It's not about that, anti-religion ATSers

Originally posted by Hadrian

Originally posted by SPACEYstranger
Condemning other peoples beliefs is futile when your likely to be completely wrong yourself. Offering you opinions should never provoke an attack.

the beauty of these statements is that one can't tell whether the person who says them is atheist, agnostic or a believer.

The whole point was that just because you have beliefs doesn't automatically put you into a category. I dont think atheism, agnosticism or religion come close to satisfying reason and justifying our existence. They seem to me like petty half arguments with no intelligent reflection on the unknown.

I appreciate all of the positive feedback from those of you that have given it very much, you are too kind.

Several others of you suggest that you live your life and form your worldview in a way that has some sort of objective validity because you try to be as accurate as possible when it comes to deciding what is true and what is not. I would remind you that without appealing to something divine, there absolutely can be no such thing as objective validity. True beliefs are not somehow more valuable to the universe than false ones. There is no such thing as value to the universe. Remember that it could easily be argued that are no such things as right and wrong, and no such things as important or unimportant. Things just are the way they are, on earth, just like on jupiter or anywhere else without humans. Natural processes progressing naturally; nothing to favor the truth seekers over those of faith.

Those of you holding your scientifically credible beliefs to be of substantial importance in some objective sense, I think you are deluding yourselves. If you reject a higher power you can have no source of or way to measure the objective value of anything. You still think things are important, whatever they may be: truth, money, love, happiness. Yet this importance is something that you made up. Everyone decides what is important to them, that decision is arbitrary, and no one is more right than anyone else. If happiness is important, and religion provides happiness, the scientific justification for religious beliefs is less important than their contribution to your happiness.

Still others of your suggest that religion has a terrible effect on humanity, and should therefore be done away with. I submit that we ought to do away with the terrible effects without doing away with the beliefs themselves. Action can be harmful to other people, belief cannot. Prevent harmful action; it is the place of no man to tell another what they can or cannot believe. Like or not, people seek to explain things for which science has no readily availible answer. In some cases the answer is disagreeable to people and they reject it and substitute their own. Also, like it or not, there will be ups and downs in life and people often deal better with their circumstances if they can explain them in terms of a higher power. It feels good to give higher meaning or higher importance to things. It's okay to do this, because people have no hard-wired commitment to only forming scientifically justifiable beliefs.

Finally, all of you who so vehemently reject the value of religion must remember the following things: No one is the master of their own universe. Everyone is often effected in uncontrollable ways by their circumstances. You didn't choose who you were born as. You can control very little of the outside world. Your power over the reality which effects you is like the power of a drop of water in the ocean. If someone wants to call the ocean God, or say that the ocean is controlled by God, that seems to me like a reasonable way to deal with the fact that circumstances beyond your control play an important role in your life.

Also, if we were to sit down and play a game where we tried to tell the most unlikely, unbelievable story to one another, whichever one of us told the history of the universe would probably win. The idea that all of reality exploded into existance out of nothing and started out the size of a marble fourteen billion years ago for absolutely no reason is almost unspeakably absurd. Or the idea that some of the remnants of that explosion collected to form stars and planets, and then some crud got mixed together in some puddle at the base of a volcano four billion years ago on earth, and that stuff reacted for all this time and, the next thing you know, here we are - that very same reaction some years later - on ATS talking about it . . . it's all completely rediculous. I believe it's true - the scientific interpretation of the history of the universe - but how can anyone fail to acknowledge the profound absurdity of it all? If someone wants believe for whatever reason that God had a hand in all of that, somewhere along the way, that seems like as good an idea as any, to me.

Again, I personally am agnostic and am employed as a scientist. I just see all this religion bashing on ATS and it makes very little sense to me. Can't you see where they are coming from? That we are humans before we are seekers of absolute scientific truth? And that for some people, faith is more compatible with their human sensibilities than the scientific interpretation is? Isn't it okay to believe something if it is the foundation of an agreeable worldview, when no alternative belief system can provide such a worldview?

Originally posted by FermiFlux
Personally I believe the foundation of my upbringing morally did not originate from religion, but from common sense.

The problem is that an atheist can only have individual morals - it is impossible for an atheistic society to have collective morals; collective morals can only logically exist if a society believes they come from a higher power.

