Religion DOES Do More Good Than Harm [Archive]

David Sklansky

11-01-2007, 02:29 PM

Not because of charitable work or anything like that. But rather simply because it makes a lot of people happier than they otherwise would be. They might claim that they would like to be free of the restrictions that their religion puts on them. But I think almost everybody would agree that they are happier with their religion and its restrictions than they would be without either.

Even if you go under the assumption that the specifics of any religion are definitely false, that doesn't mean that a practitioner of that religion or even someone not yet born who is destined to practice it, is better off not believing in it. The fact is that only a minority of the individuals in this world gain more than they lose by being atheists, even if atheism is assumed to be correct.

In order to gain from atheism you need to be the type of person who derives much satisfaction from knowing the truth and you also need to be someone who is pretty happy with what they are doing and how their life is going. There are atheists who do not fit into this category of course. They might be ex theists who have become embittered. But that was probably too bad for them.

I had originally assummed that almost everyone on this forum is one of those minority of people who is better off not believing in something that is a monumental underdog to be true. Which is why I gave arguments for non belief. Perhaps ten percent of theists would be happier if they became atheists. But I thought a much bigger percent of two plus two theists would be happier as atheists. I don't think that anymore. So I see no good reason for me to pursue the subject further.

vhawk01

11-01-2007, 02:31 PM

So you mean, above and beyond "drug addicts are happier on drugs?"

David Sklansky

11-01-2007, 02:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So you mean, above and beyond "drug addicts are happier on drugs?"

[/ QUOTE ]

If in fact drug addicts were truly happier on drugs I would mean only slightly more than that. But most drug addicts aren't, so it is a bad analogy.

vhawk01

11-01-2007, 03:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you mean, above and beyond "drug addicts are happier on drugs?"

[/ QUOTE ]

If in fact drug addicts were truly happier on drugs I would mean only slightly more than that. But most drug addicts aren't, so it is a bad analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like 5 seconds after they inject I mean, obviously. Or at least, the pain involved in getting clean isnt worth it.

That they are actually less happy being addicts than they would be otherwise is the "more" that I'm talking about. Many people make the claim that shedding religious beliefs is very painful. Having them makes them comfortable and happy. But they say that they could be happier if they never started in the first place, or after they've "gotten clean." You are saying that even had they never started or even AFTER they get clean, they would still be less happy than when they were "hooked."

Just asking for clarification.

m_the0ry

11-01-2007, 03:09 PM

Vhawk already nailed it pretty much,

We all get comfort from our obsessions. You can't gauge the benevolence of your obsession solely by how good it makes you feel, or we should all be addicted to heroin, and we would encourage sociopathy and serial killings. It's about impact and influence.

Our obsession might be knowledge. We want to learn and be informed. In a democratic society especially this has a positive impact. Some may be obsessed with the outdoors; these are the people who have expertise to search and rescue, and save lives. Some may be obsessed with football, and entertain millions. What tangible, if anything, does religion offer to the world as a side effect of the happiness it brings to the individual?

ZeeJustin

11-01-2007, 03:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But I think almost everybody would agree that they are happier with their religion and its restrictions than they would be without either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think many people that say this are lying to themselves. Do you really think those same people with the same families would be depressed if they were raised atheist instead?

I think only a very small percent of theists receive a large amount of hope/inspiration/whatever from it.

I think as our society progresses, the downside of religion is getting exponentially greater. If there were never any atheists, imagine how far set back our scientific knowledge would be.

Then there's the obvious argument that most wars are caused by religion, coupled with all the intolerance, hate, and bigotry, etc.

Are you really thinking on a global level?

vhawk01

11-01-2007, 03:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I think almost everybody would agree that they are happier with their religion and its restrictions than they would be without either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think many people that say this are lying to themselves. Do you really think those same people with the same families would be depressed if they were raised atheist instead?

I think only a very small percent of theists receive a large amount of hope/inspiration/whatever from it.

I think as our society progresses, the downside of religion is getting exponentially greater. If there were never any atheists, imagine how far set back our scientific knowledge would be.

Then there's the obvious argument that most wars are caused by religion, coupled with all the intolerance, hate, and bigotry, etc.

Are you really thinking on a global level?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this.

I'm ALMOST positive that I've never said anything either way about this, meaning I've never said "Well, some people are just happier with their delusions" OR "Man, everybody would be way happier if they could just shed these delusions." Mostly because I have absolutely no idea which of those is true (and suspect both are false). However, I do notice many atheists (more than half) say things like "Well some people just are happier believing in fables" and it always sounds to me like "stupid mouthbreathers need to suck their thumbs or they will cry all night and throw a fit." It seems incredibly condescending to me. There are probably people who arent interested in truth or critcial evaluation of their beliefs and are only interested in superficial comfort. But surely there are plenty of people who are capable of handling shocks to their system and maybe have never even THOUGHT of deeply questioning their religious beliefs, or heard any persuasive arguments, or something like that. It just seems elitist to decree that most people who are religious are that way because they are trembling cowards who couldnt handle a Godless world.

Mempho

11-01-2007, 03:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Not because of charitable work or anything like that. But rather simply because it makes a lot of people happier than they otherwise would be. They might claim that they would like to be free of the restrictions that their religion puts on them. But I think almost everybody would agree that they are happier with their religion and its restrictions than they would be without either.

Even if you go under the assumption that the specifics of any religion are definitely false, that doesn't mean that a practitioner of that religion or even someone not yet born who is destined to practice it, is better off not believing in it. The fact is that only a minority of the individuals in this world gain more than they lose by being atheists, even if atheism is assumed to be correct.

In order to gain from atheism you need to be the type of person who derives much satisfaction from knowing the truth and you also need to be someone who is pretty happy with what they are doing and how their life is going. There are atheists who do not fit into this category of course. They might be ex theists who have become embittered. But that was probably too bad for them.

I had originally assummed that almost everyone on this forum is one of those minority of people who is better off not believing in something that is a monumental underdog to be true. Which is why I gave arguments for non belief. Perhaps ten percent of theists would be happier if they became atheists. But I thought a much bigger percent of two plus two theists would be happier as atheists. I don't think that anymore. So I see no good reason for me to pursue the subject further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post, David. You and I agree on the happiness factor. We disagree on what truth is, but I'm glad to see you make such a post. You're intelligent enough to see how much the intangible benefit means to many people.

FWIW, I do derive much satisfaction from "knowing the truth," and I think a lot of other theists do as well. There is almost certainly, however, a much greater number of theists who believe on the much more "intangible basis" that you describe. Anyway, "truth" is debated in almost every other thread, so I will leave it alone here.

Also, FWIW, there are many things about being a theist that make me unhappy. For instance, I believe in hell and there aren't many people that I'd feel good about them going there. In fact, it's hard to imagine even a grotesque figure like Hitler deserving damnation in eternity. Maybe 10,000 years, but forever? That doesn't make me happy at all. In fact, as a believer in Christ, I hope that there is some sort of way that everyone eventually gets to heaven. I know that's not described in the Bible, but, as far as I know, it's not completely ruled out. Certainly, I believe that God understands things in a way that I don't, so, I do believe that, in some way, he has infinate grace.

Taraz

11-01-2007, 03:35 PM

Basically, most people are happier in the Matrix. I would agree with that.

Mempho

11-01-2007, 03:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, most people are happier in the Matrix. I would agree with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know that the Matrix is religion? How do you know it's not materialism, money, sex, television, cinema, science, the denial of God, and the western culture?

Just food for thought.

David Sklansky

11-01-2007, 03:45 PM

Splendour

11-01-2007, 03:50 PM

David Sklansky FTW!

Nice post Mempho. I even have a hard time seeing Judas in hell.

Phil153

11-01-2007, 04:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Those on this forum almost certainly underestimate the number of people who would live in quiet desperation without their religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm torn on this one. Certainly in the West where the average age is in the 40s, there are a lot of old and unhappy people who are comforted by religion.

But they've also grown up with religion and its comforts, and never had a chance to develop a happy, god free outlook as young adults, and true moral courage in the absence of Santa/God. I agree that pulling the rug from under them is bad - but I don't necessarily agree that over the sum of a life, a person raised with religion will be happier than one raised without.

Phil153

11-01-2007, 04:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think as our society progresses, the downside of religion is getting exponentially greater. If there were never any atheists, imagine how far set back our scientific knowledge would be.

[/ QUOTE ]
How so? In my opinion the greatest dangers to humanity's future will come from people like yourself who embrace all technology enthusiastically with poor regard for the consequences. Irrational belief systems may be just the check we need on this consequence-be-damned view of technological progress.

