A discourse on Atheism (not a religious debate)

[KCurtis]

Yes it did, I went back and re-read it. I am dismayed that your generation feels this way. I understand it, and while I am not religious at all, it saddens me because of my past history, and how it was different than yours because I saw first hand the good that Churches did when I was a kid. I still think there are great religious people out there, and many people are helped by them. All I can say is I am so grateful for the freedom I have to NOT have to have a religion, and the freedom others have to believe in theirs. I like young people, and want to understand them. But there are still young people who are religious too.

He's also correct in stating that the SOUTH was very religious as well. Saying that abolition was the result of religious people in order to prove the inherant goodness of religion is like saying it was the result of people with brown hair, and therefor people with brown hair are morally good. The vast majority of people were Christian at that time period. Also, my OP specified that I was discussing the last two decades, not 1861.

The negatives FAR outweigh the positives, and those positives (hospitals for example) have been provided via secular methods such as government or charity far more often than religion.

Regarding "new atheists," here's the thing: most "new atheists" (which I think could be more accurately described as the new "anti-organized religious," since they're not even all atheists) were born in the 80's which means: when they were children, they watched Muslims fly airplanes into New York City; when AIDS developed, they were babies and grew up watching people die by the millions in Africa because the Catholic Church refused to allow people to use condoms; when they were growing up, the Catholic Church's histoy of institutionalized coverups of priests molesting children was exposed; they were also kids during the most active phase of the Gay Rights Movement. Of course, why deny the same legal rights to people just because of what they choose to do in the privacy of their own homes, the resolution sounds obvious. The only opposition? Religious people, who say disturbing things about homosexuality being "wrong" and send kids to unbelievably ****ed up "learn how to be straight" seminar retreats. Their behaviour caused many gay people to commit suicide. On top of that, many people see the Iraq war as a holy war.

So in summation, BY FAR the biggest topics on the news throughout their entire lives were: thousands of people being crushed and burned to death, millions of people dying slowly of aids, children being molested and the supposed "good guys" lying about it to protect themselves, gay suicide and denial of human rights, and for what? From the "new anti-organized religion," vantage point, each religious belief seems equally (in)valid, so to them it looks like people are fighting about which has the toughest invisible friend, and they're making people suffer because it's what that invisible friend wants. Insane.

So, taking these things into consideration, is it really any wonder that "new atheists" feel so much disgust and anger towards organized religion (and specifically, the Judeo-Christo-Islamic religions)? Profound disgust towards organized religion seems to be one of the main features of my generation, one only needs to mention Christianity in a classroom for this to become apparent, and it's not the "liberal professors" who are putting these ideas into our heads like many people claim, kids aren't stupid sheep: our opinions arise from our own observation of the screwed up world in which we were raised.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm really not sure if the negatives of religion far outweigh the positives or not . . . and I'm not really sure if there's any way to know one way or another. The problem with trying to determine whether or not this is the case is that the negatives will always get way more attention than the positives. Suicide bombings, wars in the Middle-East, those idiots that hold the "God hates fags" signs at soldiers' funerals, those will always get news coverage. The churches that do help the needy, donate to hospitals (or even run hospitals), etc; none of them get barely any publicity because it's not sensational.

Here's my opinion. The positives and the negatives, if anything, seem to cancel each other out, leaving the "goodness" of religion rendered neutral. It's neither good nor bad, it's just another thing in the world that does both in extremes at both ends of the spectrum, while probably 95% of what's done in the name of religion is pretty harmless. Religion is just there,

[Drkshadow03]

Yes it did, I went back and re-read it. I am dismayed that your generation feels this way. I understand it, and while I am not religious at all, it saddens me because of my past history, and how it was different than yours because I saw first hand the good that Churches did when I was a kid. I still think there are great religious people out there, and many people are helped by them. All I can say is I am so grateful for the freedom I have to NOT have to have a religion, and the freedom others have to believe in theirs. I like young people, and want to understand them. But there are still young people who are religious too.

Sure, I was born in the 80s, witnessed all those things, and I don't feel that way about religion.

[Darcy88]

I think a good analogy is politics. Politics leads to much evil and much good. For all the horrid things done in the name of religion, there have been equally horrid things done for the sake of secular ideologies, such as communism and fascism.

Like politics I think religion reflects our flawed, imperfect humanity. In some instances it may itself worsen us, but in general I'd say its a reflection, more of an effect than a cause.

[Freudian Monkey]

And corporate capitalism?

[Darcy88]

And corporate capitalism?

Same thing. A projection of the worst, of the darkness lurking in the soul of man. Nothing relating to the affairs of humanity operates independently of human nature, not politics, not religion. Severing religion from its origins in human nature is like separating a tree from its roots.