To be taught to be able to see from another's standpoint. To be able to know if your actions, though benefiting you, would inflict misery to others.

An atheist can know that, but he has absolutely no responsibility to act in a way that wouldn't inflict misery on another. Inflicting misery on someone else isn't wrong per se to atheists, it just depends on the individual's take on the matter.

Seems basic, but I challenge anyone to bring forward an act of goodness from a religious individual that cannot be carried out by an atheist.

Well, if a religious person saw someone being attacked he could come to the aid of the victim knowing what he was doing was morally right due to God's laws.
An atheist can't do that, because an atheist would have no right to come to the aid of the victim because he'd be imposing his relativist morals on the attacker and the victim.

Anyway, just my opinion. The further we advance as society, the more the need to discard the hindrance to us that is religion will become clear.

We can't survive as a society without religion or God, because the only logical conclusion to an atheistic society is nihlistic anarchy.
All our advancements to date have been within religious societies. I think that atheism can only ever fluorish within a society that's based on religious values and moral absolutes, otherwise society will just implode due to the disparate morals and beliefs of the population.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by Benji1999]

Originally posted by jimmyx
the problem with religion is...us vs. them. religion seperates people into "believers" and "non-believers". then people, depending on their strength of belief, use discriminating behavior often to harm "non-believers", some discreetly and in secret, and others overtly and dramatic.

But this isn't specific to religion, this is just human nature. The same scenario pans out with conflicting political beliefs.
Even within atheists there are conflicting groups. eg. scientific atheists, humanists, nihilists, philosophical atheists etc. Is it si far fetched to believe that even within an atheist society these groups would develop into hostile and warring factions ?
If you look on boards that have atheists posting you'll see there are often heated discussions between atheists who have slightly different world-views than others.
Sadly, the ''I'm right, you're wrong, and I'm going to make you believe in what I do'' mentality is inherent in humanity, and religion is a symptom of it, rather than a cause.

I dont think most anti-religious ATS-ers (or non ATS-ers) have any problem with the "happy inducing" aspects of the religious meme. I think many have problems with the competitive aspect of it.

It is a meme, and you are right, true or untrue it provides benefits to its followers. Unfortunately, memes like genes, are competing. And the thing that turns off many of the "anti religious" is the aspect of religion that essentially says 'become a carrier of this meme or go away (or die.)" I think that is the part that causes some problems for many.

If it were just a happy inducing thing, I dont think anyone would complain at all. Unfortunately, the meme is also designed to replicate and compete. The darker side of the happy inducing religious meme.

Edit to add;

Another "dark" side of the religious meme is that while it is interested in obliterating its competition, it will happily "free ride" on its competition (science) for example any chance it gets, by happily using the innovations its competing memes produce, without extending its "benefits" (becoming part of the in group) to those same competitors. It isnt all innocuous. Like all natural selection processes, it tends to be red in tooth and claw and a bit brutish.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by Benji1999


This an interesting idea that you're dealing with. I agree that so far it seems the only way to give any validity to premises on which we as a society base our ethics is to appeal to a higher power. Otherwise, premises are abitrary and personal, and therefore cannot reasonably be imposed on society. I think that religion is a good way to solve this problem.

However, I think that we can - in principal at least - solve this problem of externally valid premises in other ways. For example, if we decided that our premises would be constructed democratically. In this case we could vote on which premises to accept, and if we all agree to go along with the will of the democracy then we have externally valid premises on which to base our ethics. I'm sure there are other non-religious solutions, for example just picking a person or group of people and labeling them the great decider; whatever they say goes.

I'm hesitant to believe that an external source/higher power is the only conceivable source for ethical premises on a societal level. The reason I'm doubtful of this is that many people accept ethical premises even though they don't believe that those premises really come form an external source, and that instead those premises just come from people who claim that they come from an external source(higher power), i.e. the church.

I would agree though that religion seems to be the only solution to this "ethical premis problem" that has ever actually been implemented successfully. Unless there is some atheistic society living well which I am unaware of.

reply to post by OnceReturned


I think humans are collectively unable to judge anything. If not just for the Quantum realities of it all, but because of the fact that every human being wants the other to see things the same way. This creates separation and wars.

