Challenge to Athiests - is Religion a Pox on Mankind?

by jgnat 169 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DJS

  Religion was probably a necessity a long time ago (in a galaxy far far away). Absent welfare, SS, worker's comp, food stamps, good paying jobs, equal rights for women, etc., clan/cave/tribe leaders attempted to control human behavior which caused social problems, such as babies without baby fathers. To that effect religion had its place. And sadly many people can't seem to behave unless they have the spectre of fear/carrot/stick/judging to motivate them. Religion, in this regard, kept humans from evolving.

  And like anything man makes, religion became way too powerful. With power comes corruption.

  So religion was necessary, for a while. It only continues to be 'necessary' because we as a race are too stupid to understand that we can be nice, generous, moral without it. Unless and until that happens religion will still have some benefits. "Civilization will not attain perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest" (Émile Zola).
• 

  LisaRose

  I cannot believe that good becomes evil just because you attach the name "church" to it. Most churches these days are not at all like the the Jehovah's Witnesses. I see churches as being, at least potentially, beneficial over all. Since no organization is perfect, you have to weigh the good against the bad. If the church is beneficial to its members, without being abusive, in the way the JWs are, then I believe it's a good thing.

  My criteria for not being abusive is, they don't teach against evolution, the don't practice shunning, they don't teach the bible is inerrant, they allow freedom of thought. Churches do offer something that is not easily found elsewhere. If you are part of a faith based community, it can be a very beneficial a positive thing. Even the JWs offered some of these benefits, that's why shunning is so powerful and effective, you are taking away peoples support group, their social identity.

  I was attending a church for a while, I found it to be a very positive thing. They are so far from the JWs it's hard to believe. While they talk about God, they are fine with Athiesm, for one thing. It's more about mutual support and charitable works, like feeding the hungry. Virtually everyone in the congregation is involved in some way. The service is interesting and enjoyable with lots of music. It was very refreshing after my JW experience. I could see no real downside to this.
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  LisaRose

  Yours is a well thought out and uplifting post. I have some sympathy with your view of the social service that many churches provide. Although an atheist, I have visited many Italian churches and also UK churches as I live in southern England.

  What sometimes concerns me, is that vicars earn a living claiming to have a special relationship with someone that I can find no evidence of existing. In any other profession it would be considered fraud, but for the fact that many people, often in high positions, do believe in God.

  It’s not my business, so it doesn’t keep me awake at night. I even have a friend who is a vicar and we often share a drink or two.
• 

  jgnat

  <---- I'm with stupid.

  http://www.ted.com/talks/david_steindl_rast_want_to_be_happy_be_grateful.html

  http://www.ted.com/talks/matthieu_ricard_on_the_habits_of_happiness.html

  http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_norton_how_to_buy_happiness.html
• 

  jgnat

  Gladiator, I wonder at the relative connotations of vicar, pastor, priest, or shepherd? My church has pastors; salaried, and hired by the local board. I think we have a happier church and a happier pastor if the congregation allows the pastor a strong vision and supports it. Frankly, I am far less interested if the vision is in one direction or another. It's the strength that seems to count. By ourselves, we tend to descend in to petty bickering.

  I don't think the pastor is attributed superior spirituality, even if they have picked a rather thankless career.
• 

  friendaroonie

  Religious. Experience has indeed been associated to surges in dopamine in exactly the same way that runners' high. I learned this in onee of my first psychology classes in college.

  It has been used to explain the way cult members' eyes get a glazed look in them when in the middle of their religious experience
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  jgnat I don't think the pastor is attributed superior spirituality…

  It is true that more modern church-goers view the vicar, or pastor, as just another congregation member. Some churches in England are more traditional and the vicar is elevated to a higher status. The vicar I know has a ceremonial robe. When we part company after sharing a beverage, he always insists on fumbling with my hand and bestowing a blessing. He means well so I don't cause a fuss - bless him.
• 

  Terry

  Personally, I think Kant is partially responsible for the sense of "duty" the Nazis were able to coerce a whole generation with in creating

  the mind control of the Third Reich.

  I don't see Atheism as a "thing." No, not at all. I see it as the absence of a thing.

  Atheism is, in my way of thinking, redundant labeling.

  Let me give you an example.

  I was married into a Jewish family for about 18 years and I attended more than one Passover dinner.

  There is an empty chair made a part of the ceremony. It is for Elijah.

  What if I were to announce during the evening's celebration, "Not only is that chair empty--but, I don't think think Elijah is ever going to sit in it."?

  That would--while being entirely true--be unecessarily provocative, disruptive and disrespectful.

  Well, that's how I see Atheism.

  I think the best any of us can truthfully assert is how we "don't know" whether something is so.

  To go one step further is one step too many.

  Every religion on earth could be wildly ludicrous and wrong-headed and there still be some sort of intelligent "something" out there of a creative nature.

  I think it entirely unlikely and I'm not even interested (any longer) in WHAT it is. But, why should I emphatically assert anything about it?

  Religion BINDS people with a core belief untestable and irrational. It may well do lots of psychological "good" for those who participate. But, the harm it does has to be taken into account.

  I simply stay mindful of that.
• 

  jgnat

  Is any set of dogma a "thing"? Is the scientific method a "thing"? Is a conclusion a "thing"?
• 

  Terry

  Is any set of dogma a "thing"? Is the scientific method a "thing"? Is a conclusion a "thing"?

  .

  .

  .

  .

  God, if an actual person, would be a thing.

  Dogma about an actual God would be a thing.

  A not-actually-existing-god would not be a thing.

  Dogma about a not-actually-existing-god would not be a thing.