[ QUOTE ]
Then there's the obvious argument that most wars are caused by religion, coupled with all the intolerance, hate, and bigotry, etc

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't this highly debatable?

foal

11-01-2007, 04:18 PM

You are missing a very important part of the question. Having religion may make individuals happier (this probably varies from individual to individual), but will it make people who have to deal with these individuals happier? That is if my neighbors/government/whatever are religious this may lead to a decrease in my well being. This will be especially true if I'm one of any number of groups their religion might not see eye to eye with such as a- a different religion, b- atheist, c- homosexual (or I engage in any behavior their religion deems immoral). It's also possible that religion might make people more judgemental in a general sence. History indicate, IMO, that religion does more harm than good, not because being religious makes people unhappy, but because being religious makes people persecute others leading to those others being unhappy.

some former discussion unrelated to the point I just made, but focusing on whether or not religion does or does not make individuals happier:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=11488092&page=54&fpart=1 &vc=1)
Edit: don't read past page 7 unless you want to read a long testy debate with Brad

Brad1970

11-01-2007, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
David Sklansky FTW!

Nice post Mempho. I even have a hard time seeing Judas in hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the Bible, Hell is described in multiple verses as being eternal, everlasting, & for ever & ever.......what is the meaning of those words???

PLOlover

11-01-2007, 04:19 PM

one of the reasons the jews (who actually read the torah, unlike christaians) were persecuted in the middle ages was that they practiced the sanitary rules in the bible and thus didn't get sick/as sick as the locals (like during plagues) who knew nothing about the word of god, so it was easy for clergy and others to politicize the issue to steal from the jews using as a pretense that jews were in league with devil, etc.

kurto

11-01-2007, 04:23 PM

If the only factor in measuring the worth of something was the happiness it brings, then David would be right.

But how can you judge Religion on that factor alone.

Also- I suspect people are happier when they believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and that little babies are delivered by the Stork. Does that mean it does more good if we all continued to believe those things then to know the truth?

Sephus

11-01-2007, 04:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
David Sklansky FTW!

Nice post Mempho. I even have a hard time seeing Judas in hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the Bible, Hell is described in multiple verses as being eternal, everlasting, & for ever & ever.......what is the meaning of those words???

[/ QUOTE ]

quotes plz.

Brad1970

11-01-2007, 04:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
David Sklansky FTW!

Nice post Mempho. I even have a hard time seeing Judas in hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the Bible, Hell is described in multiple verses as being eternal, everlasting, & for ever & ever.......what is the meaning of those words???

[/ QUOTE ]

quotes plz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Matt 18: 7-9
Matt 25: 40-42
Jude 1: 6-8
Isaiah 33:14
Mark 9:43
Rev 20: 7-10

tame_deuces

11-01-2007, 04:54 PM

Nah, I don't buy it.

The big truth is that we don't know how society would be if religion was all but 'extinct', we only have the version now where some 85% of the world adheres to some form of religion. Where I come from about 50% of the populace are atheist, 50% theist and maybe a fifth of them practicing theists - I honestly am not seeing any large lack of happiness.

I'm sure we could have focused all those endless supplies of money that goes into religion in something worthwhile, like hedonism.

madnak

11-01-2007, 05:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If in fact drug addicts were truly happier on drugs I would mean only slightly more than that. But most drug addicts aren't, so it is a bad analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The drug analogy is almost perfect. If drug addicts became clean and got their lives together, they'd be happier than they are on drugs. Of course, they would have to go through withdrawals, and they might never deal with the mental health issues that led them to drugs in the first place.

Similarly, a religious person who learns to find fulfillment in reality instead of fantasy, and in life instead of hope for afterlife, will be much happier. But letting go of religion is uncomfortable, and they might never find personal satsifaction.

Also, while individual use does no harm, there's great potential for damage in the distribution channels and in individual abuse.

Splendour

11-01-2007, 05:39 PM

Yes Brad I agree with you, I'm just saying I understand where Mempho is coming from.

David Sklansky

11-01-2007, 06:36 PM

The responses here have forced me to elaborate. I have recently been reading some stuff about cognitive dissonance and related subjects. The idea that the human brain will go to great lenghths to keep its owner from suffering psychologically. Thes lengths include the thinking of clearly irrational thoughts. I've previously mentioned the well known extreme cases of paralyzed stroke victims who actually maintain they are not paralyzed. Less extreme examples might be someone who won't denounce alcohol because it would mean he must lower his opinion of his parents if he does. Or the senator who believes we are right to be in Iraq in because if he thinks otherwise, it means his earlier vote was foolish.

The point is that the more pain someone will suffer by thinking X the more preposterous not X has to be before he will give up his not X thoughts. (The only exceptions are, for the most part, people like scientists or professional gamblers who are punished badly for being wrong.)

It is because of the above that I believe that there are more people than you might think who are suffering. (It is not because I am well versed in global sociology.) To believe that a specific religion almost certainly has almost all of the details right is clearly preposterous. Any intelligent, non brainwashed nine year old is capable of seeing that. Yet billions believe exactly that. If you accept my earlier statement that the human brain will allow even preposterous beliefs to seem rational if the alternative will result in misery, you must agree that the mere existence of all these specific religions (in this day and age) is strong evidence of a lot of unhappy people.

Phil153

11-01-2007, 06:42 PM

Your points are fine, but I disagree that most people have religious beliefs to prevent misery. They have them because they're stupid, brainwashed, non committed, or socially conditioned.

The fear and despair that people feel at the possible loss of faith has more to do with the natural fear of change than it does with suffering or comfort.

People like NotReady, who actually know or suspect the atheist position is correct and continue to be religious regardless, are in the minority I think.

tame_deuces

11-01-2007, 06:45 PM

David Sklansky

11-01-2007, 06:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your points are fine, but I disagree that most people have religious beliefs to prevent misery. They have them because they're stupid, brainwashed, non committed, or socially conditioned.

The fear and despair that people feel at the possible loss of faith has more to do with the natural fear of change than it does with suffering or comfort.

People like NotReady, who actually know or suspect the atheist position is correct and continue to be religious regardless, are in the minority I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a continuum. The less intelligent you are, the less preposterous your specific religion is to you, and the less likely your belief is a symptom of unhappiness that would manifest itself if the religion was taken away from you. More intelligent people who believe these specifics are more likely to suffer if they were forced to admit to themselves that they are ridiculous to be so sure of religious details. (Unless that belief is stopping them from being great scientists or gamblers). Since it is mainly this category of theist that frequent this forum, I don't think I want to try to convince them of the error of their ways anymore.

madnak

11-01-2007, 07:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The responses here have forced me to elaborate. I have recently been reading some stuff about cognitive dissonance and related subjects. The idea that the human brain will go to great lenghths to keep its owner from suffering psychologically. Thes lengths include the thinking of clearly irrational thoughts. I've previously mentioned the well known extreme cases of paralyzed stroke victims who actually maintain they are not paralyzed. Less extreme examples might be someone who won't denounce alcohol because it would mean he must lower his opinion of his parents if he does. Or the senator who believes we are right to be in Iraq in because if he thinks otherwise, it means his earlier vote was foolish.

The point is that the more pain someone will suffer by thinking X the more preposterous not X has to be before he will give up his not X thoughts. (The only exceptions are, for the most part, people like scientists or professional gamblers who are punished badly for being wrong.)

It is because of the above that I believe that there are more people than you might think who are suffering. (It is not because I am well versed in global sociology.) To believe that a specific religion almost certainly has almost all of the details right is clearly preposterous. Any intelligent, non brainwashed nine year old is capable of seeing that. Yet billions believe exactly that. If you accept my earlier statement that the human brain will allow even preposterous beliefs to seem rational if the alternative will result in misery, you must agree that the mere existence of all these specific religions (in this day and age) is strong evidence of a lot of unhappy people.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't mean that religion does more good than harm. All it means is that abandoning religion may cause pain. The two are very different conclusions.

Also, the avoidance of pain is not the only source of cognitive distortion - it's one of many. It's fallacious, then, to suggest that because cognitive distortion is observed, there must be pain avoidance happening.

I think it does frequently cause pain for a religious person to become nonreligious, but your reasoning here is flawed.

It's been demonstrated that people will hold irrational beliefs due to authority (people will believe all kinds of things when instructed by authority, and people will even create false memories based on suggestions from authority figures), conformity (people refuse to believe their very eyes - see the Asch experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments) for one of the most striking examples of irrationality), usefulness (some salespeople may actually come to believe their product is superior, simply because it makes them more effective salespeople), and momentum (people don't like changing their habits, and are reluctant to change their beliefs in any way after a certain age). The phenomenon of religion could be explained by any or all of these factors (along with some others), not just with suffering.

