The God Delusion: Would society be better off without religion?

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This is in direct contradiction with both what I have been taught and what I've observed.

Then you didn't learn very well, or were raised either Anglican or Methodist.

Also since general Protestantism has only a few founding documents, this claim should be easy to verify, yet I cannot.

Unless it wasn't in a founding document. Its not like there was a Declaration of Independence From Catholicism that spelled out all the differences between Protestants and Catholics.

All descendants of Calvinism believe in predestination for all people, with their various caveats and semantic nonsense. All descendants of Lutheranism believe in predetermined salvation for an Elect, but stops short of predestining the damned, which is even less consistent than Calvinists. Descendants of Anglicanism have not rejected free will, since their schism with the church was primarily political, not ideological.

You can argue that omniscience should imply predestination, but although many Christians will claim God is omniscient, that does not always imply a belief in predestination. Whether that is a logic or semantic issue is not obvious, but contradictory belief or not, it is held.

Held or not, the idea that an all-knowing God does not know something is obviously fallacious. And we can only assume that God is logical and obeys laws as such.

 

[Masada]

And that's my point. Most atheists are willing to call Stalin wicked. Most Abrahamics hold up Moses as some type of hero of their religion.

Not to rain on the parade but I can't think of anyone who holds Moses in esteem for his role in the killing of the firstborn. People might hold him in esteem for leading the Jews out of the captivity, the whole Ten Commandments thing and generally honouring G-d. The same applies to any historical figure. Caesar still has a good rep despite being complicit in a number of, what would today, be considered war crimes. Plato was an insufferable elitist who thought that a police state would be a good thing and life would be even better if the poor were properly oppressed. Alexander sacked cities during fits of pique and killed a close friend while drunk. Yet, by and large, we don't class any of them as being particularly wicked. Today they would have been respectively put before the Hague, derided as a 'reactionary' and put into a common prison.

Some of the culture is formed fromreligion.

Chicken or the egg? Which came first. Religion or culture.

Without the religion imprinting on the culture the treatment would increase.

"Imprinting" meaning what? That some behaviour that seems to have some measure of universal applicability might be translated into religious practice.

It would simply get better on average without a driving force against them, which is what many people of the abrahamic religions are doing.

Right, well, how do you prove that?

I have seen far more christians against equal rights for homosexuals than, say atheists.

I know more homophobic atheists and agnostics than I do Christians. I suppose my anecdotal evidence defeats yours?

An example would be if one country is racist and is killing black people. The government is overthrown and they are no longer killing black people. Thus, the average amount of killed black people drops.

I don't see how you can possibly draw such a simplistic conclusion about a complex societal force when the comparison is to something like Nazi Germany.

As far as I know the "God Hates Fags" groups(in America anyway) are motivated by religion. If you take out the religion they have nothing to justify their bigotry with.

And all those homophobic atheists and agnostics I know justify their bigotry without it.

You are right that all discrimination against Homosexuals isn't generated by religion. I just think that a portion of it is and if the portion of it generated by religion was gone, some of the bigotry against homosexuals would go down.

What I'm getting is that America is a screwed up country where a disproportionately small number of vocal evangelical Christians have a disproportionate voice in domestic politics. This completely warps the average secular-left American mind which can't manage to wrap its head around the simple fact that other countries are not so crazy. Consider Australia. Australia doesn't have gay marriage. We are usually fairly liberal when it comes to things not connected to homosexuality and immigration. For some reason we don't like illegal immigrants, more properly refugees, all that much. I blame Australia's past historical practice and the sense of entitlement that even non-white Australian's have when it comes to living here. With regards to Australian homophobia it has piss all to do with religion. Australia has never been a particularly religious place (we've had atheists, agnostics, spiritualists and lapsed Christians of all denominations as Prime Ministers going back to Federation). I suppose it comes from being a very mannish kind of society where the principle past-time is contact sport. Whatever the case, Australia is a homophobic and frankly irreligious society at the same time. Which would seem to make little sense in your narrative.

 

[Boris Godunov]

I know more homophobic atheists and agnostics than I do Christians. I suppose my anecdotal evidence defeats yours?

Oh come on. I don't think any reasonable person would dispute that the vast majority of anti-gay sentiment is based on religious beliefs. Who was leading the Proposition 8 campaign--a secular organization? Or a church?

 

[berkut]

psychiatric research have shown that being religious is good for the health, and increases happiness.

Today they would have been respectively put before the Hague, derided as a 'reactionary' and put into a common prison.

you can't judge a person outside it's historical contest, neither stalin, nor moses

 

[Boris Godunov]

We certainly can judge people in a modern context if they were supposedly divinely-guided, can't we? Shouldn't they have known better?

 

[Wilks johnson]

1. Chicken or the egg? Which came first. Religion or culture.



1. "Imprinting" meaning what? That some behaviour that seems to have some measure of universal applicability might be translated into religious practice.



2. Right, well, how do you prove that?



3. I know more homophobic atheists and agnostics than I do Christians. I suppose my anecdotal evidence defeats yours?



7. I don't see how you can possibly draw such a simplistic conclusion about a complex societal force when the comparison is to something like Nazi Germany.



