colors in the spectrum that we call "E-Pluribus Unum".
So this is as much for Jews who might want to sit on the Supreme Court, or a Hindu who might want to run for Senate, or an atheist who might want to run for President. It might suprise people reading this that their are Republican atheists. I myself dont understand that, but that is their right according to the Constitution.
Quotas in goverment office is not what I am suggesting. I am merely saying that when you open your mind and listen to those outside your club, you might find that you have more in common with others than you think.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Let me add as well,
People who come here mistake and mix issues.
Saying "I want to see the end of religion" is not a demand for use of goverment force be it through violence or politics. Atheists should be practical and pragmatic enough, as well as theists to understand that force of goverment is NOT a good way to purswade your neighbor.
Atheists do want the issue of religion to be discussed and criticised. But that in no way means that we want to or shoud take the same tyranical tactics as Hitler and Stalin. A monster is a monster, be it the Churches of the dark ages to the theocracies in the Middle East to the worship of one man such as Kim Jong ill. All those things are harmfull to human nature. We all disire to be ourselves without fear of arrest or opression. I would never suggest any atheist use government as a tool to opress anyone.]
HAVING SAID THAT:
When atheists adress issues such as the word "God" or Ten Commandmenst posted on public property, we are not demanding your silence. We are merely saying that the government is ours and no one group has the right to monopolize what it means to be an American by fiat of clechi's plastered on goverment property.
It is about time place and context. You dont put your dishes in the bathtub and you dont put your cloths in the dishwasher. A courtroom is not a church, mosque or synogouge or godless. It is a building for the use of all citizens. Public schools are not churches, mosques or synogouges or godless. They are there to teach reading math and science. They should not be used as politically correct or religious battle grounds BY ANYONE. Unfortunatly minority religions and atheists have been forced to play that game because of right wing Christian revisionists who started a fight that no one should really want.
Everyone has pleanty of opertunity outside government institutions to express their views. Websites are seemingly limitless and cover every perspective under the sun. TV Radio Newspapers, Magizines, private stadiums with media coverage, 360,000 houses of worship not funded by government. Privately owned billboard on private property that can be seen as you drive down a public highway. Business marquees on private property that can be seen as you drive down a public road.
All this is mass media that is seen by the public but does not, for the most part rely on goverment for existance. Once the goverment starts playing favorites to anyone there will be someone else that will rightfully bitch. It is up to every citizen to take the issue of religion as "On your own time with your own dime" and remember that goverment is OURS.
If you have a spouse and both pay part of the mortgage on a house, how fair would it be to have only one in the pair making all the decisions in the house about how it is decorated and who can come in?
Make no mistake, atheists do want to see the end of religion, it is divisive and has always been used as a tool to keep religious and political people in power without question. This attitud of worship and loyalty has also been a tool by facists who would demand that you worship the state.
We are pragmatic, and so should the believer be, that no matter what each or the other may want, neither should seek political power to demand the silence of the other.
Our goal here is not to force people. But through the free market of ideas and free inquery and debate we hope to show you that you could have a brighter future if you gave up myth. We certainly cannot and should not use government force anyone to do such.
We cant state this enough. We know what it is like to be hated and demonized for having dissenting views. I think it would be a bad idea for an atheist to sit in any office and pass laws banning things that offend them.
OUR COMMON LAW, already exists that prohibits advocating violence or theft. But laws that play thought police are a bad idea, be they from Republicans or Democrats, Christian or atheist.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
In and of itself their believing in God isn't bad, but when it starts to effect my freedom it is. And besides, wouldn't you try to convince someone who believed 2 + 2 = 5 that they were mistaken?
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
The confusion here lies in saying that the good things that groups of religious people did had anything to do with the doctrines, beliefs, or faith of the religion.
Religion is a human activity; it is something that happens naturally in our history. Because it is natural, it includes the things that we do--the good things, bad things, etc. Thus, as religions evolve, they include the many attributes of those that define the doctrines of their religion, thus religion incorporates the things that humans do.
Take away the religious ideas, rituals, and beliefs and you'll notice that yiou are still left with humans who do good things, bad things, etc. The difference is that they no longer are motivated by the irrationality of religious claims (they still may have the irrational motivation of non-religious claims and ideas, like the oft mentioned dictators). Now they are just humans, and humans do all sorts of things both good and bad.
So, what's bad about believing in God? Well, nothing so long as said belief does not motivate bad actions. I'd simply say that what is so good about believing in god?