Also, gamblers and scientists have incentive to resist these biases, but they are highly susceptible to them just like everyone else. Being a gambler or scientist does not protect you from irrational thinking, only careful evaluation of your own thoughts and a critical eye toward yourself can do that. The greatest thinkers ever have made disastrously stupid mistakes due simply to their arrogance.

carlo

11-01-2007, 07:24 PM

"Your points are fine, but I disagree that most people have religious beliefs to prevent misery. They have them because they're stupid, brainwashed, non committed, or socially conditioned.

The fear and despair that people feel at the possible loss of faith has more to do with the natural fear of change than it does with suffering or comfort.

People like NotReady, who actually know or suspect the atheist position is correct and continue to be religious regardless, are in the minority I think."

[ QUOTE ]
The Twenty-Second Chapter
Thoughts on the Misery of Man

WHEREVER you are, wherever you go, you are miserable unless you turn to God. So why be dismayed when things do not happen as you wish and desire? Is there anyone who has everything as he wishes? No—neither I, nor you, nor any man on earth. There is no one in the world, be he Pope or king, who does not suffer trial and anguish.

Who is the better off then? Surely, it is the man who will suffer something for God. Many unstable and weak-minded people say: “See how well that man lives, how rich, how great he is, how powerful and mighty.” But you must lift up your eyes to the riches of heaven and realize that the material goods of which they speak are nothing. These things are uncertain and very burdensome because they are never possessed without anxiety and fear. Man’s happiness does not consist in the possession of abundant goods; a very little is enough.

Living on earth is truly a misery. The more a man desires spiritual life, the more bitter the 37 present becomes to him, because he understands better and sees more clearly the defects, the corruption of human nature. To eat and drink, to watch and sleep, to rest, to labor, and to be bound by other human necessities is certainly a great misery and affliction to the devout man, who would gladly be released from them and be free from all sin. Truly, the inner man is greatly burdened in this world by the necessities of the body, and for this reason the Prophet prayed that he might be as free from them as possible, when he said: “From my necessities, O Lord, deliver me.”77 Ps. 34:17.

But woe to those who know not their own misery, and greater woe to those who love this miserable and corruptible life. Some, indeed, can scarcely procure its necessities either by work or by begging; yet they love it so much that, if they could live here always, they would care nothing for the kingdom of God.

How foolish and faithless of heart are those who are so engrossed in earthly things as to relish nothing but what is carnal! Miserable men indeed, for in the end they will see to their sorrow how cheap and worthless was the thing they loved.

The saints of God and all devout friends of Christ did not look to what pleases the body nor to the things that are popular from time to time. Their whole hope and aim centered on the everlasting 38good. Their whole desire pointed upward to the lasting and invisible realm, lest the love of what is visible drag them down to lower things.

Do not lose heart, then, my brother, in pursuing your spiritual life. There is yet time, and your hour is not past. Why delay your purpose? Arise! Begin at once and say: “Now is the time to act, now is the time to fight, now is the proper time to amend.”

When you are troubled and afflicted, that is the time to gain merit. You must pass through water and fire before coming to rest. Unless you do violence to yourself you will not overcome vice.

So long as we live in this fragile body, we can neither be free from sin nor live without weariness and sorrow. Gladly would we rest from all misery, but in losing innocence through sin we also lost true blessedness. Therefore, we must have patience and await the mercy of God until this iniquity passes, until mortality is swallowed up in life.

How great is the frailty of human nature which is ever prone to evil! Today you confess your sins and tomorrow you again commit the sins which you confessed. One moment you resolve to be careful, and yet after an hour you act as though you had made no resolution.

We have cause, therefore, because of our frailty and feebleness, to humble ourselves and never think anything great of ourselves. Through neglect we may quickly lose that which by God’s grace we 39have acquired only through long, hard labor. What, eventually, will become of us who so quickly grow lukewarm? Woe to us if we presume to rest in peace and security when actually there is no true holiness in our lives. It would be beneficial for us, like good novices, to be instructed once more in the principles of a good life, to see if there be hope of amendment and greater spiritual progress in the future.

« Prev Thoughts on the Misery of Man Next »

This book has been accessed more than 480767 times since June 1, 2005.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thomas a Kempis-"The Imitation of Christ"

revots33

11-01-2007, 08:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Those on this forum almost certainly underestimate the number of people who would live in quiet desperation without their religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh I think I disagree with this. Aren't some of the world's most secular countries also the healthiest, happiest, and most prosperous? Are all these people actually living pleasant long healthy lives of quiet desperation?

I also think you underestimate the ability of an intelligent person to get over it once he finally realizes he was wrong all along. I'm guessing the majority of atheists on this forum were once believers. Sure it hurts when you realize you've been swindled. But you move on.

As for all the poor people starving in Africa, etc. - I suppose religion might give them some thread of hope for a better life after this one's over. But that's not a product of religion being good, it's a product of their horrible lives. Do something to cure their misery on earth and religion won't be so necessary to them.

Phil153

11-01-2007, 08:12 PM

carlo,

What a horrible view of life. The author needs a good kick in the pants.

There are many things which make life wonderful even for the most spiritual of men. To suggest that life on earth is misery betrays a lack of imagination, a lack of spirit, a lack of courage, and a lack of heart. Perhaps the author is so depressed because he sucks at life, or is so focussed on the magical superplace awaiting him that he doesn't realize or appreciate the gift of life.

Anyway, I would be embarrassed to read or quote that as a Christian, and from a quick google it appears that this is an influential Christian works. Yikes.

bunny

11-01-2007, 08:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Its a continuum. The less intelligent you are, the less preposterous your specific religion is to you, and the less likely your belief is a symptom of unhappiness that would manifest itself if the religion was taken away from you. More intelligent people who believe these specifics are more likely to suffer if they were forced to admit to themselves that they are ridiculous to be so sure of religious details. (Unless that belief is stopping them from being great scientists or gamblers). Since it is mainly this category of theist that frequent this forum, I don't think I want to try to convince them of the error of their ways anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think "the error of their ways" doesnt stem from the belief in God, it stems from the certainty with which that belief is held.

In my opinion, encouraging people to doubt their beliefs without necessarily abandoning them has almost exclusively positive consequences.

m_the0ry

11-01-2007, 08:41 PM

InTheDark

11-01-2007, 09:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Where I come from about 50% of the populace are atheist, 50% theist and maybe a fifth of them practicing theists - I honestly am not seeing any large lack of happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is this and what would you figure is the current fertility rate in this cohort/country/culture/commune?

carlo

11-01-2007, 09:06 PM

Phil,

As background, the book was written for the religious(monks) during the 14th century. As noted in the introduction, this book is seen as the most influential book in Christianity aside from the Bible. He mentions Thomas More, General Gordon(?), Ignatius Loyola, John Wesley, Francis Xavier, and Dr.Johnson as but a few of the thousands who have acknowledged their debt to this "golden work".

It does have an ascetic underlay but still speaks volumes to any and all of those who see suffering in the world. The background of "My kingdom is Not of this World" permeates the book. David hints that there is more suffering in the world than we realize and it is to this that Thomas A Kempis speaks. I find it strengthening to no end and I do not commiserate on the woes of others and myself.

Christianity is not about "happiness" in this life but fatalism is also not present. In the Christian exegesis strength, courage and Love is sought in our working the earth and seeking Christ. Quite an ennobling work but it is possible to take issue with it.

Subfallen

11-01-2007, 09:34 PM

Phil, vhawk -

Just face it: you guys are too smart, too successful, and just generally too good-at-life to understand religion. Let's hope that never changes. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

<font color="red">DS</font> -

Yep, most people would maximize net happiness by never being born. But 2400 years and still Sophocles says it best: "Oh, wretched, ephemeral race, children of chance and misery, why do you compel me to tell you what it would be most expedient for you not to hear? What is the best of all is utterly beyond your reach: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. But the second best for you is---to die soon." (Silenus in Oedipus at Colonus.)

bunny

11-01-2007, 09:42 PM

Brad1970

11-01-2007, 09:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
David Sklansky FTW!

Nice post Mempho. I even have a hard time seeing Judas in hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the Bible, Hell is described in multiple verses as being eternal, everlasting, & for ever & ever.......what is the meaning of those words???

