What is the true reason for looking towards religion?

[hitchhiker]

When I see people dedicating their lives to God, Ailah, Buddah, or what ever their Divine Creater is I wounder if it is purely a relationship of an anwser that satifies them and releives them of the worries of the after life and the soothing comfort of that they are not alone or is it a true love to this Divine intelligence and a respect to its all amazing aw. Where does the majority lie in the releam of true love and honor or in the comfort zone of hopeing that they are not alone. I my self lie on the outer regions where I just look in a except the fact that there is more then likely a Divine Creater but choose not to specify it or to bow my life to it. Where do you lie or do you disagree with me. These are just my opions and I wish all replays to stay philosophical and do not make them concret for there are no true answers to this, which is the reason I enjoy poundering these type of ideas.

[ShoutGrace]

When I see people dedicating their lives to God, Ailah, Buddah, or what ever their Divine Creater is I wounder if it is purely a relationship of an anwser that satifies them and releives them of the worries of the after life and the soothing comfort of that they are not alone

Where did you get this idea? I've said it elsewhere and I'll say it again:

Atheism is an absolutely risk free proposition. Your emotional or physical joys or travails will all be extinquished anyway. Life in its entirety is risk free, given atheism.

It is only given atheism that a person would have their "worries" of the afterlife relieved. After choosing to become a theist, a person inherits a number of responsibilities and "worries": the afterlife then takes on a significance.

I think convincing myself that life has no "afterlife" would be overwhelmingly relaxing. Doing such a thing would be anything but scary; indeed, it would relieve a person of the full gamut of potential hazards associated with existence.

[ralles]

Why do you feel that being an atheist absolves a person from responsibilities a theist may have? Do you think all theists believe in an afterlife? What do you expect from the afterlife (if it exists)? Do you feel that you'll be rewarded or punished for the actions that you take while you're alive? Do you choose the actions you take today solely on the rewards or punishments you yourself can expect to reap in your version of the afterlife? What about choosing your actions in this life based on the harm or good it will do you and/or others in this life?

I believe in God because it gives me comfort to believe in God. I'm not a member of any organized religion but I feel many people choose a religion so they can feel validation and camaraderie among others who think and feel in a similar way to themselves.

[hitchhiker]

I believe in God because it gives me comfort to believe in God.

So you do believe. But don't you think that if you truely believe you should not believe just becuase it comforts you but you should believe to honor and truely show appreteation for the Creater. It almost seems selfish to look for comfort just for yourself. But I am always just guessing.

[ralles]

What makes you think that belief in God can't be it's own way of honoring the creator? I doubt seriously that if God exists, he's really all THAT worried about how, why, or what I or anyone else feels. In fact there have been quite a few instances in my life where I've felt that God has a very nasty, sadistic sense of humor and he's picked a select few to be the butt of his jokes. God, if he/she/it exists, can be cruel, fickle and puerile. Sorry about the little rant. i just don't think God is overly concerned about whether I believe in him/her/it or not. If he was, wouldn't that smack of pride and isn't God supposed to be perfect - whatever that is?

[trismegistus]

Atheism is an absolutely risk free proposition. Your emotional or physical joys or travails will all be extinquished anyway. Life in its entirety is risk free, given atheism.
If you're talking only about the wories of an afterlife, this is true (but of course the it's easy to argue that any worries about an afterlife are offset by the comforts of an afterlife).

On the other hand life itself is still filled with risk as an atheist because the physical and emotional joys from which one takes pleasure are still at risk. Risk is only avoided if one can manage to achieve the detachment called for in Zen practice (at least as I understand Zen practice).

In this regard theism allows a comfort that atheism does not. All one's joys can be stripped from him in this life leaving a pretty appalling existence. If one is a believer he can believe something better is on the horizon whereas the atheist can only expect the misery to stop - the latter being rather cold comfort in comparison.

