Ask an atheist (the second coming)

That's not an invalid point but it doesn't totally bail out in Christian history. Granted, its probably SOMEWHAT true, but the more persecution that goes on, the more radical (In the sense of "Being willing to lay down their lives") Chrisitans goes up, and moderates go way down.

Or just read what MagisterCultuum said, he explained better than I could;)

Well if you want to talk about a pre-institutionalized church, it's still weird and creepy. The fundamental tenets don't change. Capable of far less harm, but all the creepy community building tactics would likely have been all the stronger.
 
Firstly:
Spoiler :
I don't know anything at all about various cults of christianity beyond what living in the USA forces on everyone. Distinctions between Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene (if that's even the correct schism?) fall far beyond my bailiwick. As a non-christian, it's really not my job to keep up with the latest in celebrity gossip about who's in and who's out as far as your cults are concerned.

That said, my opinion of christianity is that it's a horrible religion. If you're going to look at all the religions available, and choose just one to force everyone on the planet to abide by, Christianity is among the worst. On the surface it claims to be all about helping the poor and stuff, but from my personal experience almost NO christians actually do that. I don't doubt the same could be said of other religions, but that's not the issue here. Christians, by and large, don't practice what they preach. The few that do, don't preach. Those are the only ones I have respect for.

The only rational reason for people to choose to continue to call themselves christians (which is not at all the same thing as actually LIVING as christians) is because they happen to have been born to families that - for one reason or another - have found themselves on the winning-er side of local economic contests. In other words, people who call themselves christians feel that they need to for social / economic reasons. Not all, of course... but the vast majority. Otherwise we'd see hundreds of millions of white western 'christians' shucking off gobs of income towards poverty relief programs, flooding the international aid stations with volunteers, and so forth. But we don't see that. Instead, we see things like the USA being the very most stingy nation when it comes to international aid. Classy, for a culture that routinely claims a christian mantel when trying to gain the moral high-ground.

If christians didn't find themselves so readily able to justify slavery, inequality of ethinic groups, inequality of women, hierarchies of authoritarianism, patriarchy, deserving punishment of 'sins' of poverty or ignorance, or just about any other intolerant view I've seen self-proclaimed 'christians' vociferously adopt on this forum; then perhaps I'd be able to be persuaded that christianity has some inherent worth.

But, NO. I haven't seen that. All I see from christians is bigotry, hate, judgementalism, false sanctimoniousness, and on and on. Rarely to I see comments that indicate a Jesus-like sympathy for people. And this is so strange to me - does it mean that I myself have more compassion that the Jesus these vocal christians idolize? How fracked up is that?!

Maybe these self-identifying christians behave differently in their every-day lives, but from what I see here - christians are awful people. And I don't believe that people start out awful: which means that as far as I'm concerned christian culture teaches people to be bad.

I'm sure there are exceptions, and I'm sure that not all self-identifying christian people on this one specific video game forum are not as nice as non christians... but those who choose to speak up give the entire group a very bad image.

[/my_2_cents]
What Peter said, pretty much.

@Ghostwriter: I have said more or less all I want to say on this subject for the moment. Thank you for, very nearly, engaging with me. I know I must have tried your patience sorely, though I am sure you will forgive me. ;)
 
Ask an atheist: What's your opinion of Christianity, like, in general? (And I'm not asking whether you think its true, obviously.)

Good:

I think Christian morality is wonderful. Peace, acceptance, love, forgiveness, philanthropy ect. are all very good morals imo. I love Jesus for hanging out with the poor, the sinful, and the immoral. I think that's a fantastic thing.

I appreciate the mysticism in certain denominations.

It gives comfort to the old and hopeless.

Bad:

Some Christians don't follow the morals their good book teaches, but that's more a problem with culture and nurture than Christianity.

Some denominations, especially the Evangelical, encourage ignorance. Some even encourage hate.
 
What Peter said, pretty much.

@Ghostwriter: I have said more or less all I want to say on this subject for the moment. Thank you for, very nearly, engaging with me. I know I must have tried your patience sorely, though I am sure you will forgive me. ;)

You actually haven't.

To be honest, I was a little ticked off anyway because of what somebody (It wasn't you) said "Anyone who doesn't have a peanut for a brain will accept this." So if I was a little harsh in general I apologize.