[/ QUOTE ]

The same as the meaning of the bible? Which is to say, almost no meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow.....that's so deep...so insightful...how do you do it??

andyfox

11-01-2007, 10:59 PM

http://www.newspolls.org/story.php?story_id=53

"An even stronger factor is the power of organized religion --any religion--on a sense of well-being.

"Although their numbers were small, Jewish participants in the poll were the most likely of any group to say they are very happy. Protestants--especially self-identified "born again" evangelicals--also report a high rate of contentment.

"Sixty percent of people who have recently attended worship services at a church, synagogue or mosque say they are very happy, compared to 46 percent of people who have not publicly worshiped and 44 percent who have no religious preferences."

SNOWBALL

11-01-2007, 11:13 PM

David,

Most of your posts are either correct, or are incorrect, but show good reasoning. This post shows neither.
Notice, I'm not saying you are wrong, but merely that the style of this OP is very out of character for you.

andyfox

11-01-2007, 11:29 PM

Don't you think that most people in the world do live lives of quiet desperation and what gives them a degree of solace in their present life is the sense of belonging that their religion gives them, as well as hope that the next life will be better?

madnak

11-02-2007, 12:29 AM

Most people do live lives of quiet desperation, religion doesn't give them solace. At least, not sufficient solace. A sense of "belonging" to an exclusivistic and judgmental clique is no cure for alienation.

David Sklansky

11-02-2007, 12:47 AM

"This doesn't mean that religion does more good than harm. All it means is that abandoning religion may cause pain. The two are very different conclusions."

I know. The title of the thread wasn't really my point.

vhawk01

11-02-2007, 12:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where I come from about 50% of the populace are atheist, 50% theist and maybe a fifth of them practicing theists - I honestly am not seeing any large lack of happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is this and what would you figure is the current fertility rate in this cohort/country/culture/commune?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cant you just keep this in the other 5 threads you have about it? We've already established that your entire position disappears in the wind as soon as we realize that sex isnt the only way to create atheists.

madnak

11-02-2007, 01:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I know. The title of the thread wasn't really my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, I get worked up over something and then I realize it's just advertising.

thedorf

11-02-2007, 02:30 AM

DS,

I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears as usual but once again I'm gonna bring up the possibility of living for extremely long periods of time. Right now the mention of such an idea is seen as quackery. such was the case with human flight and man landing on the moon roughly 20 years before both things happened respectively.

anyway, the reason i bring this up is that a world full of atheists would be much more equipped to discover a way for humans to live a healthy life for 10,000 years than a world full of people who believe in ghosts...or jesus. If this is true, and it is actually a practical possibility that people could live this long, then certainly a majority would benefit from atheism because all the jesus people would run around trying to behead the life extenders. then we'd all be sad...and dead.

By the way, since this is a poker site let me reiterate my position on extreme life extension. In my mind, even if the possibility of such long life is extremely remote (which, right now, it seems to be), the pot (i.e. the possibility that we can live healthily for 10,000 years) that we're contending for is nearly infinitely large. Especially if you believe that life revolves around the pursuit of happiness urrrrrrrrr topless dancers.

PS I don't think that believing in the possibility of extremely long life extension precludes the belief in jesus or his colleagues (muhammed, your own god etc.).

PSS I think that if people who currently believed in god would replace that belief with a belief that humans can live healthily for 10,000 years, they would be happier. I say this because I think that most of the people who claim to believe in god are actually fairly doubtful. This doubt most likely can't diminish whereas a belief in 10,000 year health can.

PSSS I used to believe in jesus much more than i currently believe in the possibility of living a healthy life for 10,000 years. Now I don't believe in jesus and I barely believe that it will some day be possible for humans to live healthily for 10,000 years. I'm happier now than i was with jesus.

luckyme

11-02-2007, 02:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But I think almost everybody would agree that they are happier with their religion and its restrictions than they would be without either.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do we reconcile the numbers that seem contrary to this - divorce rates, crime rates, etc.
Or or they simply happier in prison, divorced or what?

luckyme

iggymcfly

11-02-2007, 02:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.newspolls.org/story.php?story_id=53

"An even stronger factor is the power of organized religion --any religion--on a sense of well-being.

"Although their numbers were small, Jewish participants in the poll were the most likely of any group to say they are very happy. Protestants--especially self-identified "born again" evangelicals--also report a high rate of contentment.

"Sixty percent of people who have recently attended worship services at a church, synagogue or mosque say they are very happy, compared to 46 percent of people who have not publicly worshiped and 44 percent who have no religious preferences."

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you think it's possible that regularly practicing denial about the nature of the universe could also lead you to practice denial in other arenas of your life? I think a lot of religious people say that they're happy just because they think that's how they're "supposed to" feel.

In particular, I read an auto-biography of a Mormon woman where she talked about how she was continually run ragged the whole time she was in the church, but kept telling herself that she was happy and gaining fulfillment until she finally had a nervous breakdown and tried to overdose on pills along with her child. She says that even now, on probation as a dangerous offender for what she tried to do to her child, she's actually more happy than in her life as an LDS housewife.

RJT

11-02-2007, 03:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
… but I don't necessarily agree that over the sum of a life, a person raised with religion will be happier than one raised without.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t think the OP is giving any opinion in that regard.

But, since you brought it up, I would be very surprised to find that a significant number of atheists are content with theirs lives. I highly doubt that Thoreau was limiting the field to theists. Do you really believe that the majority of atheists, on this forum for example, aren’t interested in questions other than the here and now?

If you say yes, then why even have a Philosophy forum? What exactly are you trying to Philosophize? Why such interest in the “God threads”?

If you say no, then what do you think the odds are of coming up with any real answers? The odds can’t be any better than the odds of Christianity being True.

Who are the ones kidding themselves?

And btw,

[ QUOTE ]
…true moral courage…

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
… a lack of spirit, a lack of courage, and a lack of heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do those words even mean? What, to live? Most people don’t commit suicide.

joes28

11-02-2007, 03:25 AM

drugs make people happy too.

btw drugs should be legal too.

sirio11

11-02-2007, 04:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Then there's the obvious argument that most wars are caused by religion, coupled with all the intolerance, hate, and bigotry, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly a war like Iraq's was caused by religion? Vietnam? WWII? Hell, any modern war? You should find plenty since you used the word "most"

No doubt some people fighting a war are religious and maybe even some of them have a religious motive to fight, but come on, the ONES, the important people who decide to start wars, probably they may go to mass on Sunday (or whatever cult they profess), but I really doubt religion is high in their list of motives to go to war.

sirio11

11-02-2007, 04:38 AM

David,

I think what you said it's definitely true, and to be honest, I don't know how anybody can argue otherwise. It's enough to know people and this world where we live in; but I understand that in order to see this, you need to think of happiness in a practical matter and the problem with some it's to think happiness as some ethereal objective concept (like the Christian God, ironically) . Plenty of people are happy with their delusions (religion, love, money, whatever) and they would be very unhappy if the delusions suddenly disappear.

I even think the probability of "unhappiness" is higher for those going the atheist way. If only for the anguish caused by knowing you know almost nothing and too many things seem to be unbearable random.

sirio11

11-02-2007, 04:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How do we reconcile the numbers that seem contrary to this - divorce rates, crime rates, etc

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, people divorce because it's pretty hard to live with the same human being for a long time, nothing to do with religion. I mean the divorce rate of intellectuals is kind of high.

Ah, and plenty of divorced people (religious or not) are pretty happy

NotReady

11-02-2007, 04:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]

People like NotReady, who actually know or suspect the atheist position is correct and continue to be religious regardless, are in the minority I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for reminding me why I left.

yukoncpa

11-02-2007, 04:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for reminding me why I left.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was excited to see your name, so I clicked on it and was sad to see this. I always enjoyed your posts FWIW.

NotReady

11-02-2007, 05:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I always enjoyed your posts FWIW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Unfortunately, atheism could never make me as happy as not posting here.

Allinlife

11-02-2007, 05:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.newspolls.org/story.php?story_id=53

"An even stronger factor is the power of organized religion --any religion--on a sense of well-being.

"Although their numbers were small, Jewish participants in the poll were the most likely of any group to say they are very happy. Protestants--especially self-identified "born again" evangelicals--also report a high rate of contentment.

"Sixty percent of people who have recently attended worship services at a church, synagogue or mosque say they are very happy, compared to 46 percent of people who have not publicly worshiped and 44 percent who have no religious preferences."