[kathycf]

Since I am neither an atheist nor a follower of any organized faith I suppose my belief system could seem murky to others. However, I think any person is not absolved of responsibility simply because they are an atheist. I cannot speak for others but only myself in this matter but I set standards for myself and try hard to live up to them. I believe in the Golden Rule and I feel a sense of duty to others...not to be a "bleeding heart" but as a compassionate and caring person. Do I always succeed in this endeavor? Nope, but trying to is part of my journey.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

[ralles]

I agree with you. It's important to do what's right in this life for the sake of it being right.

[ShoutGrace]

Why do you feel that being an atheist absolves a person from responsibilities a theist may have?

I have to presume you are talking specifically about ‘responsibilities’ concerning the afterlife (as this is what I wrote) – if this is the case, however, my reasoning should be quite clear. For the atheist, there is no afterlife. For the theist, there potentially is one (see later comments).


Do you think all theists believe in an afterlife?

Well, perhaps this is a presumptuous belief. Could you please inform me of the theistic religions that do not believe there is an afterlife?

Should I amend my comment to read, “Theists who believe in an afterlife?” I think it’s considered a given.


What do you expect from the afterlife (if it exists)?

That’s a relatively personal question and not one I’m inclined to answer here.


Do you feel that you'll be rewarded or punished for the actions that you take while you're alive?

I would disagree heavily with your wording. I don’t believe in a God that would “punish” eternally. “Reward” has a tricky connotation as well – I do believe that if the afterlife exists, it takes into account a person’s heart, will, actions, etc.


Do you choose the actions you take today solely on the rewards or punishments you yourself can expect to reap in your version of the afterlife?

No, not at all, and I think to do so would be almost completely inhibiting. When I’m hungry, I eat – I don’t consider the afterlife during my daily routine, no.


What about choosing your actions in this life based on the harm or good it will do you and/or others in this life?

This comes into effect far more than the consideration of the afterlife, that’s for sure. What kind of living organism doesn't take into account the good or harm it's actions will cause it? :confused: It's an evolutionary trait - I thought that we did what was best for ourselves? Your question has two sides that basically encompass most every action taken by every person, as far as I can tell.


I believe in God because it gives me comfort to believe in God.

Then I think you may be cheating yourself. The only reason I would ever believe in something I couldn’t understand, quantify, account for, or reason would be if it was made all pervasively real to me – I don’t want God just as a comfort or a blanket, I only want God as the truth, inasmuch as I can ascertain it, of course.



I'm not a member of any organized religion but I feel many people choose a religion so they can feel validation and camaraderie among others who think and feel in a similar way to themselves.

Do they do this consciously or subconsciously?

[ShoutGrace]

If you're talking only about the wories of an afterlife, this is true (but of course the it's easy to argue that any worries about an afterlife are offset by the comforts of an afterlife).

I'm talking about both the worries of the afterlife and the worries of this life.


On the other hand life itself is still filled with risk as an atheist because the physical and emotional joys from which one takes pleasure are still at risk. Risk is only avoided if one can manage to achieve the detachment called for in Zen practice (at least as I understand Zen practice).

Those physical and emotional joys are temporal, that's my point. When a human dies, given atheism, then it will make no difference to them whether they had the best possible existence or the worst possible existence - it all crashes to black and their existence might as well have never taken place.


In this regard theism allows a comfort that atheism does not. All one's joys can be stripped from him in this life leaving a pretty appalling existence. If one is a believer he can believe something better is on the horizon whereas the atheist can only expect the misery to stop - the latter being rather cold comfort in comparison.

I'm not entirely sure - the theist doesn't really have guarantees concerning the afterlife - they've got a hunch, a belief about what they think it might be like. Though this can comfort them - I agree - "Sugarcandy Mountain" helps keep the workers in line.

Where is the risk for the atheist? The misery stops, and everything that you were and knew is extinguished forever - that "cold comfort" may as well have been "uplifting comfort" or may as well have been "utter hopelesness." After death, all is gone and you have no memory or care as to what happened during that horrific "alive" stage.


