Religion DOES Do More Good Than Harm

[drzen]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

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]

[ 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]

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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

"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.