Bitcoin Forum

People take their religion very seriously but seldom are capable of following the rules and regulations of the belief. Many are willing to die for it rather than live by it. Most man made religions are profoundly silly such as Christianity and Islam. The human ability to believe in the preposterous is unlimited and unfathomable. The more obviously ridiculous it is the more followers it attracts. Before you enter a house of worship you really have to lock your intellect up in a drawer and not retrieve it until your worship is over. Religion and intellect are not and will never be compatible.

This doesn't mean that theists are stupid only that it is necessary to not think about what they claim to believe. This is where it all becomes a house of cards. Remove one by thinking about it and the whole concept may collapse. Many people are in constant fear about losing their religion which is why some of them get very angry when its discussed.

Much of religion is based on fear. Fear of death, fear of judgement, fear of hell or some other punishment. The common expression "He is a God fearing man" sums it up well. Fear God if you know what's good for you. Religion chains you to the ground when the human spirit naturally wants to soar. Religion really has very little to do with the concept of "God". If God exists I doubt if he would have anything to do with any of these man made conceits known as the religions of the world. He would be well above such things.

It's not that people take religion very seriously, it's that religion is reality in their minds. Things can be very real in the minds of people, but be completely absent in the universe itself or in the minds of others. As to what it means to believe, it is exactly that - but I find often people put in their own interpretations which are not communicated trough religious texts.

Couldn't agree more...

The only way to defeat superstition is a well educated population, when the only use for religion is ritual, it's pretty harmless.

The problem with that is that some people don't WANT to be educated. Because it's painful, especially when they find out that everything they thought they knew is wrong.

How can you force people to replace their belief with another belief? By eliminating them?

By removing information about their belief - or - what you mentioned. Both were implemented in the soviet union. But it seems even that does not stop people from believing.

Science can not explain everything, hence people need to find rational explanation on things they can not understand and find religion.

The believe in evolution is not that much different than the believe in god, both are highly speculative with no concrete proof.

Religion isn't for the perfect. It is for the imperfect, like me for instance.

Says someone who believes the entire universe just happened out of essentially nothing and for no particular reason. Okay.

Many of the greatest minds of history were people of faith and they didn't seem to find any incompatibility between their accomplishments and their beliefs.

I disagree. I believe most religion is a natural attempt to understand the complexity of the universe and to form the basis for a moral, just, and kind society. Understanding that there is a power greater than oneself and knowing that spiritual power can be engaged with doesn't result in or come from fear.

What a bleak existence it must be to feel that life has no meaning beyond its superficial and temporary earthly manifestation.

I actually do believe religion can and has done good in this world. My argument is that the dogma and stories don't make sense....and they don't. The beliefs are often silly and totally implausible but many folks just don't want to think about it. I can understand people believing God is sacred...but man made religions???

The entire concept of Christianity is based on the game show "Let's make a deal."  I will do good things and in return, I will receive ever lasting life.  I get a pay back for my efforts.  It is only when you do good, for the sake of others with no desire for payback that you are actually manifesting the highest form of charity.  And, any review of today's churches shows they are far far away from this charity.

One of the best forums of control over the masses.

Loot at how easily you can convince people to go and slaughter in the name of some BS.

Not exactly scriptural.  In fact, off hand, it is the only faith I know of where it teaches that good works cannot save us - rather, they should flow out of appreciation of what the Creator has done for us.
Now, agreed, there are churches that teach some variation of what you posted .  But, churches do err - thus one of the reasons for most if not all of the books of the New Testament.  Be it Revelation, where John is correcting the churches, or Paul's epistles, etc.

In a time where people would lose their heads for saying god wasn't really do you really believe the smartest people on the planet believed what came out of their mouths?

Bleak?
It's actually quite the opposite. It is actually liberating.
Realizing that there is no afterlife or heaven or earth or valhalla after death, a person can focus on the life they have now, instead of holding themselves back because they are worried about not getting into [insert_preferred_afterlife_here].


As for the argument that we need religion to have morality... I think people who only do good deeds and not bad ones just because they are scared of "hell" are not good people at all!  :-X
Are they saying that if they didn't believe in hell they'd go berserk?  ;D

OK you kinda lost me a bit but I think I understand what you are trying to say,  Anyone who has any kind of opinion will likely believe of what they are saying no matter if there smart or not intellectual. 