Since I am neither an atheist nor a follower of any organized faith I suppose my belief system could seem murky to others. However, I think any person is not absolved of responsibility simply because they are an atheist.


Neither do I. Are they absolved from concerns having to do with the afterlife? If they are fully convinced that there is no such thing, should they act in cognizance of it?


I cannot speak for others but only myself in this matter but I set standards for myself and try hard to live up to them. I believe in the Golden Rule and I feel a sense of duty to others...not to be a "bleeding heart" but as a compassionate and caring person. Do I always succeed in this endeavor? Nope, but trying to is part of my journey.

And it is honorable, considerate and human. The golden rule is as good a rule as any, I'd say.

And I don't think there are too many people who actually succeed in that endeavor. ;)

[kathycf]

I'm talking about both the worries of the afterlife and the worries of this life.

Are they absolved from concerns having to do with the afterlife? If they are fully convinced that there is no such thing, should they act in cognizance of it?

In that respect no, as it would make no sense for an atheist to worry about the afterlife.

[Mary Sue]

My argument for the existence of God is relatively simple. Plainly put: As human beings we all have universal cravings, and always for something that is potentially within our reach. If we crave it, then of necessity it must exist. And just as squirrels crave acorns, and flowers crave sunshine, so Man since time immemorial has desired a God.

And how does God fit into the equation? Well..Take, for instance, our most basic human needs. We all require food, and food DOES exist on our planet, though (sadly) not always in sufficient quantity everywhere. We all require physical/emotional intimacy, and nearly everyone has at least the POSSIBILITY of finding love. We all appreciate beauty in one form or another...and beauty, however subjective, is certainly a universal concept of which we all can point to various examples. In short, the very fact that we WANT something implies the thing's existence, since Nature is frugal with her gifts and would hardly burden us with instincts for that which is not...

I would argue that the NEED for God is absolutely intrinsic to human nature; that the majority of us prefer to believe in some sort of Higher Power and, by interpolation, an afterlife. And since this appears to be such a universal human need---spanning time and space, encompassing all countries and cultures and historical eras---then the means of satisfying said need must truly exist.

Even agnosticism and atheism express this same obsession with God. Because NON BELIEF implies a spiritual odyssey, too...the journey of one who has already considered, debated and refuted metaphysical questions. God is a universal human obsession. WE can't any of us do without God, hence God exists.

[trismegistus]

I'm talking about both the worries of the afterlife and the worries of this life.

Those physical and emotional joys are temporal, that's my point.
Agreed. Thus if you're talking about the risk involved while living, the lack of a concern for an afterlife solves nothing for the atheist. Every day he risks those temporal joys, thus it is erroneous to say that "Life in its entirety is risk free, given atheism."


I'm not entirely sure - the theist doesn't really have guarantees concerning the afterlife - they've got a hunch, a belief about what they think it might be like.
Suggested survey: Go ask 100 theists where they're going when they die. I think you'll find that only about 5%-10% of them are genuinely worried about Hell (or whatever eternal punishment is threatened in their theology). The modern Western view of God has become so human-friendly that the vast majority of theists are pretty certain that by living a decent life, they're going to be just fine in the afterlife. Go to church on Sunday and conduct your life the way any decent atheist would do, and you've passed the Pearly Gates just fine.


Though this can comfort them - I agree - "Sugarcandy Mountain" helps keep the workers in line.
Agreed. So can the promise of a raise at the end of every year.


Where is the risk for the atheist? The misery stops, and everything that you were and knew is extinguished forever - that "cold comfort" may as well have been "uplifting comfort" or may as well have been "utter hopelesness."
This is true after death, of course, but I was talking about the comfort theism gives while one is living as it relates to an afterlife. As I wrote, the theist can believe things will get better - even infinitely better - while the atheist can only believe that the condition of misery will simply stop (at the cost, by the way, of any potential future joys). As a rough analogy let's try this:

The starving theist can say, "Today sucks but starting tomorrow and for the rest of my life, I'm going to eat whatever I want and it will be served on golden platters with those nifty fingerbowls and a little something to cleanse the palette between each course. And a nice bottle of chianti, of course."