[/ QUOTE ]
there is a great potential 3rd variable for this study, which is the level of socialization the people were exposed to.

also to DS, I can see how the statement "religion does more good than harm" could be very well be true for various individuals, but I think it's still very arguable that as a whole, it does more bad to society by endorsing irrational thought patterns that don't require justification or critical thinking, and prevent people from being objective and openminded towards others.

Phil153

11-02-2007, 05:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But, since you brought it up, I would be very surprised to find that a significant number of atheists are content with theirs lives.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, that's a hard one to determine. Atheism is correlated with intelligence, with educational attainment, and with wealth, which are all correlated with happiness. So based on that alone it's likely that atheists are happier. But that's weak evidence.

I think it would be instructive to look at the contentment in various highly religious and highly atheist societies. I'd be shocked if countries like sweden (>50% atheist/non believer) score lower than the highly religious USA in terms of happiness or contentment. If you look at this list I doubt you'd see much differential between the top and the bottom to be honest. If anything, the top may be happier.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

So I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. Further evidence (albeit weak, it's all I can find)

Denmark happiest country (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5224306.stm) > 43% atheists
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_hap_net-lifestyle-happiness-net
^atheist countries score highly in this list, higher than more religious countries.

So, back in your box.

[ QUOTE ]
I highly doubt that Thoreau was limiting the field to theists.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course not. He was taking a negative and petty view of all life.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really believe that the majority of atheists, on this forum for example, aren’t interested in questions other than the here and now?

[/ QUOTE ]
Many people are interested in this, especially atheists which in my experience tend to be intellectually curious and more open to experience.

[ QUOTE ]
If you say no, then what do you think the odds are of coming up with any real answers? The odds can’t be any better than the odds of Islam being True.

[/ QUOTE ]
Real answers to what? I also like to do math problems on here as well, but I don't think it's going to solve Goldbach's conjecture. I like to discuss politics too, but again I don't think it will lead to any real answers to the world's problems.

[ QUOTE ]
Who are the ones kidding themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure what you're asking here.

[ QUOTE ]
And btw,

[ QUOTE ]
…true moral courage…

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
… a lack of spirit, a lack of courage, and a lack of heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do those words even mean? What, to live? Most people don’t commit suicide.

[/ QUOTE ]
The author takes a hideously unhappy view of life. You don't need to go to a prominent Christian literature to find such uninspiring drivel...just find a depressed patient at the local hospital and give him a piece of paper. Mainly people choose to live their lives bravely, with hope, faith and a reverence for a life. The author is obviously not one of those people, and that he would exalted in Christian writings really surprises me.

Let's look at a few choice quotes, starting with the opening line:

[ QUOTE ]
WHEREVER you are, wherever you go, you are miserable unless you turn to God

[/ QUOTE ]
No. I've met plenty of happy and spiritual people who don't believe in God. Buddhist monks strike me as a lot more content that Catholic priests, BTW.

[ QUOTE ]
So why be dismayed when things do not happen as you wish and desire?

[/ QUOTE ]
Who is dismayed by this? Mostly idiots who believe the world should be a certain way. Those who accept life as it is are rarely dismayed by it. This is one of the harms of religion - children are taught to believe that God thinks they're special and looks out for them. Who the hell wouldn't be dismayed when life takes a bad turn after believing something life that???

[ QUOTE ]
How foolish and faithless of heart are those who are so engrossed in earthly things as to relish nothing but what is carnal! Miserable men indeed, for in the end they will see to their sorrow how cheap and worthless was the thing they loved.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you call friends, experiences, kindness and the meaningful connections you've had with people "carnal earthly things", and "cheap and worthless", then I don't know what to say. These are much of the pleasure of life for compassionate atheists and they mean a lot.

[ QUOTE ]
So long as we live in this fragile body, we can neither be free from sin nor live without weariness and sorrow.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why does that matter? There is both sorrow and joy in life. Why should people be living in an uber happy state for eternity? Seems little more than the fairytale wish of a child. Life is what it is, and it has both its gifts and disappointments. I happen to think it's amazing that we're even alive, and I'm grateful for it. The author of the passage is too busy staring at his navel (and bible) to appreciate what God has given him.

Alex-db

11-02-2007, 06:38 AM

Isn't OP's viewpoint similar to Constantine's, when he effectively decideded to 'invent' organised Christianity in 300AD to control his population?

I admit, in discussions like this, to having 2 separate viewpoints depending on the type of audience.

In an ideological debate I would like everyone to be libertarian, well educated and not brainwashed.

In reality, I suspect that 80% of people aren't capable enough to accept that responsibilty, I accept that more Machiavellian political views are probably optimal, and that most of the population shouldn't even have to accept the responsibily of voting (OF COURSE we should lie to the general public regarding wars, NEVER hold referendums on important economic issues, etc), and that it is possible that broadly brainwashing the populace with a systematic lie maybe a good idea.

The difficulty is that most people have the opinion that they do not want to be brainwashed, so if I canvass opinions on whether I should promote libertarian responsibilty or dictatorial brainwashing, the majority choose 'wrongly'.

Also, perhaps we should contact various Church leaders and suggest we change their religions, almost make a completely new religion, in an attempt to address the issues of horrific morality they promote.

tame_deuces

11-02-2007, 06:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't OP's viewpoint similar to Constantine's, when he effectively decideded to 'invent' organised Christianity in 300AD to control his population?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, OP is talking about individual happiness.

And Constantine did not invent organized religion, as it had existed for many thousand years. What he did do was end the persecutions of christians and he actually left the doctrines of the churches to church leaders.

todd1007

11-02-2007, 11:09 AM

andyfox

11-02-2007, 11:11 AM

You may see it as an exclusivistic and judgmental clique, but they don't. They wouldn't put "belonging" in quotes.

kurto

11-02-2007, 11:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How exactly a war like Iraq's was caused by religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
US PRESIDENT George Bush has said that he was instructed by God to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new BBC series.

The claim comes from the first meeting between the US leader, the Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen), and his then foreign minister in June 2003.

The ministers say that Mr Bush also revealed to them that he had been told by God to create a Palestinian state.

Former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath, now the Information Minister, describes the meeting with the US leader, in the BBC2 program, Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs.

He says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God'.

"God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq . . .' And I did.

"And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'.

"And by God I'm gonna do it."

[/ QUOTE ]

manbearpig

11-02-2007, 11:47 AM

I just kind of skimmed this thread and I think this was touched on but never really hammered out.

Someone who is religious today and had that taken away from them tomorrow would generally be less happy than they were previously.

But that is not the same as someone who never had this belief.

I think it is similar to saying people are happier because they can freely get tacos, but if they never knew what tacos were would they be less happy?

carlo

11-02-2007, 12:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]

How exactly a war like Iraq's was caused by religion?

Quote:
US PRESIDENT George Bush has said that he was instructed by God to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new BBC series.

The claim comes from the first meeting between the US leader, the Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen), and his then foreign minister in June 2003.

The ministers say that Mr Bush also revealed to them that he had been told by God to create a Palestinian state.

Former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath, now the Information Minister, describes the meeting with the US leader, in the BBC2 program, Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs.

He says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God'.

"God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq . . .' And I did.

"And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'.

"And by God I'm gonna do it."

[/ QUOTE ]

George travels in deception and perhaps delusion. This in no way represents the statement that religion causes wars.

soon2bepro

11-02-2007, 12:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But rather simply because it makes a lot of people happier than they otherwise would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it. [and note that "otherwise" doesn't mean just taking away religion from them, but teaching them a different lifestyle that suits their needs (from the many available ones that aren't religious)]

kurto

11-02-2007, 12:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
George travels in deception and perhaps delusion. This in no way represents the statement that religion causes wars.

[/ QUOTE ]

If George is deluded by his religion into thinking he needs to make war, then yes, religion can help cause wars.

And I'm pretty sure if you look at the other side, the Islamics outright claim they're waging a holy war.

I think with a little research one can easily find a lot of Evangelical Christians who are interested in war in the Middle East because it will fulfill their religious prophecies.

One can look in the past to see war fueled by religion: The Crusades, The French Wars of Religion, Reconquista, the fights between Catholics & Protestants in Ireland, and of course, Islamic Jihad.

Sephus

11-02-2007, 01:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I always enjoyed your posts FWIW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Unfortunately, atheism could never make me as happy as not posting here.

[/ QUOTE ]

how many "last posts ever" are you planning on making?

Splendour

11-02-2007, 01:24 PM

Why does he have to prove it? People give their personal testimony to this all the time and that's exactly when the non-theists start accusing them of being delusional.

Doesn't a person know if he's happier or not?