That's really just YOUR perception and frankly it's ridiculous. I am a spiritual person and I don't fear any of the things YOU think everyone does. There may be some who live in a fear based existence, just as there are some like yourself who also have a closed mind and warped perceptions concerning spiritual things.

I do good because i feel it ,not because i am afraid that i will go in hell .Now depends on each person how understands God or a religion.As for afterlife ,i believe it has to be something after we die,maybe not heaven ,maybe not hell......

Religious belief can arise from many impulses -- fear, curiosity, you name it -- but one impulse I think it definitely comes from is love, which seems to be an essential component of all the big religions (and probably all the lesser known ones that I'm not familiar with): the Golden Rule, which they all build upon, springs from the instinctive human experience of empathy, which is just another word for love. My favorite religion, in terms of being something that's a manifestation of the human impulse to love, is Christianity. I don't know enough about the charitable efforts of non-Christian religions, but, wow -- you've gotta give it up for the tremendous human good that gets done by groups of people motivated by the gospels of the New Testament. Throughout my life, I've known and sometimes worked with religiously motivated people carrying out wonderful acts of human kindness (another synonym for love), and have always contributed to Christian charities. True enough, it may all just be due to ordinary human kindness, but, well . . . who cares? If it helps people to do so many good things, I'm quite certain I don't want a world free of "irrational" belief.

Religion has no dibs on love or any other emotion.  People of every religion and people of no religion love just as deeply.
Why is religion always trying to take credit for the good things?   Love...yeah, that one's ours.  We got love.  We are all about love.  (Implying that those without religion aren't quite as in tune to love).  We got compassion....oh yeah....we are the most compassionate (implying that the non-religious are therefore less compassionate).  WE have a more fulfilled existence, less bleak  (that's pretty straightforward alleging those without religion are bleak).

 It is the greatest load of horseshit ever shoveled onto mankind and of all the religions of the world only the Buddha saw it.  He realized every human, no matter what they believe have felt the same emotions in the same ways and have the capacity to love and feel just as deeply as people of other faiths or of no faith.

Well part...that's true for what its worth but at the same time you can't ignore that the graveyards of the world are stuffed to overflowing with the graves of those who have killed in the name of religion and were killed in the name of religion. The earth weeps over the weight of human blood shed for God.

Religious belief hasn't arisen in anyone for a few million years....its bred into them from the teachings of their elders or their society.  It arose in people as a whole a few million years ago when we first began to contemplate our existence.  It was a gradual progression.  A few million years ago we were about as intelligent as an elephant is now.  Elephants are beginning to contemplate their existence.  They mourn their dead and they revisit grave sites many years later.  They are currently very likely confused about death, but they understand what it is and they ponder it because they visit grave sites.   When their language becomes more sophisticated they will start to tell themselves similar stories we told ourselves to calm our fears and uncertainty.

A tribal priest passing on stories to the warriors that if they fought well, they would sit on a throne in Valhalla for all eternity sure sounds a bit more inspiring than "if you get killed it's over".  It makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't we want to motive our kids or our subjects with stories that have a greater influence?  Rule by fear.

These types of posts get under my skin.

There is a *vast* wealth of information and knowledge that one can explore that is completely off-limits to the scientific method.  This is why philosophers, for example, give serious consideration to religious claims.  It's not because they're stupid.  It's because they have, and know how to use, certain tools that scientists simply aren't allowed to use via their own methods.  

People who don't apply their intellect make foolish claims like "religion and intellect will never be compatible."

Here's my question, and I'll assume that you defect to the scientific method since that is often the proposed dichotomy:  What do you think about the intellect of someone who *solely* utilizes a specific method of knowledge acquisition that carries demonstrably false assumptions?  Because, guess what...science carries assumptions that are demonstrably false according to one's intellect.  

I am not religious and probably will never be, but I respect those who are. Some people do need a religion, they need it to give them strength, at times of weakness or uncertainty.