The starving theist can say: "Today sucks but starting tomorrow I will have bread and water all to my liking; thus I will no longer be hungry and this pain in my belly will desist. Hooray."

[bella_swan07]

Personally, I hold my own beliefs. Everything is to one's own opinion, basically nurturing makes up a strong part of anyone's beliefs. Everyone, it the back of their mind is thinking about other realms (i.e. heaven, hell etc) and wonder, whether it be Christian, Hindu or Thiest. No type of religion or "un-religion" can save anyone one from the fear of a greater entity and the life after death. Even from a scientist's point of view, there is a need to know how everything is created, was there a creator? I have to say that most people's beliefs come from their raising. My family is devout Christian, there lies my faith. And thus the key word...faith. That is what makes God God and Buddha Buddha...faith, it takes faith to believe it. Wow that was a completely out-there thing...

[i_rebel]

hitchhiker: "What is the true reason for looking towards religion?"

All the things a man does, the driving force, are selfish and they aim their personal wellbeing. Man searched his fruition in different ways... with no result though.

No metter what he would do, man will remain lonely while he is surrounded by people. And anguish by loneliness, as a cure, he invented an misterious resort, superior to him, which can help him and protect him. Instance that he invested with uncounted attributes. He came up to giving birth to a hole script of the creations of the existent, creation that is arrogated by this misterious resort. No man is enough for himself. He needs more to be fullfield. That's why he invented a God to pray for, a God that would understand him, a God that punishes him, a God to fill the hole inside of him.

[Orionsbelt]

I have done a lot of reading about myth and folklore. Please don’t take this as a criticism. I intend it as simply a statement. Actually I think the diversity and imagination is truly amazing. ;)

I think religion is a form of advanced empathetic magic. My reasoning goes like this. The earliest forms of religious activity had to do with ways to control or influence what is uncontrollable. The movement of herds, weather, fortune, love etc. So, I’ll call them magical acts, were performed to promote the intended outcome and mostly to give confidence and courage (hope) for people to move forward. As these practices evolved, the scope increased from individuals to the group and then to larger groups. It became necessary to align the individual within the group and the group with the larger cosmic forces that we were attempting to manipulate. Non-alignment could bring the disfavor of the intelligence that directed these forces. The logic is simple. If the intelligence is anything like us we don’t want to fall in disfavor and have favorable conditions withdrawn or worse replaced with very unfavorable conditions.:bawling: So now we have the framework that defines the “best” behavior for the group and individuals that will keep us all safe, cozy, and best of all aligned with the awesome forces that surround us.:D In this way we avoid the many bad things that we have all experienced. It follows then that when something bad does happen, it is because one or all of us is out of line with the established norms for staying cool with these things that wack us. We have also developed the means to fix things when we do get wacked so that we won’t get wacked again.

I think the true reasons are the same today as they were millenniums ago. We perform rituals and prayers in the hope that the magic of them will influence the forces of the universe to provide us with health, wealth, prosperity, security and etc. or at least … we won’t get wacked. :thumbs_up

[Virgil]

I have done a lot of reading about myth and folklore. Please don’t take this as a criticism. I intend it as simply a statement. Actually I think the diversity and imagination is truly amazing. ;)

I think religion is a form of advanced empathetic magic. My reasoning goes like this. The earliest forms of religious activity had to do with ways to control or influence what is uncontrollable. The movement of herds, weather, fortune, love etc. So, I’ll call them magical acts, were performed to promote the intended outcome and mostly to give confidence and courage (hope) for people to move forward. As these practices evolved, the scope increased from individuals to the group and then to larger groups. It became necessary to align the individual within the group and the group with the larger cosmic forces that we were attempting to manipulate. Non-alignment could bring the disfavor of the intelligence that directed these forces. The logic is simple. If the intelligence is anything like us we don’t want to fall in disfavor and have favorable conditions withdrawn or worse replaced with very unfavorable conditions.:bawling: So now we have the framework that defines the “best” behavior for the group and individuals that will keep us all safe, cozy, and best of all aligned with the awesome forces that surround us.:D In this way we avoid the many bad things that we have all experienced. It follows then that when something bad does happen, it is because one or all of us is out of line with the established norms for staying cool with these things that wack us. We have also developed the means to fix things when we do get wacked so that we won’t get wacked again.