If you said you like peppermint ice cream better than chocolate I'd never think to question you about it. I'd accept it as a statement of fact for you. I'd never accuse you of being delusional because you like peppermint and I like chocolate.

The simple fact of that matter is for a true practictioner religions often teach benign attitudes and behaviors. Christians are told to be slow to anger, not to complain, not to blame, etc. Isn't this going to help a lot in interpersonal relationships. Wouldn't this have a calming influence on family arguments once people start to do these things. Wouldn't this prevent conflict from arising in the workplace.

Now a non-practicioner will say they can do these things too and they can, but a believer has a higher authority telling him he must do it and if you really believe that higher authority is telling you to do it then you have additional incentive to do it and it leaves you less room to make excuses so you can get out of doing it.

vhawk01

11-02-2007, 01:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I always enjoyed your posts FWIW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Unfortunately, atheism could never make me as happy as not posting here.

[/ QUOTE ]

", he posts, in SMP.

tame_deuces

11-02-2007, 01:42 PM

In psychology, many studies have shown that personality traits explains a good portion of the religion variable in statistical studies attempting to measure happiness. The correlation between religion and happiness also often much less clear in societies that are not overly religious or have no 'majority' belief (from some studies I just checked).

So we could probably venture a guess that the correlation between religion and happiness is at least in part caused by having personality traits that make you 'fit' in the leading belief around you. (Or that happy people fit in for that matter).

Its not a strong conclusion yet, but when I read the studies and thought about it, I found it to be an extremely interesting one. It also fits well with other psychology theories, so its not something I just drag out from some survey studies.

ALawPoker

11-02-2007, 01:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I had originally assummed that almost everyone on this forum is one of those minority of people who is better off not believing in something that is a monumental underdog to be true. Which is why I gave arguments for non belief. Perhaps ten percent of theists would be happier if they became atheists. But I thought a much bigger percent of two plus two theists would be happier as atheists. I don't think that anymore. So I see no good reason for me to pursue the subject further.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the thread (pressed for time) so maybe somebody has already said this. But:

Are you overlooking that the people who respond to you and engage you are way more likely to be the type who are resolute in their beliefs? Maybe there are a lot of people who don't post much or even who outright lurk who are the type of theists that you expected to find here. But since they're open to your arguments they do more listening than arguing. The people who are least likely to change their minds will be more likely to speak.

Xylem

11-02-2007, 02:21 PM

See i told u atheism was evil!

Hopey

11-02-2007, 02:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I always enjoyed your posts FWIW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Unfortunately, atheism could never make me as happy as not posting here.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet you continue to do so.

carlo

11-02-2007, 03:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]

George travels in deception and perhaps delusion. This in no way represents the statement that religion causes wars.

If George is deluded by his religion into thinking he needs to make war, then yes, religion can help cause wars.

And I'm pretty sure if you look at the other side, the Islamics outright claim they're waging a holy war.

I think with a little research one can easily find a lot of Evangelical Christians who are interested in war in the Middle East because it will fulfill their religious prophecies.

One can look in the past to see war fueled by religion: The Crusades, The French Wars of Religion, Reconquista, the fights between Catholics & Protestants in Ireland, and of course, Islamic Jihad.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're reading things to suit yourself. The idea that George is "deluded by his religion" is laughable. Men start wars. George Bush is not a passive imbiber of a Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham cabal. that George might be a "naught" influenced by others I've often thought about but it's definitely not religion.

Look to individuals in all the referenced belligerents. This in no way implies that the religions of today or yesterday cannot be taken issue with but I'd prefer to look for the individual involved. If a pope starts a crusade or an inquisition then seeing this as the work of man puts the responsibility right where it belongs.

Also, the original issue was about George Bush and you've spread the field which is logically untenable. Throwing "books" or "wars" at another in hopes to confirm a generalization doesn't register. George Bush and the American landscape are quite different from the papacy and the crusades. Taking each individually and characterizing each within their own milieu IMO is the better approach.

xxThe_Lebowskixx

11-02-2007, 03:23 PM

even Christians who don't try and change the beliefs of others give credit to their religion by being apart of it and they will pass it along to their children. that is why it is never OK to shrug your shoulders and say "Bob believes in Jesus and my kids believe in the Easter Bunny, whats the big deal?".

we want the human race to stop sucking, so i say lets not give them a break and lets deny them their self delusions regardless if reality is less rainbowy.

Splendour

11-02-2007, 03:40 PM

Does Hopey remind anyone else of Vincent Price? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

kurto

11-02-2007, 03:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You're reading things to suit yourself. The idea that George is "deluded by his religion" is laughable. Men start wars. George Bush is not a passive imbiber of a Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham cabal. that George might be a "naught" influenced by others I've often thought about but it's definitely not religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm reading things to suit myself? Since when is taking a man at his word "reading things to suit myself?"

[ QUOTE ]
Look to individuals in all the referenced belligerents. This in no way implies that the religions of today or yesterday cannot be taken issue with but I'd prefer to look for the individual involved. If a pope starts a crusade or an inquisition then seeing this as the work of man puts the responsibility right where it belongs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Choosing to ignore religious influences and blame it simply on man sounds to me like wishful thinking. I'm not sure, in your example for the Crusades, that one can blame things squarely on the Pope while ignoring his beliefs and the beliefs of all his followers.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the original issue was about George Bush and you've spread the field which is logically untenable. Throwing "books" or "wars" at another in hopes to confirm a generalization doesn't register. George Bush and the American landscape are quite different from the papacy and the crusades.

[/ QUOTE ]

If George Bush believes he is acting in accordance with what God wishes him to, then his religion has a direct effect on policy in the US including war. If you have some way of proving that he's lying everytime he mentions his Faith (and why it helps him guide decisions), then you may be right. At the moment, I'm taking him at his word. And from war to his stance on other matters of public policy, he publicly acknowledges that he is acting based on his religious beliefs.

Splendour

11-02-2007, 04:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

George travels in deception and perhaps delusion. This in no way represents the statement that religion causes wars.

If George is deluded by his religion into thinking he needs to make war, then yes, religion can help cause wars.

And I'm pretty sure if you look at the other side, the Islamics outright claim they're waging a holy war.

I think with a little research one can easily find a lot of Evangelical Christians who are interested in war in the Middle East because it will fulfill their religious prophecies.

One can look in the past to see war fueled by religion: The Crusades, The French Wars of Religion, Reconquista, the fights between Catholics & Protestants in Ireland, and of course, Islamic Jihad.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're reading things to suit yourself. The idea that George is "deluded by his religion" is laughable. Men start wars. George Bush is not a passive imbiber of a Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham cabal. that George might be a "naught" influenced by others I've often thought about but it's definitely not religion.

Look to individuals in all the referenced belligerents. This in no way implies that the religions of today or yesterday cannot be taken issue with but I'd prefer to look for the individual involved. If a pope starts a crusade or an inquisition then seeing this as the work of man puts the responsibility right where it belongs.

Also, the original issue was about George Bush and you've spread the field which is logically untenable. Throwing "books" or "wars" at another in hopes to confirm a generalization doesn't register. George Bush and the American landscape are quite different from the papacy and the crusades. Taking each individually and characterizing each within their own milieu IMO is the better approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw a video just the other day on this very subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzxN8X0dUao

kurto

11-02-2007, 04:14 PM

Thanks for the link Splendour. Just for the opportunity to read the posts by the Christians to the video. Some of my favorites:

[ QUOTE ]
Why do good Christians make the mistake of thinking the government is on their side? The U.S. government's principles of law are not Christian, but rather based on the deeply flawed Mosaic law system, which Jesus came to free us from!

[/ QUOTE ] This particularly amuses me since, if you goto the political forum, Christians are fond of telling us how its a Christian nation based on Christian law.

We need at least one serious reference to the Antichrist:
[ QUOTE ]
Psalm 19:7a The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: Today's 'Christians' are more like sheeple. and they'll be among the elect that may be deceived by the antichrist

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
These people aren't christian at all, they're masonic devil-worshippers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then there are a few Christians who said that Olberman is stretching and that the Whitehouse never used them... this is despite some in the Whitehouse staff referring to them (the Christians) as "ridiculous", "nuts", and "just plain goofy."

vhawk01

11-02-2007, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

George travels in deception and perhaps delusion. This in no way represents the statement that religion causes wars.

If George is deluded by his religion into thinking he needs to make war, then yes, religion can help cause wars.

And I'm pretty sure if you look at the other side, the Islamics outright claim they're waging a holy war.