Originally posted by Benji1999

The problem is that an atheist can only have individual morals - it is impossible for an atheistic society to have collective morals; collective morals can only logically exist if a society believes they come from a higher power.

This is very untrue. In order for you to assume that, you have to assume that morals are derived from religion, rather than religion being derived from morals.

In fact, many of our "moral" behaviors have evolved simply due to our being social animals, and then they have been branded "proclamations of God." In a sense, they are, but "God" is nature. ("The Origin of Virtue" is a great book on topic)

So atheists come hardwired with all the morals (assuming they are not sociopaths or otherwise incapable of that kind of relating to other humans) a religious person is. They just dont need a commandment of God to justify it. They are fine with just "feeling it is right."

Originally posted by Benji1999
An atheist can know that, but he has absolutely no responsibility to act in a way that wouldn't inflict misery on another. Inflicting misery on someone else isn't wrong per se to atheists, it just depends on the individual's take on the matter.

Neither do most Christians, who have been sold the idea of "forgiveness" and that Jesus did all the work for them. All they have to do is repent, they neednt abstain from the behavior altogether. And as I am sure you know, many of them do not abstain, relying on the redemption to cleanse them from sin. "I am not perfect, only Jesus was perfect, but through faith I am cleansed and forgiven." It actually can be a recipe for less moral behavior, as there is a "get out of immorality free" card that atheists dont have.

Originally posted by Benji1999
Well, if a religious person saw someone being attacked he could come to the aid of the victim knowing what he was doing was morally right due to God's laws.
An atheist can't do that, because an atheist would have no right to come to the aid of the victim because he'd be imposing his relativist morals on the attacker and the victim.

You are kidding, right? We all know that the religious do not universally come to the aid of those being victimized, nor do atheists universally decline to do so.

Originally posted by Benji1999
All our advancements to date have been within religious societies. I think that atheism can only ever fluorish within a society that's based on religious values and moral absolutes, otherwise society will just implode due to the disparate morals and beliefs of the population.

Well the first part of your statement is true, but thats only because all societies are religious. Science advances despite religion, not because of it. While you can say that all technology has come from religious societies, you cannot say that all religious societies have advanced technically. The Dark ages were dark because of the church not due to a lack of it. It was only after the plague shook the churches power that science again could take root and flourish.

And the part about society imploding because of disparate beliefs is not an argument for the good of religion. The disparate beliefs cause conflict because of the competitive nature of religions. If the meme did not compete, if it were accepting of all others, differing belief systems would not conflict. It is only because they want to be the only one that the differing beliefs cause societal conflict. The pagan belief system could accommodate other gods, goddesses etc. Which is why it died out in the face of the more competitive and aggressive middle eastern religious meme, which said "our god or you go meet your gods now."

it is impossible for an atheistic society to have collective morals; collective morals can only logically exist if a society believes they come from a higher power.

you say this as if it's a fact. it's completely absurd to me. are there any demonstrations of atheistic societies without morals? why in the world would "collective morals" depend on belief in a higher power?

An atheist can know that, but he has absolutely no responsibility to act in a way that wouldn't inflict misery on another. Inflicting misery on someone else isn't wrong per se to atheists, it just depends on the individual's take on the matter.

i believe this is just as wrong. it seems believers often cast atheists as satan worshippers (bizarre) who wish to break every law and live in an unethical, criminal way with no regard to the laws of men. but this isn't the case. of course inflicting misery on another is wrong to an atheist. this doesn't come from religion, it comes from our own brain!

Well, if a religious person saw someone being attacked he could come to the aid of the victim knowing what he was doing was morally right due to God's laws.
An atheist can't do that, because an atheist would have no right to come to the aid of the victim because he'd be imposing his relativist morals on the attacker and the victim.

please. ridiculous. and disingenuous, in fact.

We can't survive as a society without religion or God, because the only logical conclusion to an atheistic society is nihlistic anarchy.
All our advancements to date have been within religious societies. I think that atheism can only ever fluorish within a society that's based on religious values and moral absolutes, otherwise society will just implode due to the disparate morals and beliefs of the population.

please. ridiculous. and disingenuous, in fact.

reply to post by Hadrian


well i do agree that hes being a little bit extreme, there has never existed a society that didnt have some underlying religious system. before christianity the law was enforced by the divine, and its jurisdiction spread only as far as its altars(polytheism).