I think the true reasons are the same today as they were millenniums ago. We perform rituals and prayers in the hope that the magic of them will influence the forces of the universe to provide us with health, wealth, prosperity, security and etc. or at least … we won’t get wacked. :thumbs_up

That is like the James Frazier theory of magic and religion proposed in the late 19th century. I don't think it has held up very well over time. For instance there is what I think is a fatal flaw in its logic. Frazier assumes that religion starts as magic and then over time evolves into a formalized religion. That projects a a series of progression to get to the established religion. OK, but it doesn't take very long for people to realize that their magic is not having any affect. After a couple of tries of hit and miss effort, any human being with a brain will realize the magic is not effecatious. Therefore it would have been stymied either before that progression began or along that progression.

[Whifflingpin]

Virgil: " it doesn't take very long for people to realize that their magic is not having any affect."

It takes for ever for people to realise this. If I recall Pavlovian experiments correctly, 1) animals were rewarded when they performed certain actions, so they then performed the actions in order to obtain the reward. 2) If the rewards were abruptly discontinued, then the animals soon stopped performing the actions. 3) If the rewards were randomly discontinued then the animals took far longer to stop performing the actions.

Magic will work at least as often as the laws of probability dictate. So (applying the Pavlovian results to humans - imperfect, I know) human beings, even or especially those with brains, will continue indefinitely to perform the actions that appear to provide (even intermittently) the rewards.

I say especially those with brains, because, 1) just possibly, they are better able to rationalise the occasional failures and 2) they obtain rewards anyway, in the form of power and prestige, because they are the magicians.

Not that that has anything to do with the subject of the thread.


Oh, Shoutgrace, the Hebrews believed in God long before they believed in an afterlife, and even now, belief in an afterlife is not, I think, a necessary part of Judaism. Not that that has anything to do with the subject of the thread, either.

[Virgil]

Magic will work at least as often as the laws of probability dictate. So (applying the Pavlovian results to humans - imperfect, I know) human beings, even or especially those with brains, will continue indefinitely to perform the actions that appear to provide (even intermittently) the rewards.


That was my point. What are the statistics that if you do a rain dance it will rain? The odds are pretty low, so it doesn't take long before one realizes the inefficacy of it. Religion is a much more complicated manner than reducing it to magic and extropolating religion from it.

[Orionsbelt]

Religion is a much more complicated manner than reducing it to magic and extropolating religion from it.

Well, I'm game. how so?:)


William James - "The varieties of religious experience": a study in human nature. Gifford lectures 1901-1902

"The gods believed in whether by crude savage or by men disciplined intellectually agree with each other in recognizing personal calls. Religious thought is carried on in terms or personality, this being in the world of religion, the one fundamental fact. Today, quite as much as at any previous age, the religious individual tells you that the divine meets him on the basis of his personal concerns."

[ShoutGrace]

Agreed. Thus if you're talking about the risk involved while living, the lack of a concern for an afterlife solves nothing for the atheist. Every day he risks those temporal joys, thus it is erroneous to say that "Life in its entirety is risk free, given atheism."

I contend that to risk something that will be absolutely, assuredly lost in the near future, forever, is not a real risk at all. It is impossible to create a situation analogous to life/death, but lets try this anyway (just to return the favor):

Imagine that there is a 10 year old boy chained, at the feet, to a street corner in an abandoned ghost town. He can't move, and is suffering from dehydration, malnutrition, and . . . polio, just to top it off. He has 5 one dollar bills in his hand, from someplace he can't remember - these bills constitute the whole of his possessions. A giant hulk of a bodybuilder comes along, gets in his face and yells, "In 1.5 minutes I'm gonna take those 5 dollars, you little twerp." Then the bodybuilder walks a few feet away, maintaining an eye on the boy.