All major religions tends to give answers to three basic questions in life:
Where do we come from?
Where do we go when we die?
Why is life unfair?

If these three questions never bothered you, or you believed science gave you satisfactory answers. You tend not to be religious.

To want understand who we are within a larger context is universal.  I could not disagree more  that intellect plays no part in religion...that is just an ignorant statement on its face making it also ironic.  
While religion and philosophy are not the same thing, there is an intellectual exercise with both that are similar as they grappling with the meaning of life, ultimate truth, etc.  Just because conclusions differ (between philosophers or  between religionists/non religionists) does not mean those who walk their respective paths do not use their brain to get or stay on one.  If one has ever actually studied philosophy or any major religion in depth, it is not an exercise for dummies.  
Reducing what you never learned down to the absurd so you can reject it does not a genius make.   

I wasn't suggesting that religion has dibs on love. Quite the opposite, actually -- more like religion is one widespread method through which human empathy -- i.e., love -- manifests itself. I was also merely observing that organized religion (most particularly, from my vantage point, Christianity) "does" love more noticeably than many other organized human endeavors do. As a non-religious person myself, I'm not unaware of the unacceptable levels of sanctimony that goes along with religious belief, but on balance, I'll take a world with religion in it,despite all the bloodshed, over its opposite because I'm pretty well convinced that human beings can fix themselves without having to shed everything (you know, the baby-with-the-bathwater analogy). Religion has been with us from the beginning and it ain't going nowhere, and since it's inextricably mixed up with our capacity for empathy, I regard it hopefully (if not faithfully). In fact, because it is overwhelmingly Christian, I believe that contemporary right-wing American conservatism will eventually realize that so many of its immoral, non-Jesus-like political stances are just that -- violations of the code of the Christian gospels. (It should go without saying that I could be completely wrong, of course.)

I'm not sure if this is the same study I referenced, but if not, here's another:

London (CNN) – Religion comes naturally, even instinctively, to human beings, a massive new study of cultures all around the world suggests.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/12/religious-belief-is-human-nature-huge-new-study-claims/

I would never argue with the proposition that religious belief is part of human nature. As a child, I was indoctrinated into the beliefs of my tribe (working-class Roman Catholicism of the 1950s and '60s), but I took to it like a duck to water, so I know what a natural fit it can feel like.

That's actually kind of interesting, POTP.  As I was looking for that study, I came across a meta analysis of the negative correlation between intelligence and religion.  The conclusions are not as simple as "dumb = religious", but rather (paraphrasing here) that there are two levels of intelligence, the lower finding instinctive affinity to a belief in God and children especially.  The higher level finds affinity with analytical thinking which leads those who rely on the empirical.  It also detailed four possible reasons why the higher level have less motivation to seek the non empirical benefits of faith/religion.

I just want to add this......... I believe that having a specific religion is not important, the important things are our actions, not our words. Anybody can talk a good game. As the Dalai Lama once said, "I have one religion....... 'kindness' ". Sincere kindness is a deep word, it covers all the altruistic things you mention and more. Sincerity is key as well. This can be attributed to all religions I'm aware of. 

The key seems to be either a belief that there is something greater than ourselves in this universe or there is not. I have come to believe that there definitely is, I just don't believe this inconceivable power is a god. But I don't have any problem calling it God. What this power is will be conceived differently by each one of us. 

Personally, I don't fear or praise it, I embrace it and I realize it is much more powerful than any of us. Then it becomes what is your definition of power in this realm............

I was blind and could not see.  I was deaf and could not hear.  Thinking people do not throw away their logic, their logic expands to encompass the unexplainable.  The Bible was written by man.  The Bible is not sacred.  But it points to a very good way to live.  It speaks of the wonder of faith in god.

"Zuckerman also warns that, despite there being thousands of participants overall, ranging among all ages, almost all of them belong to Western society. More than 87 percent of the participants were from the US, the UK, and Canada. So after controlling for other factors, they can only confidently show strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity among American Protestants. For Catholicism and Judaism, the correlation may be less negative. "     Martin Luther

Yup. Doesn't surprise me a bit. How dumb, after all, do you have to be to believe that God determined your life before the creation of the universe, yet you are responsible for your actions on earth. Or that god damned you before all creation, because, well, just because he felt like it. And how dumb do you have to be to think that "where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the universe" is a legitimate response to Job's question, "why did you kill my wife and kids, burn down my house and fields and slaughter my livestock?"