Im not saying that a non religious society couldn't function just fine, but it has never been demonstrated or adequately argued.

Originally posted by SPACEYstranger
well i do agree that hes being a little bit extreme, there has never existed a society that didnt have some underlying religious system. before christianity the law was enforced by the divine, and its jurisdiction spread only as far as its altars(polytheism).

Im not saying that a non religious society couldn't function just fine, but it has never been demonstrated or adequately argued.

i agree (at least with the "never been a atheistic society" idea). maybe we should try one.

reply to post by OnceReturned

Another carefully-thought-out and well-written post, OnceReturned. I wish I could say it was as good as it is clever. It is not. To borrow an adjective from your religious friends, your intent here is Mephistophelian.

Your argument may be summed up as follows.

• Truth differs in no meaningful way from all that is untrue; therefore truth and a lie are of equal validity and value.
  
  
• Truth can be hard to swallow; lies, on the other hand, are often sugar-coated, complaisant and make it easier for some people to live their lives.
  
  
• Hence religion, the privileging of selected lies over objective truth, is justifiable on psychological grounds, or pragmatic ones.
  
  
• Therefore criticizing religious belief is misguided and pointless.

You didn't actually mention the first premise, of course. Understandable: it is plucked from the rank thicket of moral relativism, which religious folk and those of a scientific outlook alike abhor. And without that premise the rest of your argument falls to pieces.

Besides, your second premise, by establishing a difference between truth and falsehood, disproves the unspoken first.

Your conclusion, moreover, does not follow from the thesis immediately preceding. It is not the utility of religion to the believer that the liberal-minded atheist objects to; if others wish to poison their minds with trashy lies, it is their affair, not mine. What is intolerable is that these intellectual suicides, these lie junkies, then attempt to impose their beliefs and the perversions of nature and morality that follow from them upon the rest of us; and they will brook no argument because they have persuaded themselves that their lies are true.

*

Most don't set out just to aquire true beliefs. This is isn't what life is about.

False. All humans, from infancy onward, live in unending quest of accurate, reliable information about the world. The acquisition of such truth is a biological prime directive. The truth about some things, however, cannot be established empirically. Religion is a claimed source of truth about those very things. It is in quest of truth, not consolation, that most people first encounter the lies of religion--I speak not of Damascene conversions and tent-show epiphanies, but of the answers to questions like 'Mummy, where did Granny go after she died?'

Self-deluding adults who embrace religious error for the sake of psychological or 'spiritual' consolation* are actually a very small minority of the religious, although they seem to be a majority among habitual proselytes and religio-political activists. Their confession is an act of intellectual and moral cowardice, and their influence on the people and institutions they come into contact with is unfailingly malign. If they kept their self-consoling notions to themselves there would be no problem.

*

reply to post by OnceReturned

Your second post in the thread makes more explicit the morally relativistic basis of your argument:

I would remind you that without appealing to something divine, there absolutely can be no such thing as objective validity.

Divinity has nothing to do with it. The objective value of truth over falsehood lies in the accurate, reliable prediction of future outcomes. No lie can provide this.

True beliefs are not somehow more valuable to the universe than false ones.

They are, contra your arguments on this thread, more valuable to the holder than false ones, because they enable him to predict future outcomes more accurately and understand his fellow-humans better.

There is no such thing as value to the universe. Remember that it could easily be argued that are no such things as right and wrong, and no such things as important or unimportant... nothing to favor the truth seekers over those of faith.

Value is not necessarily moral value. Relative importance is based on value, not the other way round. Truth seekers are favoured because they get it right more often than the believers of lies. The lamentable predictive record of faith in its ongoing argument with reason abundantly proves the value of truth.