It is at this point that the boy realises that before he dies, he would love to get some juggling in, and of course all he has to juggle with are the bills, which may be wadded together into balls. But whatever happens, he doesn't want to lose the bills - they are all he has, he is emotionally attached to them, he wants to keep them, and he would be loathe to drop one whilst juggling, and be unable to reach it. He feels inhibited, and is trying to decide whether to risk juggling or not.

My point is that he is going to lose those bills one way or the other, it is a surety. He cannot hope to retain them for longer than 60 seconds, so to fear losing them is absurd - indeed, fearing to risk them is absurd - imagining he can risk them is absurd. Whether he has the bills for 30 seconds or 60 seconds makes no difference, especially after he dies (when all is nothing).

Death is the complete ending of absolutely everything relating to existence. How can you risk something that will become nothing in a mere moment? Even the idea of any kind of risk possible will be obliterated at the time of death.

"It's all utterly pointless and therefore so is saying so."

“Whether you live a few hours, or a few years, matters not, once you have lost eternity.” - Jean Paul Sartre




Suggested survey: Go ask 100 theists where they're going when they die. I think you'll find that only about 5%-10% of them are genuinely worried about Hell (or whatever eternal punishment is threatened in their theology). The modern Western view of God has become so human-friendly that the vast majority of theists are pretty certain that by living a decent life, they're going to be just fine in the afterlife. Go to church on Sunday and conduct your life the way any decent atheist would do, and you've passed the Pearly Gates just fine.


Well, I'll take you word for it. I imagine it's better for evangelism.



This is true after death, of course, but I was talking about the comfort theism gives while one is living as it relates to an afterlife. As I wrote, the theist can believe things will get better - even infinitely better - while the atheist can only believe that the condition of misery will simply stop (at the cost, by the way, of any potential future joys).

Alright, that's fine, I will agree that a theist can conjure comfort during this life. I still maintain that it doesn't matter either way, however - it will, in the end, be the same for a theoretical person; that is, whether they had the comfort or not. It makes no difference, ultimately.




As a rough analogy let's try this:

The starving theist can say, "Today sucks but starting tomorrow and for the rest of my life, I'm going to eat whatever I want and it will be served on golden platters with those nifty fingerbowls and a little something to cleanse the palette between each course. And a nice bottle of chianti, of course."

The starving theist can say: "Today sucks but starting tomorrow I will have bread and water all to my liking; thus I will no longer be hungry and this pain in my belly will desist. Hooray."

I don't find these entirely convincing, merely because they are both temporal.

Wouldn't the theist say, "Today sucks but starting tommorow I will have *all the nifty niceties* for all eternity?"

Wouldn't the second (atheist?) say, "Starting tommorow I may have bread and water to my liking - in addition, I will die an indeterminate amount of time from now and everything related to me, who I was, what I thought, who I cared about, etc, will be as if it never happened (as far as I'm concerned)?"

"No longer being hungry" is different than "not existing."

[subterranean]

I believe in Christ, but that doesn't necessarily make me embrace Christianity. Believing in Christ and embracing Christianity are two different things, I think, as the later is somewhat man made. Hence, I'm not really in to this religion thingy.

As a system of belief, religion provides concepts, structure, practices/rituals, norms, values, traditions, etc. I'm not really sure why (as I consider belief as something completely individual) but to some extend, some people/believers need those things. I can believe in God, but I probably would like to have a more distinct definition about God. In the process, I might need more than just definition of God and I might end up embracing particular established religion or I could then created my own religion (my own definition of God, my own religious norms and values, my own rituals, etc).

[trismegistus]

I contend that to risk something that will be absolutely, assuredly lost in the near future, forever, is not a real risk at all.
I think that's fine for people who live each moment with the understanding that life is transitory. I suspect that very few people indeed say, "Meh. Who cares if I ever get laid again? It's all going to be lost soon anyway."