The reality is that Protestantism comes solely from emotion: not thought. Catholicism and Judaism come first from intellect. The closest thing we have to Protestantism is, well, Islam. No wonder why they hate each other so much: isn't it said we hate others most for the bad traits we see in them that we know reflect our own souls?

And doesn't the negative correlation explain pretty well why of the nine on SCOTUS, five are Catholic and two are Jewish?

And isn't the general ignorance and hatred of others that makes up most Protestant sects best reflected on this board with the members of the SBC like Sting? Everything that is wrong with religion, hell, everything wrong with the world, is brought to the fore in the SBC.

My vote is that we match one Protestant with one Muslim each, and let them kill each other. I PROMISE the world will be a far superior place thereafter.

I believe that having a specific religion is not important, the important things are our actions, not our words.
and I believe that, like Protestantism, that is a cop out from not having to adhere to a moral code, you get to decide whether your actions are good or not.

I find this higher power is inconceivable, and you are a Catholic and have named this power God and given it a set of tools, rules and garments I suppose so it is easier for you to accept. Yet I am certain this inconceivable power exists, I'm just not buying the man made rules. My rules are in my heart, mind and soul. This power resides in all of us, in everything in the universe............all connected.

Some make the connection, others live in denial, some just ignorant. You get your moral code from the Bible? Good luck with that.........

This power in the universe is much greater than I, I am powerless in comparison. but with an open mind I can see and I can hear..........

lol. No, I'm not, because as I've noted a thousand times, Catholics have no more answer to the theodetic question than do Protestants.

My rules are in my heart, mind and soul.

which is exactly what I said, sana thanks. And I believe that making your own rules is taking, no pun intended, the way out.

I beg to differ, my higher power, that you choose to designate as 'God', provides the rules and morals. It is up to me to listen and do the right thing. I haven't made any of my own rules, I am guided by a power greater than any of us.

Sorry, I made an assumption, you sounded kind of Catholic and you are Puerto Rican so I thought......

I sincerely believe religion has nothing to do with God. In my mind to combine the two is both bizarre and ridiculous. Religions are an attempt by early groups of people to understand what they saw around them. What they decided on was usually nonsensical because they were uneducated and often desperate for answers. The quest for God is a more noble effort and can manifest itself in many varied and interesting ways. The first is wallowing in fear, uncertainty and superstition. The second can be a sincere search for truth.

Men never do evil so completely or so joyfully than when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal.

Try to put yourself in the place of primitive, Middle eastern nomads 4000+ years ago.  Sitting at night tending your flock, lying back, staring at the majesty of the night sky.

Wouldn't it make you wonder?  Would you have made up magical beings or a magical being that created it all?

Well, that's what happened.  Not you of course, you probably don't have the imagination any way.

Why when someone sees a beautiful view do they claim "Look how beautiful that is. Only God could have created that. It is proof of his existence". Actually its proof of no such thing. It is what happens because of time, weather, nature and natural elements in harmony. Its not due to anything superstitious. It is the beauty of reality.

Actually that is called reason, not superstition.  Either the enormity of the cosmos  or a majestic view present such overwhelming order, design, and complexity that to believe that randomly came to be after matter popped into existence would be illogical, or at the very least it is illogical to entirely dismiss the supernatural.  Even prevailing views of origin cannot completely answer all associated questions, nor do they refute the existence of the supernatural.  You simply hold another faith based possibility which excludes an intelligent designer.  

You make a lot of presumptions in your comments above which I don't have the time to dispute one at a time. I will say your entire concept of what "atheism" is all about is completely wrong. Atheism is a celebration of the logical over the illogical. There is no logic in superstition which you admit religion is. I have had experience with both theism and atheism as I have been both a Christian and an atheist. Believe me....of the two.... being an Christian is much easier. Its safe, comfortable and can be wrapped around you like a warm, protective coat. Being an atheist means you have to leave the matrix and except some harsh realities. We are animals, all animals die and that's the end of it. No eternal life, no soul, no heaven or hell. No God.