And I certainly don't mind dialogue. The reality for an Evangelical though is that God is above man and so his morality doesn't necessarily have to make sense to us, and so just because you can make an argument that sounds great for inclusivism doesn't make it accurate. Without an understanding of that, its pretty much impossible to discuss the matter.

And its certainly not Biblical, as far as the Christian argument goes. There are a few proof-texts that are taken out of context but the overwhelming message is that sin is punished.
 
Well, thanks for this.

You clearly know your subject with some depth.

But, as I noted, I have largely said all I have to say on this topic, at moment.
 
To be honest, I was a little ticked off anyway because of what somebody (It wasn't you) said "Anyone who doesn't have a peanut for a brain will accept this." So if I was a little harsh in general I apologize.
I am glad that my little trap has worked.;) But its very important issue becouse exclusivism is cripling human family. If you would ever get the chance to get out of your little religious box you will be able to see that spirituality is universal in every aspect. It is the breath of God.
 
And its certainly not Biblical, as far as the Christian argument goes. There are a few proof-texts that are taken out of context but the overwhelming message is that sin is punished.

this is where i get really confused... I thought the overwhelming message for christians is that sins are forgiven...
 
this is where i get really confused... I thought the overwhelming message for christians is that sins are forgiven...

Except in certain Calvinist doctrines, where sin seems to be irrelevant.
 
Do you think it can be neurologically healthier to believe in the mystical and not know too much? Would you trade absolute analytical thought for not-so-deep analytical thought but better mental health? Are there any ways for an atheist to produce the neurological stability of someone with faith (i.e. high activity of the "good" brain chemicals such as oxytocin)?

(by "faith" I mean love, trust, light, - i.e. the feeling. I don't mean religion.)
 
Last edited:
Do you think it can be neurologically healthier to believe in the mystical and not know too much? Would you trade absolute analytical thought for not-so-deep analytical thought but better mental health? Are there any ways for an atheist to produce the neurological stability of someone with faith?

We could also try lobotomies intended to reduce one's intellect to the level of a goldfish. But I'm not sure the premise is sound, that people lacking in deep thought are necessarily happier.

For one thing, pretty much any dumb person I've ever met that had any opinions whatsoever about politics, had all their political opinions informed by belief, conspiracy theories, debunked nonsense, repeating the opinions of fear-mongering pundits, and a rejection of any kind of verifiable fact. The end result was a person who was constantly afraid of everyone else in the world, convinced that spending twice as much on the military as the next 10 countries combined wasn't going far enough, convinced that a border wall would keep bad people away, convinced that guns helped keep homicide rates down, and convinced that anyone with a different skin color, sexual preference, or voting preference was secretly a terrorist communist atheist muslim socialist who was going to take away their guns and force them into gay prostitution abortions and God would send them to hell if they didn't shout "God hates (blank)" at gay people.

An animal in the wild habitually responds to unseen threats, because the best policy when a creature has no knowledge is to assume they are constantly surrounded by threats and be ready to run or fight at all times. That ensures survival. The poor creatures are also constantly on edge, perpetually terrified of everything, and constantly imagining there might be something trying to get them around every bush and rock.

These folks who prefer faith to facts are not calm, happy, relaxed people.

I can look at the news and see all the horrible things going on in the world, and use my brain to remember other pertinent facts, like the fact that the number of people and countries engaged in violent conflicts has been going down over time, it's just that our media and technology puts what remains of those conflicts front and center so we cannot ignore them anymore. For centuries, social injustice and oppression of minorities, disbelievers, believers of a different stripe, migrants, and so forth, was all comfortably out of sight. Now we are not only addressing those issues, we put what remains front and center. In the past, someone could have gotten murdered and no one would be sure they were, because there was no way to contact them without the invention of the mobile phone, without knowing exactly where they were. In the past, nothing would be done about violent, secluded cults that raped children and forced people into marriage, underage marriage, or genital mutilation. Now, those things are in the news, widely condemned, and under constant threat of annihilation.

Knowledge is power. Knowledge fights the evils of the world. Knowledge gives me serenity and peace even when there is negative things to think about. Knowledge gives me a positive answer to a bad situation. Lack of knowledge only leads to suppression of truth, prevention of solutions, and gives the cover of a fog of ignorance to protect and shield those who would do us harm.