"It's all utterly pointless and therefore so is saying so."

“Whether you live a few hours, or a few years, matters not, once you have lost eternity.” - Jean Paul Sartre
As I wrote above, I think such quotes are just fine, but I also think that astonishingly few are those who actually live by them rather than mouth them as empty platitudes (or even words of comfort as the theist mouths his prayers).


Well, I'll take you word for it.
Please don't. It wasn't offered as a mere piece of rhetoric.


I imagine it's better for evangelism.
I don't know enough evangelicals to come to any conclusions, but the few I do know actually seem quite convinced of their salvation. They're "born again" and thus saved. (This also seems to be the case in much of the stuff we hear in the media from the Religious Right.)


Alright, that's fine, I will agree that a theist can conjure comfort during this life.
Agreed. A theist can conjure more comfort from his belief than an atheist can conjure from his.


I still maintain that it doesn't matter either way, however - it will, in the end, be the same for a theoretical person; that is, whether they had the comfort or not. It makes no difference, ultimately.
True enough and I acknowledged this in my first post. If you're only talking about "the end" your statement is fine, but you've also offered that atheism is risk-free during life. I don't think you'll find many atheists who will risk their joys in this life under the premise that they're passing in an instant. Actually I don't think you'll find many theists who would do such a thing, and they believe they have the chance to recapture those joys. You're talking about a level of detachment from this world that is highly unusual. I'd even suggest that this level of detachment from wordly joys and sorrows is more prevalent among religious types (monks etc.) than it is in atheists.


I don't find these entirely convincing, merely because they are both temporal.
The framework of the statements in the analogy is temporal, but of course "tomorrow" signifies death. Thus a theist can believe that in death he will have it all (nice dinners); the atheist can only believe in the end of suffering (no more hunger).

It doesn't much matter anyway. The analogy was being used to support the idea you conceded above, namely that the theist can draw more comfort during his life because he believes he actually has something to look forward to in his afterlife.

[ShoutGrace]

I think that's fine for people who live each moment with the understanding that life is transitory. I suspect that very few people indeed say, "Meh. Who cares if I ever get laid again? It's all going to be lost soon anyway."

Oh, I agree. In fact, I think that it would be quite impossible to live life with a constant remembrance that life is transitory and utterly meaningless.



I don't know enough evangelicals to come to any conclusions, but the few I do know actually seem quite convinced of their salvation. They're "born again" and thus saved. (This also seems to be the case in much of the stuff we hear in the media from the Religious Right.)

Right, sure. I was referring to evangelism more as “missionary zeal, purpose, or activity,” rather than a specific Christian sect. It helps to be able to say that God wouldn’t ever send people to hell, that he is “good” according to our definition. People don’t like a God that might behave certain ways, I think – when you say the concept of God has become “human friendly,” I’d say that I agree. Conforming “God” to fit people’s understanding helps when trying to convert them. Of course the most prominent definition of “evangelism” is “preaching the Christian gospel, proselytizing, converting,” etc.


I don't think you'll find many atheists who will risk their joys in this life under the premise that they're passing in an instant.

I agree. To do so would be contradictory from the way humans operate. People need purpose, direction, worth and meaning – that is why I think that religion is so popular, because it provides these things for its adherents.


You're talking about a level of detachment from this world that is highly unusual.

I hope I'm not missing your point here.

Some philosophers won’t allow as a given that they even exist – but to act under the assumption that you don’t exist would be absurd. Philosophically understanding that life is meaningless and that everything associated with it is essentially nothing doesn’t necessarily relieve a person from the requirements of life. You might still live just to see what happens tomorrow, I guess.

You can hope for joyous experiences, and enjoy and relish your good times – I think that any person would do this as a matter of rote, if nothing else.

Between the two choices, A.) Live life to the fullest and try your best, and B.) Live a horrible existence and don’t work hard at all to better it, it seems clear what most people would choose.