In conclusion, it may be said that the viewpoint you've advanced on this thread is as pernicious as religion itself, and as unworthy of the person I took you for as it is eminently worthy of opposition. I shall watch your future choices of thread topic with keen interest.
*or pecuniary gain

[edit on 22/3/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


I don't think that that is a very accurate interpretation of my position. The point of this thread is not to justify anything, even though after I wrote I ended arriving at a position in which I do think religious beliefs are to be expected and are understandable, which for me amounts to justification. I wrote this as an attempt to explain a real observation that I - and everyone else - has made: people who are aware of the scientific arguments still choose religious beliefs. How could this be? I'm not comfortable answering that question by saying they are idiots, and neither should you be.

The reality is that people choose religion even in the face of seemingly more rational beliefs. A lot of those people are smart and important and have great, admirable qualities. You can't just ignore this fact. It doesn't make sense: if reason and rationality is our prime directive, this shouldn't be the state of affairs. Since it doesn't make sense I want an explanation - preferably a more realistic and less immature answer than the one in which we just dismiss all religious people as small minded or whatever. The answer that I came up with is that this state of affairs can be explained very well if we accept that, for a large percentage of the population, reason and rationality - at least when it comes to certain important matters - is not the prime directive. They choose something more comfortable or more manageable, or in some way more appealing. They choose religion. If this isn't right, how do you explain it?

It's clear that there is a difference between true beliefs and false ones, there must be in order for us to make any meaningful distinction, which we obviously do. You say that those people seeking truth over anything else are on the right track because they will be better able to to navigate the world, based on their more accurate predictive methods. I agree with you up to this point. What is clear, though, is that however great you think the pursuit of pure, evidence based, reasonable truth is, you are in a minority. The fact that so many people choose religious beliefs instead of scientific onces proves that religion offers something that is more important to them than what science offers.

True beliefs do allow you to make better predictions about the future. That certainly is one inherent aspect of them. In this thread I seek to explain why more rational beliefs are not prefered over religious ones. The reason - it seems to me - is that rationality is not the prime directive for many humans. I think this because I look at the beliefs which people actually have, and often times those beliefs are irrational. I'm not exatly sure what the prime directive is, but it seems clear to me that it is something more to do with happiness or personal contentment than with truth.

You have to admit that many people persist in their religious beliefs despite being presented with the scientific arguments against those beliefs. That is just a fact. You rarely talk people out of religion by telling them it is not consistent with the evidence. You and them alike are aware of both the scientific position and the faith based position and you make your choices. The fact that most people make a different choice than you should tell you that the determining factor for them is something different.

I think that my main point is in those first two paragraphs. I don't think that making that point ought to be grounds for you writing me off; you're faced with the same conundrum that I am: how to explain the prevalence of religious beliefs in a world where more rational scientific beliefs are so accessable. If you're not interested in answering that question you should take a minute and wonder why, and if you're satisfied with the answer that religious people are small minded then you should take a minute and look at what they have accomplished. I prefer reason and rationality, I'm not religious, and I abhor the efforts of any belief system to promote oppression, violence, or misguided/incorrect education of young people.

A couple other things to think about which have to do with this argument that we're having:

Religion has many aspects and has served many purposes throughout history. One aspect which is important to identify in this conversation is the part of religion which seeks to explain phenomena which we now accept as naural: lightening, the weather, disease, where did we come from, ect. These were the big questions back in the day. Religion still seeks to answer some of the big questions today: origin of the universe, what happens when you die, ect. It seems like people want an explanation for things and when science doesn't have one they appeal to religion. It's important to try to understand exactly what role this aspect of religion plays in the bigger picture. It seems like the explanatory efforts of religion ought to be completely separable from whatever is left; it seems like science can tackle these questions one by one without ever dealing with the main question of the existance of a higher power. I identify two parts of religion for this conversation: the explanatory side and the spiritual fulfillment side. Science can handily do away with one without doing away with the other.

Also, because the trend more and more is to accept religious explanations for phenomena which science doesn't have an explanation for, or which are untestable in principal, people of faith don't necessarily have to lose much of their predictive powers. If you accept a religious explanation for the origin of the universe, and for what happens when you die, and also accept a religious metaphysical explanation in addition to a physical explanation for circumstances outside of your control, you will not end up making worse predictions. You may pray now and then for favorable circumstances which you cannot otherwise influence, and you may not fear death as much, and you may not worry too much about the work at the LHC, but it's not like you can't play catch because you don't accept the Newtonian physics of straight line motion. If you accept this( very commonly accepted) religion "light," it doesn't seem as though your ability to successfully navigate the world or make predictions ought to be effected very much.