Faith without evidence gives people no power except willpower to believe something in defiance of a reason to do so, and in defiance of reasons not to. It gives people a ready made excuse to be stubborn. On its own, faith is neither positive nor negative. Sometimes being stubborn can be a good thing, for example, if someone stubbornly believes that if they give to charity, Jesus will reward them, that leads to charity and potentially helping others. Sometimes being stubborn can be a very negative thing.

But faith combined with a rejection of knowledge and contrary facts, evidence, or logic, is extremely dangerous.

And it doesn't make you happy. It makes you scared. It makes you imagine enemies that aren't there. It makes you feel alone in the world, surrounded by monsters. It makes you feel like you are never well-armed enough. It makes you convinced that the world is getting worse, that we are closer and closer to a violent apocalypse, and that there is no solution but to give up and hope the afterlife is a better place. It makes your every waking moment full of anxiety and fear, and anger and hatred toward those who dispute your views.

Far from being healthy, ignorance is extremely dangerous and doesn't result in the calmness you are describing. If it were the case, there wouldn't be so much xenophobia, bigotry, preference for nationalistic militaristic solutions in politics, or disconnection and social isolation from anyone who has a differing viewpoint. Those are the behaviors of highly anxious, anti-social, deeply dissatisfied people.
 
I'm inclined to think that the purported psychological benefits of faith have practically nothing to do with the beliefs themselves or with any lack of analytical thought and everything to do with the relative ease of joining a social support network of like-minded people with similar interests and an excuse to regularly communicate.
 
Do you think it can be neurologically healthier to believe in the mystical and not know too much? Would you trade absolute analytical thought for not-so-deep analytical thought but better mental health? Are there any ways for an atheist to produce the neurological stability of someone with faith (i.e. high activity of the "good" brain chemicals such as oxytocin)?

(by "faith" I mean love, trust, light, - i.e. the feeling. I don't mean religion.)
I go through all the motions of the religious when I am rooting for the Boston Bruins during a game. For instance I'm more terrified of jinxing the game than a Christian is of going to hell.

And atheist doesn't mean he who applies absolute analytical thought. Many atheist buy into the toecurlingly cringeworthy New Age Spiritualisms.

We're all superstitious one way or the other, because we all overvalue ourselves in the grander scheme of things. And that's only natural and human given the perspective through which we view the world. Whether it's: there's an all powerful entity who loves me, or: crap, I forgot to wear my lucky socks during a Bruins game.
 
We could also try lobotomies intended to reduce one's intellect to the level of a goldfish. But I'm not sure the premise is sound, that people lacking in deep thought are necessarily happier.

For one thing, pretty much any dumb person I've ever met that had any opinions whatsoever about politics, had all their political opinions informed by belief, conspiracy theories, debunked nonsense, repeating the opinions of fear-mongering pundits, and a rejection of any kind of verifiable fact. The end result was a person who was constantly afraid of everyone else in the world, convinced that spending twice as much on the military as the next 10 countries combined wasn't going far enough, convinced that a border wall would keep bad people away, convinced that guns helped keep homicide rates down, and convinced that anyone with a different skin color, sexual preference, or voting preference was secretly a terrorist communist atheist muslim socialist who was going to take away their guns and force them into gay prostitution abortions and God would send them to hell if they didn't shout "God hates (blank)" at gay people.

An animal in the wild habitually responds to unseen threats, because the best policy when a creature has no knowledge is to assume they are constantly surrounded by threats and be ready to run or fight at all times. That ensures survival. The poor creatures are also constantly on edge, perpetually terrified of everything, and constantly imagining there might be something trying to get them around every bush and rock.

These folks who prefer faith to facts are not calm, happy, relaxed people.

I can look at the news and see all the horrible things going on in the world, and use my brain to remember other pertinent facts, like the fact that the number of people and countries engaged in violent conflicts has been going down over time, it's just that our media and technology puts what remains of those conflicts front and center so we cannot ignore them anymore. For centuries, social injustice and oppression of minorities, disbelievers, believers of a different stripe, migrants, and so forth, was all comfortably out of sight. Now we are not only addressing those issues, we put what remains front and center. In the past, someone could have gotten murdered and no one would be sure they were, because there was no way to contact them without the invention of the mobile phone, without knowing exactly where they were. In the past, nothing would be done about violent, secluded cults that raped children and forced people into marriage, underage marriage, or genital mutilation. Now, those things are in the news, widely condemned, and under constant threat of annihilation.