I'd even suggest that this level of detachment from wordly joys and sorrows is more prevalent among religious types (monks etc.) than it is in atheists.

I agree, and the point is well made. Atheists usually say something to the effect of, “Because life is temporal and it all will be lost someday, it’s more important to enjoy the only one I have.” I guess I just can’t see the logic. It isn’t more “important.” Surely you’d rather enjoy it – and anybody would and would try to – but still, it just doesn’t matter.

I'm not saying that atheists need to constantly act under the knowledge that what they are doing ultimately doesn't matter, I'm just saying that ultimately, it doesn't matter.

Your disagreement seems to stem wholly from my phrase, "Life is risk free, given atheism." I maintain that it is - and I agree with your assertion that most don't (or won't, or can't) act that way. I still contend that it is an equation that has already been solved for a human:

Life (joys, existence, hope, suffering, love, attachment, pain) = nothing.

What is the significance of the former if, no matter what, it will always be worthless and meaningless? Again, a person must behave as if life is significant, to do otherwise would be (enter adjective here).

[Poetess]

The reason to look towards religion is to know why you exist, what`s the point of life, who and what made us come here? why here and nowhere else? why this shape and nothing else?

In Islam, Allah created us to show His power and existence.

[dramasnot6]

The reason to look towards religion is to know why you exist, what`s the point of life, who and what made us come here? why here and nowhere else? why this shape and nothing else?

In Islam, Allah created us to show His power and existence.

But how can you really know the definite answer to all these things when so many different religions pose so many different answers to them? And why conform to a set of answers st by a religion when you can individually seek and explore your own?

[Bii]

This is an interesting thread (and my first post so please go easy on me!) - I have a slightly different slant on this question. I believe that the predominence of religion in society results from natural selection i.e. survival of the fittest. This relies on a couple of assumptions being that 1) man is inherently selfish and will do whatever is in his best interests at the time and 2) humanity succeeds because of it's ability to live in large social groups. However, the two are not mutually exclusive as often living in large social groups means that you have to put aside that which is in your immediate self interest i.e. you have to share resources, protect the weak etc, in order to ensure the survival of the larger group. In early society it will have been hard to generate social cohesion, but societies which had a religion i.e a belief in an after-life and an 'all seeing judge' at it's core will have found it easier to generate social cohesion and the qualities which allow individuals to put aside their immediate self interest for the greater good, and for a longer term reward (i.e. in the afterlife). Those societies flourished, and the societies without religion in general will have been smaller and likely to have died out. Religion, and belief in God or a God-like being are (or perhaps were) therefore necessary to ensure the long term success of the human race.
This would account for why religions (at least in the beginning) were largely regional in nature, and also why we are starting to see a downturn in religion (particularly in Western culture) where the information age is allowing people access to more knowledge and cultural influences causing people to question their 'traditional' beliefs. The problem with this is that it leaves a gap - in Greek culture there was a belief in the sanctity of the state which we do not have (who trusts politicians?) in current society and which may account for the erosion in social order which appears to be occurring more frequently (or perhaps I'm just getting old?!).

Not sure if I've explained that too well! I'd be interested in thoughts/questions/challenge?!

[Redzeppelin]

Hi Bii (did that rhyme?) and welcome to the forums -

Your argument proposes religion almost as the "opiate of the people" - a sort of social contract that makes us behave better - a Hobbesian view of behavior. From a sociologist's point of view, I can understand this idea. But, such a view reduces religion to a sort of "moral candy-coating" that smoothes social interaction. That's fine, but it drains religion of its spiritual content.

Religion is an acknowledgement that we (humanity) are not the basis of life, truth, existence and creation in the universe. If people "turn" to it - that is usually due to a realization of some sort that requires something bigger than ourselves to give the random and chaotic nature of reality an order, a meaning, a significance. I understand why an earlier post said God is "comforting" - well, yes, but the flip side of that comfort is a sense of personal responsibility that virtually all religions require from its adherants. Religion isn't neurosis or social "grease" - it is acknowledgement of an Originator to the universe.