That's not easy to swallow.

Some people need the truth. They simply are not fit for the matrix. Just like some need drugs to cope with reality and others prefer reality over fantasy. There is no "hopelessness" in being an atheist. It is not dark or bleak. There is no alienation, pessimism or gloomy desperation as some claim. There is strength in being able to live with what is real. There is a sense that life is precious and this is our only chance to do a good job as we won't be here again. It makes me a better mother to my children and a better wife to my husband. Atheism has given me many gifts, the greatest is freedom from superstition and unlocking my intellectual possibilities.

Thanks for something interesting to respond to........

For the record I did not admit [all] religion was superstition.   What I did state was that your belief is also faith based.  And I do not think I am wrong in my concept of atheism, at least not in terms of anything you've argued.    
I can agree atheism appeals those who value the empirical above all else.   But philosophy, which involves more than the empirical, is also based on logic and truth seeking.   Personally I would argue it takes a higher intellect to be a philosopher than it takes to be a scientist.  And I say that as someone with a math degree who firmly believes math is the only true science (suck it physics).  
And I think you missed the point of the my argument/analogy:  If someone has never been in love, they cannot comment on what it is like or what it is worth in the same way as someone who has/is.  You (generic you) simply cannot know the full value of that experience which transcends the intellectual until you've had it.   One can use logic and science to reduce that experience down to the level of chemicals, but one cannot expect to convince someone who is in love that that they are superstitious and inferior intellectually for believing love exists and makes life more wonderful when they are experiencing it and you are not.  
And while someone may have been in love or thought they have been in love at one time, and for whatever reason is no longer in love, they can only argue they find greater benefit living with the belief that it is nothing more than a chemical cocktail within those destined to be worm poop.  But that kind of statement generally is received with pity from those who are in love.

To argue that religion is easier...as if that is evidence of its inferiority and all the more reason a higher intellect would seek to dismiss it...is laughably illogical.    Why would the more intelligent animals seek a harsher, less safe, more difficult reality which ends in annihilation, making your entire existence nothing more than a blink of irrelevancy, and then turn around and claim it is a superior faith based POV because you've really thought it through?  Lol.  Have you really? 
I will tell you why atheism will always be a minority view.  Because theism is the only measure of hope one can find when they are in the position of being effectively oppressed by other human beings exploiting their superior might, which for all our supposed intelligence we still haven't figured out how to stop doing.   And you are deluding yourself if you believe the godless are any better at not reeking mayhem than religious zealots because they are every bit as zealous in their self worship.

Well Zolace....you are really fixating on a lot of presumptions and this "love" analogy is getting really tedious. May I remind you that I am the one who has known both worlds and you are the one who has known only one. I was a Christian and am now an atheist. You.... I presume..... have never been an atheist so how can you make such sweeping wrong statements about atheism and atheists motives? How can you know that which is harder to be [ Christian or atheist] when you have never been an atheist? Atheism is the fastest growing bracket concerning peoples religious beliefs or lack of them in America { so says the last census}. I have no interest in debating if philosophers are smarter than scientists or in claiming atheists are necessarily smarter than theists. That's of no importance to me. I really think your disgust toward atheism, non believers in general or just me perhaps has clouded your judgement. You claim no one can understand love if they have never been in love and yet you claim with your statements that you seem to know what atheism is all about. Spend 20 years or so as a Christian and 20 years or so as a atheist and get back to me.

I didn't get disgust at all from zolace's thoughts towards non-believers, rather more the proposition they perhaps can't know what they're missing.  It's not a new thought - Kierkegaard, the Danish theologian/philosopher proposed that it was only through a 'leap of faith' that the religious perspective could be apprehended and known.  That is, without faith, humans are more or less stranded in their own limited universe, their every experience processed from that viewpoint.

On your spiritual evolution account - I'm wondering if the experience of a default faith (the childhood variety) meaningfully compares to that of adult who has reached (or sustained, enriched) theirs through contemplation, testing and trial from a more informed viewpoint.