If it provides preferable delusions (like continued life after bodily death), then it only provides untruth. What's good about lies?
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
There are two types of sadness in death. 1 is the sadness that you wont see the person again. But when you counter that with the good times you had with that person combined with the memory of them living on in your mind, that can be postive and prevent depression.
The other sadness that creates fear and depression that is distructive is lacking the other atributes and dwelling on something no one can avoid. It is ok to be sad about someone's death, that is normal. The depression comes in when you attempt to avoid facing a natural event as natural.
People cope with death in different ways. But when you see it as a natural process in all forms of life and take away the superstitions of fear of hell or promis of cookies, it allows you to face it and deal with it and you are more likely to be able to mentally healthy when affected by it.
I do fear death, but not in a hell sense or superstition sense. All I know is living. But I dont fear the process and I wont be freaked out when the time comes. My fears would be more like, "did I do the right thing" "could I have done better" "will I be remembered". I fear more about not leaving behind something humanity can use to be more productive. Thats why I fear death.
You always hear that saying, "I cant die, I still have bills to pay"
Let me explain what my fear is by parody, "I cant die I still have alot to contribute". That is what I mean by fear. Not fear of a boogieman or hell, but fear that I could help improve humanity more.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Religious people have done some good things for humanity. Religion itself does nothing good for humanity. There is a distinction. You will not find anybody who needs the excuse of religion to justify doing something good (you can not say the same for doing something evil). No one gives to those in need because they believe in a god. People give to those in need because people are naturally altruistic. Religion has merely taken advantage of peoples nature and tried to take credit for the goods people do.
For someone to fly a plane into a building, to blow themself up, however, that is where religion is often necessary.
People are social animals. They will come together with or without religion.
You make a good point in that religion was probably useful at one point in history (prehistoric), though not a religion that is anything that we would call religion today. It was beneficial for man to ascribe certain natural phenomenon to godly intervention when he had no other way to understand them. That need has long passed. Once science entered the picture, religion became unnecessary.
We don't need religion for holidays. The fourth of July is not religious. Memorial day. Thanksgiving is not a religious holiday, persay. Many religious holidays have their beginnings in nature.
Yes, beacuse it is the kind of dangerous thinking that religion not only allows, but requires, that is the problem. No one is saying that 'religious people' are bad people, only that the 'religious' part of that phrase is completely unnecessary and easily abused. It requires people to believe in something blindly that is said to be the only authority of any importance in all of existence. When one is willing to put aside what they know as reality and do this they can be persuaded to do anything. It becomes a mere matter of finding a way to convince them it is their god's will.
It is not in the scope of science to make a fool proof society. Science has nothing to say on such matters. It is not a religion. It is up to people to make a fool proof society. Science is simply the most productive tool people can use to discover the natural world and find ways with which they can make work towards such a society.
Racism and classism existed well before Darwin did.
Science can make an atomic bomb, but science can't use an atomic bomb.
I would bet you won't find anyone here who is in favor of hating each other for any of those other reasons either. And at least with those other reasons there is no way to think that what you are doing is going to guarantee you eternity in paradise. That is one hell of a strong motivator (to anyone who doesn't actually consider what eternity is suppose to mean). It is unlike anything anyone can possibly be offered in the natural world.
So what if they did? So what if without religion people would just make up another bullshit excuse? That says nothing about religion. Can't they make up another bullshit excuse with religion? Do we need to allow people as many bullshit excuses as they can come up with? Wouldn't fewer bullshit excuses lead to a better society? I don't understand this line of reasoning.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Religion has been beneficial to man in some ways, in the same ways that loaves of bread blowing off the backs of trucks has been beneficial to birds: by accident.
I don't know about you, but I am commited to truth...or at least to avoiding falsehood as much as possible. I value the search for truth more than I value any given thing that I think is true.
Science is neutral. Religion is not. When we learn something by science, it may or may not be dangerous based on what we do with it. Religion, on the other hand, usually has problems with arbitrariness and fallacies, the worst of which is the sledghammer fallacy.
The sledgehammer fallacy is what I call any argument that goes "Agree with me or I'll beat the hell out of you."
It's true that getting rid of religion won't get rid of bullshit. But teaching people to think rationally would definitely lower the bullshit level. It would also tend to get rid of religion, which is usually just a type of bullshit.
please do provide an example of this, and also reflect upon whether society is capable of being "safe", religious or not.
Fear is the mindkiller.