[BienvenuJDC]

Same thing. A projection of the worst, of the darkness lurking in the soul of man. Nothing relating to the affairs of humanity operates independently of human nature, not politics, not religion. Severing religion from its origins in human nature is like separating a tree from its roots.

I'm sorry, but there are religions that do not have their roots in human nature...oh, but you don't believe that's possible.

[Varenne Rodin]

Watch "Tree of Life".

[JuniperWoolf]

I believe that people who are in positions of power are driven by greed and the desire to control resources, but the average suicide bomber? He's being controlled by religion. If religion wasn't so societal and it wasn't taken so seriously, I think that people in positions of power would have a much more difficult time convincing people to kill each other and themselves.

[Drkshadow03]

I believe that people who are in positions of power are driven by greed and the desire to control resources, but the average suicide bomber? He's being controlled by religion. If religion wasn't so societal and it wasn't taken so seriously, I think that people in positions of power would have a much more difficult time convincing people to kill each other and themselves.

Nah, it turns out people manage to kill each other just fine without religious reasons for doing so. Also, in those societies that had government-endorsed atheism (Communist Russia, the First French Republic during the reign of terror) that didn't stem killing by any means.

[Freudian Monkey]

Watch "Tree of Life".

A weird mixture of Kubrick's Space Odyssey and a story of oedipal struggle in a stereotypical southern family, with a LOT of discovery channel high-speed cam stock footage. Even though I usually enjoy symbolism and ambiguousity in films, this one didn't win me over. Might get better with multiple viewings, although I doubt it.

[JuniperWoolf]

Nah, it turns out people manage to kill each other just fine without religious reasons for doing so. Also, in those societies that had government-endorsed atheism (Communist Russia, the First French Republic during the reign of terror) that didn't stem killing by any means.

I'm not talking about people killing each other, I'm talking about fanatics killing innocent people for absolutely no reason (that they know of - "so that people from my own country can gain maintain control of monetary gain via oil" is technically a reason, but if someone tried to sell them suicide bombing with that line I doubt they'd be too enthusiastic about the idea). Killing someone in a war because you are trying to protect the citizens or sovereignty of your nation is one thing - killing someone because your god is real and theirs is obviously isn't real (and I don't think I have to say, although I will anyway, that ALL gods are equally valid) which means that you can't tolerate their existance and have to blow them up, children and all, is something different entirely.

Basically what I'm saying is that fighting people is sometimes necessary, but your resoning behind it and your main motivating factor should never be religion, that's just nuts. I've seen enough of it to make my stomach churn and to turn me off of organized religion for good. In today's world, religion is taken way too seriously by way too many loud, angry, horrible people.

Also, I'm not talking about communist Russia or the First French Republic, I'm talking about now, because that's what's pertinent. The global situation today, and the viewpoints and motivations of people today, are much different than half a century ago, or in 1800. Could people kill each other purely to force atheism? Sure, I could picture it, people could do anything. Do they? Not right now, no. Right now they're killing each other to force their religion, so that's what I'm going to worry about.

[Drkshadow03]

killing someone because your god is real and theirs is obviously isn't real (and I don't think I have to say, although I will anyway, that ALL gods are equally valid) which means that you can't tolerate their existance and have to blow them up, children and all, is something different entirely.

Basically what I'm saying is that fighting people is sometimes necessary, but your resoning behind it and your main motivating factor should never be religion, that's just nuts.

Oh, was that the main motivating factor?

Also since you refined your position from:

If religion wasn't so societal and it wasn't taken so seriously, I think that people in positions of power would have a much more difficult time convincing people to kill each other and themselves.

I'm assuming you've accepted this claim is wrong given the historical examples provided demonstrates people in positions of power can easily convince people to kill each other and themselves without religion (including innocents).

[Darcy88]

I'm sorry, but there are religions that do not have their roots in human nature...oh, but you don't believe that's possible.

Oh I fully acknowledge the possibility that Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, the cult of Dionysius, Mormonism, Bahai, Rastafarianism, Mithraism, Sikhism, Jainism and Scientology may be divinely inspired. Its impossible to know which if any though, the evidence for each being equal.

[Climacus]

Oh I fully acknowledge the possibility that Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, the cult of Dionysius, Mormonism, Bahai, Rastafarianism, Mithraism, Sikhism, Jainism and Scientology may be divinely inspired. Its impossible to know which if any though, the evidence for each being equal.

But, Darcy, competing religious claims are sometimes contraries and sometimes contradictories, how then can the evidence for each be equal? You're not a dialetheist are you?