I think with a little research one can easily find a lot of Evangelical Christians who are interested in war in the Middle East because it will fulfill their religious prophecies.

One can look in the past to see war fueled by religion: The Crusades, The French Wars of Religion, Reconquista, the fights between Catholics & Protestants in Ireland, and of course, Islamic Jihad.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're reading things to suit yourself. The idea that George is "deluded by his religion" is laughable. Men start wars. George Bush is not a passive imbiber of a Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham cabal. that George might be a "naught" influenced by others I've often thought about but it's definitely not religion.

Look to individuals in all the referenced belligerents. This in no way implies that the religions of today or yesterday cannot be taken issue with but I'd prefer to look for the individual involved. If a pope starts a crusade or an inquisition then seeing this as the work of man puts the responsibility right where it belongs.

Also, the original issue was about George Bush and you've spread the field which is logically untenable. Throwing "books" or "wars" at another in hopes to confirm a generalization doesn't register. George Bush and the American landscape are quite different from the papacy and the crusades. Taking each individually and characterizing each within their own milieu IMO is the better approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weird how "men start wars" but "religious men give to charity" hmm? I hope you shout down anyone who uses Mother Teresa as an example of anything just as loudly.

carlo

11-02-2007, 05:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Weird how "men start wars" but "religious men give to charity" hmm? I hope you shout down anyone who uses Mother Teresa as an example of anything just as loudly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mother Theresa stands on her own. No need to shout anybody down. Anytime I approach the particular religious denominations or any generalization with perspective I find it very difficult to find my way. It's like punching air or grabbing water. The history of mankind progresses through individual men and if one must judge, the road ends there.

By the way, thanks for the video. The people who marched to Washington under a religious aegis met duplicity which was equal to theirs. Power,power,power, no more and no less.

Splendour

11-02-2007, 06:30 PM

Not sure why you're focusing on trailer comments Kurto. The video was showing the political manipulation of a group of people.

In the U.S. there are voting blocks formed for all different reasons. Some are socioeconomic, some are ethnic, some are religious, some are regional, etc. The blocks base their votes on how politicians respond to their concerns. Anyone knows a politician can promise anything but what he delivers is another matter entirely.

You rant about logic in many threads you post. But this isn't about logic its about naivete. Haven't you ever heard of lobbying groups, voter identification. Do you really think every politician is what he represents?

I hope everyone watches the video so they can see what really happened. The trailer comments are not what really happened they are just the opinions of some viewers of the video.

CrayZee

11-02-2007, 07:48 PM

I agree w/ your view on individual religion vs. happiness. Siding w/ the "monumental underdog" here is really just functional irrationality.

But I am still not convinced that the aggregate of religious organization is positive. Isn't race, religion, and language commonly used to dehumanize people and help convince people into war. The less you can relate to the "enemy" the easier it is to wipe them out.

Religion is also used as an excuse to oppose inconvenient knowledge.

valenzuela

11-02-2007, 11:37 PM

I have thought this subject through over and over, "does religion make the world a better place?" and I reached the conclusion that it depends on the religion.
IMO a religion like christianity has way too many downsides, those downsides mostly include the denial of our own sexuality and how human beings really work.
I think that the ideal religion would be one that had all the secular values but backed up with a nice invisble man in the sky.
I like being an atheist because I got rid of specific christian BS out of my head( being gay is bad, etc) but if I could believe in a God with secular values it would be really awesome.

Tuco

11-03-2007, 02:16 AM

I agree, but David you ignore the likely result of what happens when differing religions go to war in the name of their state. Big downside that should be factored in.

Tuco.

Lestat

11-03-2007, 02:34 AM

I agree there is no harm in leaving someone to their dellusions if that's what it takes to give their life a sense of purpose and makes them feel happy and secure. The problem is when people take these exact same dellusions and use them in dangerous ways. Bombing abortion clinics comes to mind as does blowing oneself up imagining that's what heir God wants them to and has 72 virgins waiting for them as a reward.

These debates should rarely be be about God, but about reason and rationality.

sirio11

11-03-2007, 02:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I'm reading things to suit myself? Since when is taking a man at his word "reading things to suit myself?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on Kurto, you really think the Iraq war was started because Georgy wanted to please his God ?

If you're really serious about that I have nothing more to add. I guess God didn't just call George, probably he and his infinite power made a video-conference and convinced George, Cheney, and all the others in the power structure on the US to go to war with Iraq.

I'm not a religious man at all, but I wonder why some people spend a lot of time and energy trying to blame religion for all the bad things in this world when alternative explanations (using Occam's razor) are just more plausible than the "evilness" of religion. I know pretty intelligent and logic people who just lose it when they start talking about religion and how religious people are stupid and evil at the same time !?!. If they were molested by a priest or something I understand, but if not, it's hard to understand being that zealous.

sirio11

11-03-2007, 03:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I agree there is no harm in leaving someone to their delusions if that's what it takes to give their life a sense of purpose and makes them feel happy and secure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is when people take these exact same delusions and use them in dangerous ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and I think the solution is to focus in the individuals and rarely in the delusions themselves. There are sick individuals with all kind of delusions, I mean there are people who have killed hundreds because they hate government, and I don't think a good idea is to start a crusade against ACists because they are "dangerous people"

Ah, and I also think stereotypes like

[ QUOTE ]
imagining that's what heir God wants them to and has 72 virgins waiting for them as a reward.

[/ QUOTE ]

are pretty bad to understand other cultures and work together as a global society in order to make the world a better place to live.

madnak

11-03-2007, 03:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a religious man at all, but I wonder why some people spend a lot of time and energy trying to blame religion for all the bad things in this world when alternative explanations (using Occam's razor) are just more plausible than the "evilness" of religion. I know pretty intelligent and logic people who just lose it when they start talking about religion and how religious people are stupid and evil at the same time !?!. If they were molested by a priest or something I understand, but if not, it's hard to understand being that zealous.

[/ QUOTE ]

On that note, I think people greatly underestimate the damage that religion is regularly responsible for at the personal level. It's not about suicide bombers. It's about dysfunctional relationship models, motivation through guilt and fear, and heavy-handed condemnation (leading to persecution of condemned individuals and alienation from condemned groups).

drzen

11-03-2007, 05:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your points are fine, but I disagree that most people have religious beliefs to prevent misery. They have them because they're stupid, brainwashed, non committed, or socially conditioned.

The fear and despair that people feel at the possible loss of faith has more to do with the natural fear of change than it does with suffering or comfort.

People like NotReady, who actually know or suspect the atheist position is correct and continue to be religious regardless, are in the minority I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a continuum. The less intelligent you are, the less preposterous your specific religion is to you, and the less likely your belief is a symptom of unhappiness that would manifest itself if the religion was taken away from you.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. One can imagine Mr Sklansky arguing that belief in God is a sign of intelligence were he religious, and we would be reading posts giving reasons for belief. I am probably alone in believing he would make a better Anselm than Dawkins, but never mind.

David, most people who have religious beliefs have the beliefs, and in some cases they make them happy. But rarely do they believe as a means of becoming happy. And, largely, they pursue the same ends as everyone else. For many, religious beliefs are pretty much incidental to their lives. I think you take too much the view that belief is monolithic, but people vary in it as much as they do in most other things.

[ QUOTE ]
More intelligent people who believe these specifics are more likely to suffer if they were forced to admit to themselves that they are ridiculous to be so sure of religious details.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they're more likely to think you ridiculous for not being able to grasp the idea of faith. It's not entirely rational but many of the basics in our lives are not products of reason: love, fear, anger, breathing.

[ QUOTE ]
(Unless that belief is stopping them from being great scientists or gamblers). Since it is mainly this category of theist that frequent this forum, I don't think I want to try to convince them of the error of their ways anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

How noble.

madnak

11-03-2007, 06:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. One can imagine Mr Sklansky arguing that belief in God is a sign of intelligence were he religious, and we would be reading posts giving reasons for belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. David wouldn't ignore the strong correlation between atheism and intelligence, or the fact that most of our greatest intellects are atheists (despite the fact that only a small minority of the general population are).

mrick

11-03-2007, 09:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The title of the thread wasn't really my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

A more intelligent person should be, by definition, seeking more a cushion of silly convenience such as religion. A less intelligent person would not be, by definition, worrying too much about things such as the afterlife or the essence of time, even without religion's soothing tales. The more details and graphic descriptions about the strength of our opponent in the ring we learn, the more inclined we get to annul the fight, in general. And vice versa.

