So, this is from a comedian:

I think one of the major bones of contention between atheists (especially rabid atheists like Dawkins) and religious folk is that some atheists think that religion is harmful, full stop, whereas others think only extremism is bad.

Obviously some religions are evil and harmful and are always going to be regressive - Old Testament Christianity, Islam, Scientology - no matter what, and are better off gone from the world

Whereas some are mostly sugar coated niceness (secular-modified/New Testament Christianity, Buddhism).

It's the latter group I'm interested in. Is religion in strong moderation like a few drinks a week - better for your mental health, better for greasing of the social fabric, stopping you from taking life pathologically seriously?

It's one of the big questions I've never really answered, would love to hear your views.

Jesus turned water into wine baby. He is the man. Jesus says drink the wine baby.

Islam - oh my god. A woman can't even walk around with her head uncovered or her elbow showing WTF?? Islam is the most funked up preverted load of crap in the universe.

All religions are fake and phony, but if one is gonna rule the world I'd rather have it be Christians than Islam that is for dang sure.

A deck of cards is ILLEGAL in Iran and other muslim countries. Talk about a bummer man.

There are many studies demonstrating strong correlations between religiosity and life satisfaction/happiness.

Does this justify it?

I would say yes.

And there's a proven correlation between religiosity and extreme violence, war, genocide, suffering, exploitation, persecution, immoral behaviour and personal fear (of hell etc).

Does this justify that we should stop using religion?

I would say yes.

Why is Dawkins 'rabid'? He's no less earnest than Ken Ham or WLC, I'll give you that.

And there's a proven correlation between atheist regimes and extreme violence, war, genocide, suffering, exploitation, persecution, immoral behaviour and personal fear.

Does this justify that we should stop using atheism?

Sigh.

Are you claiming that correlation equals causation in this instance?

People kill and exploit each other every day, and most of the time it has nothing to do with their religion.

People give and help each other every day as well, and most of the time it has nothing to do with their religion.

People feel happier by having an illusory sense of hope in life-after-death, so let them have it.

Me? There's nothing scarier to me, than the prospect of eternal life.

Is there? Fascinating. Can you provide some proof that what you describe was the result of 'atheism'? I can very easily prove that my list was caused by religious views and not just by one or two people, or a leadership, but by the majority of those involved.

I'll go one for one with you, you provide an example of atheistically inspired 'something from your list', and I'll match it with a religious one.


Exactly how does one 'stop using' atheism? How does one 'use' atheism, for that matter?

I'm claiming that although religious views can provide positive benefits such as those listed by VeeDDzz`, that he considers justify religion, that religious views also cause many many horrible behaviours that I think don't justify religion.

You already know that I consider religion to be a net-negative.

How is this relevant? I didn't claim that this stuff was exclusive to religion.

And if it comes at the cost that religion comes at? There's so much horrible crap going on around the world right now thanks to religion, does it really come to less than the warm and fuzzy feelings it can provide? Frankly even those are a negative in my view, no less than self medicating with a recreational drug.

If there is both, a correlation between theism and violence and atheism and violence, I don't see why it's worth mentioning the former as a greater evil, unless you specifically want to make that claim, which I think is impossible to contest.

I have no problem with your view that religion is a net-negative, but when you try to assert this as an objective truth, I think you need to provide some evidence, which again, I don't think is possible. There are too many variables to control for.

It wasn't directly relevant to what you were talking about. It was relevant to the point that I was leading to: concerning the fact that religion has little influence on anything in the modern day.

At some point in time, it was highly damaging to progress, but in a globalised economy of non-zero-sum games and communications technologies, old ideas die rapidly. We're already seeing this across many countries, including my own: it is just a matter of time. I say let them enjoy these ideas while they last because there are greater evils in the world, which we ought to divert our energies to.
I think you may be underestimating the importance of human happiness. Our very survival and even peace depends upon it - as much as you may think otherwise of religion. Placebo or no placebo, whatever the cause - it is automatically imbued with importance.
What's wrong with self-medicating with a recreational drug? The health-care system can't meet everyone's needs can it?