3. And all those homophobic atheists and agnostics I know justify their bigotry without it.



4. What I'm getting is that America is a screwed up country where a disproportionately small number of vocal evangelical Christians have a disproportionate voice in domestic politics.

5. This completely warps the average secular-left American mind which can't manage to wrap its head around the simple fact that other countries are not so crazy.

6. Consider Australia. Australia doesn't have gay marriage. We are usually fairly liberal when it comes to things not connected to homosexuality and immigration. For some reason we don't like illegal immigrants, more properly refugees, all that much. I blame Australia's past historical practice and the sense of entitlement that even non-white Australian's have when it comes to living here. With regards to Australian homophobia it has piss all to do with religion. Australia has never been a particularly religious place (we've had atheists, agnostics, spiritualists and lapsed Christians of all denominations as Prime Ministers going back to Federation). I suppose it comes from being a very mannish kind of society where the principle past-time is contact sport. Whatever the case, Australia is a homophobic and frankly irreligious society at the same time.

7. Which would seem to make little sense in your narrative.

I numbered the paragraphs in your response which correlates with the same numbered paragraphs in my response. I split your last paragraph into several parts.

1. Depends. Some people could argue they are the same thing(I'm not one of them). Christianity came before, say American or Australian culture. I think some religion helps to form or alter some culture. You can see this is places like Saudi Arabia and the Vatican. It would be safe to say the culture of Saudi Arabia would be different if religion didn't exist. Before you say "How can you prove that?" I can't. Last I checked, there isn't unit of measurement of how much religion is intertwined with a locations culture.

2."Right, well how do you prove that?" Are you trying to argue that religions like Christianity are not, in any way, shape, or form responsible for some, not even a little of the negative treatment towards homosexuals? If you are member of a religion and you believe that you must follow a certain holy book to have ever-lasting life, and that holy book has a negative attitude towards homosexuals, wouldn't this cause a higher rate of bigotry towards homosexuals than someone who does not believe they must follow a particular holy book?

3. It wasn't meant as definitive "evidence". Why would I be so naive to think that my personal experience would be representative of all or most personal experiences? It was just a piece of my personal experience. It wasn't meant to prove a point.

3. (Yes I know I put "3" twice). Does this justification go anything beyond something that a member of a person who hates blacks would say?(Well actually some KKK members used the Bible to support slavery, but I suppose that's slightly off topic, Since they are atheist they wouldn't use the Bible). Religion allows their reasoning to go beyond simple bigotry and actually become accepted by a portion of the members of the religion who hold their holy book in high standing. Of course, since this is "anecdotal evidence" after all.

4. I agree. The "god hates fags" people get far too much attention. I would think that at least half of all Christians aren't crazy bigots. However, some are.

5. What can't I "wrap my head around" exactly? It can't be what you just said because I do understand that. Not all, or (possibly) most homophobia is caused by religion. All I am claiming is that some is.

Also, don't you see the irony in your statement? You are generalizing what you think about the "average" secular-leftist with what you think I am doing with the "average" christian.

6. When exactly did I claim that it was impossible for a secular society to be homophobic? All I am claiming is that religion can influence people into becoming homophobic.


7. The "simplistic conclusion" was illustrating basic math. If you have 100 people and 1 of them is motivated by religion to hate homosexuals and they lose their motivation, you have one less person who hates homosexuals. It wasn't meant to compare the complexity of homophobia to Nazi Germany.

7. If my "narrative" was that only religion causes homophobia and that it isn't possible otherwise, yes, that wouldn't make sense. However, my "narrative" isn't that. All I am claiming is that some homophobia is caused by religion. It seems like you just decided to ignore what I quite clearly said in the earlier reply.

"You are right that all discrimination against Homosexuals isn't generated by religion. I just think that a portion of it is"

I'm not sure how you got to the conclusion that I said:
Portion of homophobia is generated by religion=All homophobia is generated by religion and it is impossible for there to be a secular society that is homophobic.


Edit: I just noticed this and I think I should point it out:

1. Australia has never been a particularly religious place(we've had atheists, agnostics, spiritualists and lapsed Christians of all denominations as Prime Ministers going back to Federation).

(Included the second part for context. I didn't put the entire thing down here again to save space)

Completely and utterly false. According to the 2006 census around 69.5 % belong to a religion. In fact, Australia has been very religious in it's past. When more than 2/3 of your citizens are religious, I think that qualifies as being a religious country.


The graph is based on the link below

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@...636F496B2B943F12CA2573D200109DA9?opendocument

psychiatric research have shown that being religious is good for the health, and increases happiness.

If you have the study on hand, could you pass me the link? I see how it could increase happiness(Believing in a higher power that has a plan for you, everything happens for a reason, etc.) I am curious how exactly it is good for health.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just curious.

Final Edit: If this post came across as rude or mean-spirited it was not my intention and I apologize if I may have offended someone.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Something I was wondering, people often make statements on Atheist moral standards, so to those I have a question: What is a theist moral standard? Aren't theists just as divided amongst each other over moral issues as atheists?

The mistake often made is that atheism is contrasted with Christianity (who by the way aren't unified in many moral issues either) but you would have to contrast it with all who believe in God.

So, what is the difference in moral standards between atheists and theists?

 

[Souron]

Well the moral standards and values are largely similar in the west, and different from other areas. Living in a culture defines morality and values even without religion.

So I think that differences between theists and athiests in the West should be less pronounced then differences between the West and others.

 

[Arakhor]

I identify as Christian despite only having attended church 10 or 11 times in as many years. I would imagine that many nominally Christian countries are packed to the gills with people similar to myself.

 

[warpus]

Completely and utterly false. According to the 2006 census around 69.5 % belong to a religion. In fact, Australia has been very religious in it's past. When more than 2/3 of your citizens are religious, I think that qualifies as being a religious country.

That graph describes religious affiliation - not who's religious and who isn't. Technically I am probably grouped with the Roman Catholics in many censuses (censuses?), but I am fully non-religious. In some countries in Europe, for example, most people have religious affiliation (i.e. church of norway), but most are not religious. I'm not sure what the case is in Australia, but you can't confuse religious affiliation with religiousness.

 

[spryllino]

Maybe this is beating a dead horse, but it seems like it might be necessary:

I think all that El_Mac is trying to do here is contrast generic atheism with a moral comprehensive worldview like secular humanism, which explicitly does include a notion of ethics.

However, secular humanism has quite as much potential to be out of date and completely barbaric in two millenia from now as Christianity did two millenia ago.

 

[naterator]

Something I was wondering, people often make statements on Atheist moral standards, so to those I have a question: What is a theist moral standard? Aren't theists just as divided amongst each other over moral issues as atheists?

The mistake often made is that atheism is contrasted with Christianity (who by the way aren't unified in many moral issues either) but you would have to contrast it with all who believe in God.

So, what is the difference in moral standards between atheists and theists?

Just catching up on this thread and I'm glad someone noticed this. Atheism doesn't address morality, as it is not a moral system. Religious types often conflate morality and religiosity because their religion is where they learned their morals. They are separate things, even if often learned from the same source.

Essentially, criticizing atheism for not imbuing morals is like criticizing the theory of evolution for not explaining abiogenesis. Or like criticizing a pizza for not teaching you how to throw a baseball.

 

[MjM]

Yes I believe humanity would be better off without religion because then people would focus more on improving their actual lives then waiting for eternal salvation after death, which doesn't benefit any of us still alive! Use your time praying and worshiping for the em betterment of humanity, not for your own personal comfort.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

@MjM: The Catholic church is and has for a long time been the most charitable organization on the planet. There are also thousands upon thousands of religious establishments that are also very charitable. Only a small minority of people of faith live monastically; the rest of us are out helping others in some way.

 

[storical]

Yes I believe humanity would be better off without religion because then people would focus more on improving their actual lives then waiting for eternal salvation after death, which doesn't benefit any of us still alive! Use your time praying and worshiping for the em betterment of humanity, not for your own personal comfort.

My god the Confederate flag, and the German cross, interesting and spoken like a true Mesopotamian!

 

[Wilks johnson]

That graph describes religious affiliation - not who's religious and who isn't. Technically I am probably grouped with the Roman Catholics in many censuses (censuses?), but I am fully non-religious. In some countries in Europe, for example, most people have religious affiliation (i.e. church of norway), but most are not religious. I'm not sure what the case is in Australia, but you can't confuse religious affiliation with religiousness.

I thought the very definition of being religious was someone who belonged to a religion?

According to: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious

Being religious is: ": relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>"

Unless your talking about some kind of spirituality thing or someone being culturally similar to a particular religion but lacking the belief in the god that religion promotes.

 

[Souron]

Then you didn't learn very well, or were raised either Anglican or Methodist.

I was not raised Anglican or Methodist.

Unless it wasn't in a founding document. Its not like there was a Declaration of Independence From Catholicism that spelled out all the differences between Protestants and Catholics.

I did not mean to imply that it was. The language was imprecise.

]Held or not, the idea that an all-knowing God does not know something is obviously fallacious. And we can only assume that God is logical and obeys laws as such.

If it's not held then it's a Strawman. Never mind the inspiration.

 

[Souron]

I thought the very definition of being religious was someone who belonged to a religion?

According to: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious

Being religious is: ": relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>"

Unless your talking about some kind of spirituality thing or someone being culturally similar to a particular religion but lacking the belief in the god that religion promotes.

"manifesting faithful devotion" is not the same as a name on a government census.

 

[Wilks johnson]

"manifesting faithful devotion" is not the same as a name on a government census.

I know censuses aren't the be all, end all, but why would someone put down their religion as Christianity or Judaism(or so on and so forth) if they didn't have faith in the respective religions or at least have some sort of relation to the religion?

@Warpus. I'm actually curious about why you group yourself as a Roman-Catholic if you don't believe in it. Would you mind elaborating if it isn't too personal?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I was raised catholic and baptised and the lot. I'm in the big book as a catholic.

But I'm an atheist who can't be arsed to spend a minute of my time to chance how my religion or lack there off is recorded.