Therefore, the main criterion which decides who goes forward (towards the always unpleasant truth) and who stays back (in the soft bossom of religion) is courage, before all else, e.g. intelligence, learning, etc. (Note that, in this context, "courage" is used in its fullest sense, since there is no compensation for it besides that old canard you mentioned, aka the pleasure of battle.)

I would also posit that usually there is no setting up to travel the route and then chickening out and turning back; I'd presume people won't even start on that road, and the reason is they intuit the precipice of the abyss next to the safe, religious path.

xxThe_Lebowskixx

11-03-2007, 03:55 PM

I don't think Id seen David get owned like this before. His OP is horrible and I think everyone did a good job of picking apart his arguments.

kurto

11-04-2007, 12:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure why you're focusing on trailer comments Kurto.

[/ QUOTE ]

I enjoyed some of the over the top comments.

[ QUOTE ]
But this isn't about logic its about naivete. Haven't you ever heard of lobbying groups, voter identification. Do you really think every politician is what he represents?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree there's a story about naivete here. Its about politicians manipulating a very naive group of people.

kurto

11-04-2007, 12:04 AM

Do I believe the entire war is to blame on Bush's religious beliefs? No.

Do I believe Bush believes he is a good Christian who acts with God's blessing? I believe its more then likely.

Do I believe Bush has made many political decisions because of his religious beliefs? Yes.

Do I believe there are religious factions who crave war in the middle east to fulfill their religious wishes? Yes.

etc.

felson

11-04-2007, 01:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I see no good reason for me to pursue the subject further.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, you've announced that you were finished with threads on religion on many occasions already. Why keep saying this when it's never been true before?

PairTheBoard

11-04-2007, 04:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see no good reason for me to pursue the subject further.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, you've announced that you were finished with threads on religion on many occasions already. Why keep saying this when it's never been true before?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are some of the trickiest angle shooting backdoor slippery attacks on the religious SMPers going on here that Sklansky is capable of making. I'm suprised people haven't picked up on that. It's a great all purpose retort to people who disagree with him. It must be because they are more interested in feeling good than the truth.

He's used a version of this same argument for those who guess there is something wrong somwhere in one of his perfect chains of logic. It must be because it will hurt too bad if it forces them to change their opinion. I guess he read a book recently so now he understands why people disagree with him. It couldn't be because he might be wrong about things.

PairTheBoard

David Sklansky

11-04-2007, 04:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see no good reason for me to pursue the subject further.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, you've announced that you were finished with threads on religion on many occasions already. Why keep saying this when it's never been true before?

[/ QUOTE ]

I will still write about religion. The part I won't pursue is the attempt at cornering those who think their own religion is obviously the logical one, via the method of forcing them into a contradiction.

Meanwhile I find it interesting that most of the theists on this forum seem to annoint me the leader of the atheists here, even though so many of those other atheists are so much mure virolent against religion and so much surer than I, that there is no evidence of any sort of god.

David Sklansky

11-04-2007, 05:06 AM

"it must be because they are more interested in feeling good than the truth."

Everybody is. Including me. Which is why the only people whose opinions others can trust, must not only be extremely intelligent, but also engaged in fields (or have the mindset) where finding and knowing the truth, regardless of its implications, gives them more pleasure than any displeasure that truth might cause them.

PairTheBoard

11-04-2007, 05:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"it must be because they are more interested in feeling good than the truth."

Everybody is. Including me. Which is why the only people whose opinions others can trust, must not only be extremely intelligent, but also engaged in fields (or have the mindset) where finding and knowing the truth, regardless of its implications, gives them more pleasure than any displeasure that truth might cause them.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case you should be getting a great deal of pleasure when you finally realize the truth about the many things you have been wrong about. Unless you're wrong about that too.

PairTheBoard

john voight

11-04-2007, 11:35 PM

if you take all the religious ppl
and you somehow take away the religion from them by taking away churches, bibles, etc...
a very negative thing would happen
evrey thing we do/believe is b/c of a value we place on it, thta usually results in a result that we feel is for the better.

Rick Nebiolo

11-14-2007, 05:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think that most people in the world do live lives of quiet desperation and what gives them a degree of solace in their present life is the sense of belonging that their religion gives them, as well as hope that the next life will be better?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

~ Rick

Edit to say this doesn't necessarily apply to me but I believe it applies to people very close to me.

dragonystic

11-14-2007, 11:25 AM

wow, what a terrible argument

im reminded..
"better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied"

and its not because Socrates is happier than the fool. it is because there are some things which have greater value than immediate pleasure and overall happiness units (or however you choose to make this measurement.)

besides, your basic premise that people would be happier is likely false in the first place. especially when you consider a much longer time frame than how people would feel at the present moment.

eradicate religion 200 years ago, and we likely would be living in a much better (and happier) world today. and likewise for future generations. the quicker religion dies, the better. these sorts of arguments do nothing but help keep alive an antiquated and completely useless system of superstitions.

.KeviN.

11-14-2007, 02:40 PM

I have to agree with Slansky on this. I'm very biased because of my faith, but I think it allows be to understand what he means becaused I've actually experienced it. I'm very intelligent, bright, and logical, which makes me a horible candidate for Christianity. The only thing that I have going for me is that I have a big heart. "Coming to Christ" allowed be to stop dictating my life by trying to control it and having to figure everything out at once. I used to think I was sort of happy, but it wasn't until I found God that I found out what true happiness was.

Now was it all real? You probably don't think so. Even though it absolutely changed my life 100% for the better it can be all chalked up to an emotional experience or a false hope in something to distract me from life's problems. Whatever.

Don't get me wrong I absolutely believe it was real, but even if it wasn't it changed my life for the better. The week after I was "saved" my parents and non-christian friends couldn't believe the change in me. Everyone was asking me about it and said they've never seen me so clear and happy. One of my friends, who is one of the smartest people I know and who I've had countless intellectual conversations with, told me to get real and that I was way too smart to believe in any of it. I told him straight up, "Look, even if I was absolutely crazy and this is all a lie, I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world". And to be honest he is one of the most miserable people I know. I have more to say but I gotta run but I hope at least I got something across to support the OP.

Peter666

11-14-2007, 06:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
carlo,

What a horrible view of life. The author needs a good kick in the pants.

There are many things which make life wonderful even for the most spiritual of men. To suggest that life on earth is misery betrays a lack of imagination, a lack of spirit, a lack of courage, and a lack of heart. Perhaps the author is so depressed because he sucks at life, or is so focussed on the magical superplace awaiting him that he doesn't realize or appreciate the gift of life.

Anyway, I would be embarrassed to read or quote that as a Christian, and from a quick google it appears that this is an influential Christian works. Yikes.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is not understood here is that this writing is the work of a monk who has had direct mystical experience with God through contemplation. Unless one has experienced what he has experienced, or has had the grace to have some sort of understanding of it, they cannot help but comment out of ignorance.

The things of this world that are loved by so many are crap compared to what a mystic sees and experiences. As a practical example, if you live in England, an ugly girl by Eastern European standards will look pretty good, only because your point of reference are all the other ugly English girls.

So while you may enjoy the English girl, the mystics will enjoy the supermodels and feel sorry for your predicament.

kurto

11-14-2007, 06:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So while you may enjoy the English girl, the mystics will enjoy the supermodels and feel sorry for your predicament.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is the worst analogy I've ever heard.

And why are the monks pitying the person who loves a girl simply because they find them unattractive? Who are these idiotic monks who don't understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

I pity the monks. They sound foolish and conceited.

Peter666

11-14-2007, 10:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So while you may enjoy the English girl, the mystics will enjoy the supermodels and feel sorry for your predicament.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is the worst analogy I've ever heard.

And why are the monks pitying the person who loves a girl simply because they find them unattractive? Who are these idiotic monks who don't understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

I pity the monks. They sound foolish and conceited.

[/ QUOTE ]

The monks also know you are going to burn in Hell for the temporary pleasure you take in a subpar creature. Ignorance is bliss until the truth is realized.

TheActionKid

11-14-2007, 11:56 PM

This might sound kinda corny but I had this idea - if your girlfriend likes chinese food, you take her to a restaurant where you make a special request to have a ring baked inside the cookie and the fortune saying "will you marry me?" Thoughts?

-TheActionKid

madnak

11-15-2007, 12:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This might sound kinda corny but I had this idea - if your girlfriend likes chinese food, you take her to a restaurant where you make a special request to have a ring baked inside the cookie and the fortune saying "will you marry me?" Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good. I think a lot of it depends on the girl. Just make sure she doesn't eat the fortune.

MichaelBolton777

11-15-2007, 12:39 AM