Knowledge is power. Knowledge fights the evils of the world. Knowledge gives me serenity and peace even when there is negative things to think about. Knowledge gives me a positive answer to a bad situation. Lack of knowledge only leads to suppression of truth, prevention of solutions, and gives the cover of a fog of ignorance to protect and shield those who would do us harm.

Faith without evidence gives people no power except willpower to believe something in defiance of a reason to do so, and in defiance of reasons not to. It gives people a ready made excuse to be stubborn. On its own, faith is neither positive nor negative. Sometimes being stubborn can be a good thing, for example, if someone stubbornly believes that if they give to charity, Jesus will reward them, that leads to charity and potentially helping others. Sometimes being stubborn can be a very negative thing.

But faith combined with a rejection of knowledge and contrary facts, evidence, or logic, is extremely dangerous.

And it doesn't make you happy. It makes you scared. It makes you imagine enemies that aren't there. It makes you feel alone in the world, surrounded by monsters. It makes you feel like you are never well-armed enough. It makes you convinced that the world is getting worse, that we are closer and closer to a violent apocalypse, and that there is no solution but to give up and hope the afterlife is a better place. It makes your every waking moment full of anxiety and fear, and anger and hatred toward those who dispute your views.

Far from being healthy, ignorance is extremely dangerous and doesn't result in the calmness you are describing. If it were the case, there wouldn't be so much xenophobia, bigotry, preference for nationalistic militaristic solutions in politics, or disconnection and social isolation from anyone who has a differing viewpoint. Those are the behaviors of highly anxious, anti-social, deeply dissatisfied people.
This is more of a rebuttal of religion, though, isn't it? What if the person is not otherwise ignorant at all? The only difference being that they feel there is a benevolent entity of light and love with them at all times? I've always found this to be an advantage of theism over atheism.
 
Last edited:
Do you think it can be neurologically healthier to believe in the mystical and not know too much? Would you trade absolute analytical thought for not-so-deep analytical thought but better mental health? Are there any ways for an atheist to produce the neurological stability of someone with faith (i.e. high activity of the "good" brain chemicals such as oxytocin)?

(by "faith" I mean love, trust, light, - i.e. the feeling. I don't mean religion.)

Healthier? Easily. The human mind does vastly better with a slight case of delusion. We lie to ourselves all the time. And it's usually expressed as 'optimism'. Additionally, a huge variety of rituals and beliefs have been shown to have a benefit. A neuroscientist might use the word 'placebo', but neuro-medicine doesn't mind the placebo effect, since it helps people, even if it confounds our studies.

There's a balance to be had, I think. Forming a hypothesis that involves 'mystical' and then failing to properly vet that hypothesis can easily lead to unhealthy axioms. But this can easily happen to someone who tries to be too logical as well. Without vetting, it's a shake of the dice as to whether the person is gonna be helped by the belief.

The important thing is that both sets of axioms need to be able to be modified as new data comes in. The foundation belief needn't disappear. It just needs to slowly mold so that the person interacts with reality better.
 
Healthier? Easily. The human mind does vastly better with a slight case of delusion. We lie to ourselves all the time. And it's usually expressed as 'optimism'. Additionally, a huge variety of rituals and beliefs have been shown to have a benefit. A neuroscientist might use the word 'placebo', but neuro-medicine doesn't mind the placebo effect, since it helps people, even if it confounds our studies.

There's a balance to be had, I think. Forming a hypothesis that involves 'mystical' and then failing to properly vet that hypothesis can easily lead to unhealthy axioms. But this can easily happen to someone who tries to be too logical as well. Without vetting, it's a shake of the dice as to whether the person is gonna be helped by the belief.

The important thing is that both sets of axioms need to be able to be modified as new data comes in. The foundation belief needn't disappear. It just needs to slowly mold so that the person interacts with reality better.

True that. Of course, does not mean that said balance vindicates religious thought. The healthy balance is not in the middle necessarily. Perhaps just wearing the same shirt when your team is playing an important match is the upper limit of healthy delusion.

Regards :).
 
Top Bottom