A key reason why some atheists challenge religious beliefs

by defender of truth 193 Replies latest members adult

• 

  prologos

  If Atheists work on the premise that there is no God, then to them any religious belief must be flawed fiction, disconnected from reality, therefore dangerous, with the potential to cause harm. By their challenge they are doing the service to prevent further harm.

  Does challenging religious beliefs cause harm? I am just into the book "Why the Jew?" by Prager, and his thesis is, that the faithful jews by their presence and persistence CHALLENGED the beliefs of EVERYONE around them. Then other factors brought grief on them.

  Is not Atheism punishable by death in some countries? It is a challenge even to be an atheist.

  Atheism is like Judaism on steroids, it exposes Everyone's beliefs to scrutiny by declaring potentially false.
• 

  Viviane

  You aren't going to get anywhere, but with other Type 1's, by "challenging religious beliefs." If you want to discuss beliefs and your questions or issues about them, stop being arrogant and treating people who do not share your conclusions as if they are children that you can jump on, correct and scold everytime they say something you don't like, nor agree with. You turn the board into a school playground and behave as children who can't seem to enjoy life unless you're bullying someone. You behave as if you're superior to theists and diests, even agnostics at time. So then, prove you're superior by not behaving in such a childish way. Surely you are kidding yourselves when you hit that submit button, that you don't feel just a little out of control. I know there is a voice in your head, your conscience, telling you that your behavior is unacceptable.

  
• 

  cofty

  
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  On your list, Mad Giant, so much of it, I feel the same way. I just scanned your list, didn't read each specific thing.

  For example, it's my theory that the taboo on homosexuality in some societies began with inheritence issues. In societies where land was left to the oldest son, what if he was an only son and he was homosexual? Then if he had no children, it complicated inheritence and the land staying in the father's direct line of heirs.

  I am a theist, a non-Christian universalist, but when my grandson's were baptized in the Episcopal Church, I chose a lesbian couple to be their godmothers. Everyone knew they were lesbians.

  I believe that fear is the best tool with which to control people. Fear works better than brute force and it's cheaper than prison. If you are a ruler, you're going to look for the most effective way to control your subjects. Why not convince them that their god(s) will get them if they don't follow the rules you want them to?

  If you take god(s) out of the picture, many religious laws cover common sense and ethics. Or they address practicalities. An example would be extra or premarital sex. Let's say you have a whole village of people who have never even had a thought of god or gods. But you have young teenagers getting pregnant. The girls don't get the chance to fully mature and their health and emotional health suffers. Then you have parents and grandparents, other villagers raising the babies. You have married people running around having affairs. No one can be sure who the baby's fathers are. There is jealousy and there are fist fights and worse, maybe even murder, as consequences. Your little society is breaking down. So as the ruler of this village, you and your advisors come up with a code of ethics to try to turn the chaos around and get some order back to your village. So you make laws that address premarital sex, teen marriages and extramarital affairs. Maybe you decide that babies outside of monogamous marriages are to be considered illigitimate, unable to inherit land. A ban on homosexuality might come after jealous fights or inheritence issues. What if you are trying to up the birth rate in the village?

  If you are the ruler in a godless village, you might decide you don't want your villagers doing anything you don't like. You might make laws against those things. Now, what if you are a ruler in a village where people believe in a god or gods? Here is an extra tool for you to use to control your villagers.

  Anywhere you have people, godless or with god(s), you're going to have issues. If you look at societies where religion is banned, they still have the problems that societies with legal religion have. It's just that no one can use religion as a scapegoat. There is both good and bad in any human institution. Banning human institutions won't get rid of bad laws and prejudices. People are given to prejudice. We all have to deal with it. No matter how good a person you are, inside you, there is prejudice. How you choose to deal with it is key.
• 

  cofty

  Why are you arguing against banning religion. I have never heard anybody argue for that.

  More strawman.
• 

  Apognophos

  cofty wrote:

  There are some who would like the forum to be a haven for any sort of woo and superstition, just as long as it isn't Watchtower approved.

  Well, personally I don't want that to happen here. I'm glad that people are challenged directly when they come here to promote some new belief system, or when they claim to have all the answers. I just take issue with calling someone's god a moral monster because, rather than getting someone to think, it turns off a religious person who is attached to their faith. If we remember what it was like to have faith, then we can meet them partway in terms of reaching out to them with understanding. I thought you did that here, so I'm not sure why you don't always respond that nicely.

  And even when we remember what it was like for us to have faith, it doesn't mean we can relate to what may be deeper-seated needs/issues in another person.

  MadGiant wrote:

  How can you separate one from the other? Can religion exist without the emotional, tribalistic or instinctual aspect of human nature?

  I'm not sure, but I do know that people often form rationalizations for their pre-existing feelings. The harder someone's life is, the more negative those feelings can be, towards themselves or others. If someone is living comfortably and feels good about themself, they will not exhibit self-destructive behavior of the sort that people often need religion to "save" themselves from.

  You can see the harmless variety of religion in people who are happy and comfortable. It's religion in a distilled form, where they have some laidback beliefs about angels and destiny and what-not, but it's hardly dogmatic and their beliefs have little influence on their actions. God is just a nice man in the sky for them, and they focus on appreciating the positives of His/Her creation.

  Personally I don't see the point in attacking the beliefs of someone like that, nor do I think that we can convert fervent religionists into casual religionists through direct attacks on their beliefs. Their beliefs come from anxiety and other factors, sometimes including racism, and we can't fix those by arguing with them.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Anyone, whether they are non fundamentalist believers, fundamentalist believers, deists, theists, agnostics or atheists can be annoying. I'm not kidding myself, I know at times I annoy people. The thing is, some people make it a practice to deliberately annoy people. They defend the practice. They brag about the practice. It doesn't make them inferior, but it does make them insufferable. For others, it's a matter of wishing for moderation and balance from everyone.
• 

  cofty

  I thought you did that here , so I'm not sure why you don't always respond that nicely.

  I see a difference between answering an honest question and responding to proselytising.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  There are some who would like the forum to be a haven for any sort of woo and superstition, just as long as it isn't Watchtower approved.

  The forum should be a haven for people exiting the WTBTS: atheists, agnostics, deists, theists.
• 

  cofty

  Of course it should.

  But that doesn't mean indulging the same sort of superstitons that kept people in the cult in the first place.