I agree that it is called reason, but there is reason that makes sense and flawed or weak reasoning.  "Reasoning" your way to a belief in magic and other fairy tales doesn't make it valid reasoning.  If what you don't understand is therefore "reasoned" to be the work of a god, this is called the God-of-the-gaps argument, and it fails the test of actual reason.   If humans cant explain it, God built it.  That isn't reason.  However, I agree with you that a force of creation cannot be wholly discounted....this doesn't make it the most logical reason.

And you are wrong about a number of things in your line of "reasoning"....we don't know if matter popped into existence or was just going through a big crunch.  And, once in existence....all things don't happen randomly.  Matter interacts in unique ways due to gravity and its own unique physical and chemical properties.  Gravity is really god.   Its the unifying force and we have no good theories about how it works.  If I put 50 metronomes on a board with wheels and start them all off at different times, I can calculate the time until they will all synchronize.  One might look at that and ask how I did that....seemingly magic.  No, its how matter interacts.  The board starts moving slightly on its wheels with the majority of metronomes throwing their centrifugal force together, they all eventually get forced to fall into line.  There are a billion examples of how matter can create complexity and order in nonrandom ways.  This is not to say a bearded man didn't create matter just to watch it expand and crunch for all eternity....you just cant really "reason" your way there with any earthly logic.

Bleak existence?  It would be very easy for me to describe the beak existence under the yoke of superstition of religion, but I will refrain because I believe even those who are indoctrinated to fables and folk lure can also experience love and uplifting emotions of hope and joy just like anyone else can regardless of their religious convictions.  Other's existence may not be any more or less than anyone else's when it comes to fulfillment or bleakness regardless of what we believe.  You are filled with the holy spirit and it uplifts you in ways that make you rejoice.  I am not filled with the hocus pocus and I am uplifted me in ways that make me rejoice just as deeply as you do.  The things that blow me away every day and uplift me in spiritual ways are just different than the things that do this for you.  But all humans feel deeply about the things they feel deeply about.  You hold no dibs on feelings just because you believe in a guy named Jesus that makes your loins twitch.  ...and please spare me the "oh its so much more than that".   Its not.

It is the height of arrogance to assume people who don't share your beliefs must have a bleak existence.  You guys need to read the teachings of the Buddha. Thoughts expressed by you like  "You don't know what you are missing"   "its like the difference with talking about being in love and actually being in love" is nothing more than the words of an arrogant and ignorant person about the human condition that thinks they feel something special that others who are not like them have never felt.   Its horseshit.  100%  complete and total horseshit.  Our existence is undefinable, transcendent and miraculous with or without god in equal amounts.  The fact the religious don't see that is something they are missing, not the non-religious.

This is becoming an interesting conversation with many differing and intelligent views being expressed.  It what I always hope for when I put up an opening post. Instead I usually get a troll screaming "FOOL" or yelling "BAIT THREAD" without them even thinking about the OP and the issues it might raise. Worse they may take the OP, change a few words and repost it under their own nic. The goal is too ridicule rather than any attempt at satire or parody. They simply do not have the intelligence or imagination to put up their own rebuttal. And they get away with it.

I would agree completely with you that it rejecting one's childhood faith in favor of atheism isn't the same as "experiencing" both...real faith requires a certain maturity of mind that children don't have. I think it's because they've only processed the words of say the Bible AS stories that, when they become adults, they reject them and turn to atheism--they've never really given themselves the opportunity to examine faith with all the tools of their intellect because they've rejected it before all those tools were at their disposition. You CAN'T, honestly, make a decision about faith at 10 or 15 years old, I would even doubt that 20 were a decent age to make that decision. Sadly, too many people, having made the decision when they were young, now are set in their ways and refuse to reexamine it to see if they jumped to conclusions too quickly.

I cant believe people are agreeing with this frankly.  You don't think atheists have hope?  I'm not a true atheist, but as a pretty hardcore agnostic, I can tell you I have every bit as much hope as a person can have.  Hope to live a good long life.  Hope to do well.  Hope to take care of my family.  Hope for my genetic line and their prosperity and eternity.  Hope for mankind.    What kind of hope do you think I am missing?   Hope to see my parents in heaven?  I didn't think that that was hope....I thought that was faith.   Christians "know" it on faith.    You don't hope it's going to work....right???