[edit on 3/22/10 by OnceReturned]

reply to post by Benji1999


I just have to disagree...

My Father has no desire to seek out religion and beliefs. He is a man of science and logic. At the same time...he is the biggest giver and selfless man I know. I dont know another who is as offering of their self as he is to others.

If you are acting in a moral way for something outside of you...are you doing it because you really believe its right...or are you doing it to be gratified?

The path of seeking self salvation can be seen as a selfish path in itself.

There are atheist that live selfless lives more so then believers of faith. You cant group people like that and assume you know them all. Just like I cant group a religious group and say one action or thoughts or value applies to them all.

There are good and bad apples in every barrel.

Originally posted by OnceReturned

There reality is that people choose religion even in the face of seemingly more rational beliefs. A lot of those people are smart and important and have great, admirable qualities. You can't just ignore this fact. It doesn't make sense: if reason and rationality is our prime directive, this shouldn't be the state of affairs.

Well, without addressing your entire argument, I would like to take this one point.

You are forgetting indoctrination into religion. You have really no idea to what degree people choose religion, because religion as practiced deliberately circumvents free choice. Children and carefully and methodically cultivated to be adherents of a specific religion. It begins as soon as they are born and takes years to mold them in this fashion, and even with the careful cultivation and enormous social and parental pressure some break loose to some degree.

You also overlook the fact that while many claim belief in various religions, their actions contradict their stated belief in many cases. How many Christians for instance skip happily to their deaths knowing that they will be in heaven with their lord and God? Or wish for their children to die young so they might be spared the possibility of sin and damnation? I see in many cases what appears to me to be people going through the motions of religion for the purposes of social acceptance, without a lot of faith and belief in the tenants, and without strict adherence to the commandments.

Not that I think that if people were raised without being indoctrinated into religion there would be no spirituality. I think there would. But I doubt it would look like the landscape we currently see.

Bottom line, "choice" is not really an appropriate term for how people end up religious. It is a long and arduous process to create "believers," it generally HAS to begin before they are old enough to "choose," and the success rate is lower than it appears to be based on church attendance.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I don't know how far we should take the self-sustaining brainwashing idea. It's hard to apply any argument against this across all cultures, but in the United States the scientific alternative to religion is certainly presented to you. People can change their minds. Many people are raised religiously and then reject religion as adults. Many become religious as adults even if they weren't raised religiously. It's clear that indocrination is possible to overcome. I'm not suggesting that it doesn't create a bias - it undoubtedly does - but look at where that bias comes from. Parents raise their kids however they want to; if they think religion is important they expose their children to it. Parents should be able to teach their kids whatever they want, especially since there doesn't seem to be any evidence that children raised religiously are less likely to succeed.( Of course there will be extremes like cults, in which the children brought up in those circumstances are indeed less likely to succeed, but in all of those cases it's not because of religious teachings specifically, it's because of an extreme incongruence between the culture that one is brought up in and the culture of the mainsteam. This extreme deviation from the norm in any area of one's worldview is likely to result in dysfunctional behavior.)

As far as trying to fit in or practice religion because it is expected in certain communities, there's always stuff like this. This argument doesn't seem to provide any important distinction between religion and other cultural fads: dress, taste in media, politics, socially acceptable behavior, ect. As with all of these fads, an alternative is accessable. The pressures of societal norms act on all sorts of beliefs and we have to acknowledge that any belief is influenced by how it is percieved socially as well as by the individual. I think that this is just a by-product of human's social sense, and not something which is particular to religion. If the scientific worldview was appealing enough it would become the norm, and this aspect of our culture would evolve in the same way as our dress, language, and media has evolved. Perhaps we are in the midst of such evolution.