Hmmm. We have wildly diverging views if you think "that religion has little influence on anything in the modern day". I see it everywhere I look, it's still highly influential in many countries and cultures.

Not at all, I think it's vital, I'm simply not affording self-delusion much value as a means of achieving it.

You may be interested in this Scientific American article that co-incidently popped up on my facebook this morning, about what contributes toward a sense of well-being. I see Spirituality listed but it isn't mentioned at all.

Which Character Strengths Are Most Predictive of Well-Being?


I didn't mean self-medicating in the literal sense, I meant numbing yourself or using it as a means of coping with or avoiding reality. Also, less fear of death or a belief in an after-life can have many negative impacts.

No, read he QUR'AN! No, wait, read the TORAH! No, er.... wait... read the I CHING, no no, the GURU GRANTH SAHIB!

Omg can't decide. Brain anurism.

I think what he is referring is that numbers for religion are falling fairly quickly in most modern countries. America is a bit of an exception because the rate of atheism is growing more slowly than every other comparative country. The powerful influence of religion is in the less-developed countries and will likely remain a factor as long as communication and modern markets are kept in the background. The transition from religion to secularism will take a long time, but the actual tipping point may happen very quickly once it is engaged. There will obviously be several religious outposts that will not comply, but their numbers should be minimal.

It's influence (if significant at all) pales in comparison to the influence of technology and philosophy, even when the Bible was most influential: during the dark ages. It's influence is also coming to a gradual end, for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.

There's more important priorities to concern one's time with, but to each his own.
I don't always connote self-delusion with something negative. If something helps you, and/or those around you, it is justified, whether delusion or not. Life can be quite hard on some people, and if they didn't have X to believe, they would instead believe in Y or Z or K or B or anything else that makes their life easier: most likely something you'd be displeased with. The truth does not bring comfort to everyone equally, and it shouldn't.
I don't see the problem with people numbing themselves when available treatment options make their situation worse. Belief in an after-life is hope. From my observations, people need hope.

Or they need to start to realize that this life is the only one they may get.

Feeding false hopes is a despicable thing to do, but you seem ok to tell grown people santa claus exists.

Disgusting.

Why is it, is it despicable in all cases? See you seem okay insulting people because of their beliefs while displaying the kind of arrogant poorly thought out reasoning that if it came from the other side you'd be critical of.

Hahaha. nutjob knee jerk

So typical: "You are insulting people!, let's ignore everything else and keep rambling about this for the next few days. That way we don't have to face the lying bs religion is."

But I guess that's a requirement for a full time nutjob: You need to absolutely love being lied to

Your face when reality kicks in some day.

I don't care if you insult mine I generally don't get offended by idiocy. Again you totally ignore the question of why feeding someone false hope is despicable. Like you are stating it surely you have some reasons to support it? But no you'd rather call me a nut job, which is fine like but doesn't give people any reason to think you can support the claim nor do anything to refute the belief you're an idiot.

For the record you seem to actually want to offend people, if this is so then it helps you if you aren't the type of poster people point and laugh at because the person you point and laugh at isn't offensive but an idiot.

Your moral conclusion about whether the truth of hope is more important than its utility: is not very well thought-out.

Your conclusion is also likely to be brimming with hypocrisy because I suspect you tell white lies: if not to your parents, then at least to your partner or other people close to you.

People > Ideology.

100% BS

Appreciate your insightful input.

You can justify pretty much anything with "comfort". If it comforts you and makes you happy that jumping off cliffs can't hurt anyone, then this is justified, no?

However the idea that something can be verified via comfort is obnoxious, but sadly also a trending idea in this day and age. What you think about jumping off cliffs don't really matter much to the cliff nor the mechanisms directing the fall.

Now, jumping off cliffs might seem fairly outrageous and a "silly example". Yet you see this trend in even more outrageous and sillier examples, like say climate debate.

Also: