I need a hint for my next possible Atheist-Theist argument.
Posted on: June 18, 2007 - 11:51am
Offline
I need a hint for my next possible Atheist-Theist argument.
Here's the thing: I have been in a little religion argument before. Last time the other guy (who was an agnostic) said that religion might be in some ways bad, but it gives people comfort and hope to get through their lives. I haven't thought of a good counter-argument for this. I think I should have one in store just in case I get into a similar argument. Can anyone help?
Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.
- Login to post comments
My response would be:
By that reasoning, I take it you don't have a problem with alcoholics. Whatever damage it causes them, and whatever negative effect there may be to society, drink brings alcoholics comfort, confidence and a means to get through life in the most difficult times.
Furthermore, if the comfort and hope offered by religion is empty (i.e. if there isn't a heaven where they will see their loved ones again) then people are not focusing on the things that could offer real help in this world (and in some cases may be halting their progress). Stem cell research, combatting global warming, helping to prevent children being raised to blow themselves up, allowing gays equal rights.
As a last point, is it comforting to know that while the prize for believing is high, the punishment for those who turn away from religion is eternal torture? This keeps many religious people clinging on out of fear, and all the while believing that many of the people they know and love will be burnt forever.
This question depends entirely on your values.
Do you value truth or happiness, Sure, there are damaging versions of christianity, where the followers can never meet the standards set by god and live in shame and fear. On the other hand the happiest people I've ever met have been christians. Their brand of christianity offers comfort and hope. If you want cold hard truth over all else then this isn't relevant to you, but can you deny others the option? Without an absolute moral law (like the one we don't believe in) we have no right to say which is the better way to live.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Well, there is "religion is the opiate of the people" (it takes away the pain without taking away the source of the pain), and thus religion could be seen as bad medicine. But of course, at least some people might be turned off because of Marx...
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
Your agnostic friend is right, why argue? It does give people comfort and hope, just as paperback romance novels give comfort and hope to desperate, homely, and lonely middle age women, just as Rambo flicks give comfort and hope and motivation to frustrated little geeks who are dissatisfied with themselves and want to lash out at aggressors but are too scared. That is not to say it is "right" or "morally reprehensible" or even well thought out, but who is to say what standards should be set when one persons tolerances may be so much above or below anothers? If winning an argument is your only concern, I can tell you how to win any argument, regardless of the subject. Look at your opponent with disgust, try to convey the utmost of all contempt and shock at their ignorance just with your eyes and the saddened scowl on your face, and say, "That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard" and walk away from them without another word. That is not necessarily winning to any rational and sensible person, but if the person you are arguing with is irrational and insensible, why bother with subtleties?
"Who, like some evil Atlas, turned the world upside down upon their shoulders, and made shams and delusions into absolute truths, and absolute truths into inviolate heresy?" Elliot Merrick, True North (this may be a misquote, but is close, I don't have th
The argument "but religion gives people comfort and hope" is designed to put you in the position of arguing against comfort and hope. That's an argument you can't win, so don't take the bait.
The response is to reframe the argument so that you're not arguing that comfort and hope are bad, but are instead arguing that religion or ignorance are bad. Some examples:
"If that's all religion did, then there wouldn't be a problem; the problem arises when religion does these other things..."
"Religion gives people comfort by keeping them ignorant. Isn't there a way to get comfort without self-delusion?"
"Believing in Santa Claus gives kids comfort and hope, but after a certain age it's unhealthy for them to be living a deluded life."
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
As others have said, some things may provide others with comfort and such but it does not necessarily make them good things. It's dependent upon the observer.
If you want to get them good, tell them the way it makes people feel has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of religion, if that's the argument being made (appeal to emotion).
Ofcourse. This begs the question: Do I value happiness more than truth? The answer is, that the truth can be hard to accept. It can be hard to be happy alongside these cold hard truths. We are just bound by the laws of the universe. These laws care nothing about our suffering, morals and deppression. Just a tiny, tiny hope, no matter how small can completely change lives (think religion and near-death-experiences).
But this is the biggest problem in our lives. Can we be happy in the middle of the cruelty of our universe? I can do that pretty well, so I care about the truth more, no matter how cruel it may be. This is why people believe in God. They can't handle the truth, but they want to be happy, no matter what.
Would I accept people's faith in God if giving hope and comfort was the only thing it did? Would I still tell them to face the truth even if it made them hopeless and sad? That is a good question indeed...
Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.
I'm sure others have said this as well, but that comfort and hope is based on false pretenses. What benefit is there to hoping that someone else will change something in your life when there is no proof that that someone even exists.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Sometimes, believing that you are aided by something else will give a person the confidence to do something they would not otherwise have tried.
It depends on what sort of God they believe in. Is is a god that will just magically make everything alright or a god who will work through them to achieve things.
The God discussed by Rev. Frank Scott (Gene Hackman) In the Poseidon Adventure seems like a productive belief.
I know it's fiction, but the writer must have got the idea from somewhere.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
I think I just realized that the "hope" and "comfort" offered by religion is indeed false. Born out of weakness and desperation. People shouldn't create themselves a delusion of God to get themselves over. They should rely on their own inner strenght. After all, God is just in their minds. Recieving "help from God" is inner strenght too, but the mind creates the illusion of a powerful being "out there".
Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.
This guy's right. Religion does give comfort. But it's not the only source of comfort, and it is certainly not the best. And even then, that in no way means it's right.