I think that your position is very much defined by the idea that you brought up earlier which is the analogy of memes to genes and the development of cultural memes to biological evolution. I like this analogy too, but I'm not sure how far to take it in this particular case. Religion has many aspects; for example - as discussed above - the "explanatory function" which has been historically far more important than it is today, as well as the "personal spiritual satisfaction" function, as well as the "basis for morality" funciton, as well as the "version of history" function. The list goes on. I don't think we can catagorize religion in general very well as anything too specific. These various elements seem to offer totally different benefits and also seem to be susceptible to totally different arguments. I'm not sure how to reconcile this wide range of things which we call religious with the notion of a single "religion" meme, or "christianity" meme, or whatever. All these aspects are certainly related, but have totally different implications, premises, problems, benefits, ect. and can be delt with not in complete isolation but certainly - at least - as identifiably distinct aspects of a worldview. I'm not sure how to incorporate recognizing the different parts of the religious worldvew into the indoctrination conversation, but I'm sure it has implications in that regard. I do think that we need to be careful in how exactly we apply the meme/evolution analogy when talking about "religion" in general; we might need to break it down into it's parts and then somehow account for their connection.

reply to post by OnceReturned

Oh, I don't disagree with your explanation of why otherwise sane and rational people embrace religion. I detect, however, something of an apologia for this tendency in your earlier posts, even though you yourself may not be of the congregation. Perhaps I was wrong; if so I apologize, though I also think you could profitably trade some of your tendency toward exhaustiveness for comprehensibility at times.

Obviously the human prime directive isn't truth, although we seek truth because it has survival value. The prime directive, which is the same for humans and all other organisms, is 'have as many grandchildren as possible'. If believing a lie helps in that, you may be sure evolution has designed us to embrace many lies.

However, I tend to agree with Illusionsaregrander that complexes of religious ideas, religious memes as he calls them, are selfish in just the same way that genes are, and often seek to perpetuate themselves at their hosts' expense. Not being handicapped by the slowness of human reproduction and growth to maturity, they can afford to treat the brains (and bodies) in which they reproduce with contempt; in this they are more like viruses than genes in their action.

reply to post by Astyanax


Hmmm. Well, my motivation here certainly isn't sympathy. Religion is a major subject of discussion on ATS, and a large potion of that discussion is in the form of the debate. My perception of the anti-religion side of that debate is that for the most part they are missing the mark. They explain over and over why they themselves believe that religious beliefs are not correct, and expect that this explanation will be compelling to the other side. It isn't compelling to the other side, and it never will be, and this thread is about why. I suppose that in hindsight I realize that I've expressed a more sympathetic position towards religious beliefs than the one that I actually hold.

reply to post by OnceReturned

Well (and tersely) put. I certainly agree with this:

(Nonbelievers) explain over and over why they themselves believe that religious beliefs are not correct, and expect that this explanation will be compelling to the other side. It isn't compelling to the other side, and it never will be, and this thread is about why.

Very true, and you won't ever find me wasting my time on ATS trying to convince the faithful that their beliefs are ill-founded. Rather, I hope to inoculate undecided or agnostic members against the seductions of religion.

My methods vary, depending on the circumstances and my inclination (after all, I am mostly here to entertain myself). Sometimes I will apply sweet reason and courtesy; at others I will poke fun; now and then I will unsheath my claws and attack. Generally the last of these tactics is reserved for religious proselytes, especially the sneaky sort who pretend to be agnostics or even atheists in the hope of bamboozling readers more innocent than I am.

I have no problem with religion so long as it isn't rubbed in my face. Most of the people I know in real life confess some form of religious belief. I spend absolutely no time trying to spread my atheist gospel among them; I have better things to do with my life and, besides, I value my relationships and good standing among friends, family and fellow-workers. On the other hand, I do tend to see religious zealots as having been put on Earth to provide me with entertainment.

The country I live in is multireligious and wildly syncretic. Buddhism exerts a strong cultural influence, so the atmosphere is far more tolerant of both belief and unbelief than in benighted lands like Saudi Arabia and the United States. I mention these two out of resentment, for religious zealots from them are forever taking advantage of our tolerance to propagate their disgusting lies. I regret to say they have made some minor inroads. The Wahabis have been more successful than the Baptists and Mormons, since they tend to be more generous and respectful of local tradition.

I suppose that in hindsight I realize that I've expressed a more sympathetic position towards religious beliefs than the one that I actually hold.

Perhaps so, in which case it might be best to clarify your position lest you give aid and comfort to the undeserving.