Please expand on the hope you have that I don't have, and when complete, explain how it makes my life bleak.

I'm sorry, its nothing more than human arrogance and nearsighted worldview.  Something very common in every religion since the beginning of time.

Right but it was expressed with the sort of condescension I am often accused of showing theists. They certainly are free to complain about it and so am I. Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" is a leap into the abyss of superstition. Its like saying "you will never enjoy the sense of flying until you jump off a cliff".

I must have missed the part about religion being necessary for the best self-actualization results.  Religion can certainly fit the bill for some people to move from one rung of the hierarchy of needs to another, but it is not required.  Religion may boost love, belonging, self esteem in people and help them fulfill self actualization, but so too can many things.

Of course you are - but our subjective impressions of the tone of her message obviously differ then.  I see the religionist’s imaginative picture of the quality of the non-believer’s existence not as necessarily arrogant or condescending (though it can be), often more on order of empathetic wish for atheist's to be enriched similarly.  This mindset needn’t imply the religionist looks to elevate themselves, demean others.  


And while the atheist might reject the possibility their lives would not be changed positively were they to ‘get religion’, there’s no way  they can  know that to a certainty.  Obviously through the contrast, they might see their former perspective as limited, and even bleak - countless testimonies exist to this effect.
More like leaping over slough of despond, which comprised your only view, onto a promontory from which can be seen heretofore unimagined vistas, colors, landforms, a perspective inconceiveable and unavailable until action taken. Or switching lenses to 3-D. This transformation would not have been possible had you stayed where you were.
Anyway, that sounds very like the extravagant, enthusiastic accounts of some religionists. ;-) Far be it from me to dispute the ecstasy that followed when you shed those painful chains. More to point, I wasn't making claim about process through which you renounced religion and god, or saying it was facile. I was observing you were young - and you can’t possibly know what a more fully informed faith might be like now, your world view having almost certainly considerably changed in subsequent years.

People's needs that give them feelings of well being or allow them to reach places where they can nurture feelings.  I must have missed the part about religion being necessary for the best self-actualization results.  Religion can certainly fit the bill for some people to move from one rung of the hierarchy of needs to another, but it is not required.  Religion may boost love, belonging, self esteem in people and help them fulfill self actualization, but so too can many things.

A new study of almost a century’s worth of data shows that the smarter you are, the less likely you are to believe in God.
http://www.religionnews.com/2013/08/16/are-atheists-smarter-than-believers-not-exactly/

This study says just what I was saying.  Smarter people are more likely to find more basic needs  met by things outside of religion, but met nonetheless.  While religion can serve that purpose.  It is not necessary.  People on both sides can be just as fulfilled.

It should also be noted that this does not mean religious people are dumb.  Some are WAY dumb for sure, but some are very smart as well.  The human mind is amazing.

Oddly enough the things they found where religion provides benefit include self-esteem and being in control.....as evidenced herein by those who believe their religion makes them more fulfilled than others.

My atheism is as simple and direct as the childhood religiosity that I finally, and completely, abandoned in early adulthood. I can't remember an anti-road to-Damascus moment, but I do know it happened way back then because I was trying to romance an extremely comely and intelligent (and Jesus-committed) C.S. Lewis fan. (If you've never read that guy, do yourself a favor and do so; for an easy entrance, I recommend Surprised by Joy). The eventual romance was short but sweet, and its conclusion had nothing to do with theodetic issues (nevermind evil -- she wasn't a fan of baseball, or the blues, or stupid comedy . . . I mean, c'mon). But that's when it happened.

Anyway, because I have never once observed even a scintilla of evidence for the existence of anything but that which physically exists, I am, as I have already said, a pretty simple atheist. I also have no problem with becoming worm poop, the prospect of which has never once made me feel hopeless. I remember that back when I felt persuaded to consider the possibility of the existence of a higher power, whether it was the Holy Trinity of my childhood or the Guiding Oneness -- whatever that means -- of my agnostic stage, I didn't feel any day-to-day difference from how I feel now. I was still quite displeased, for example, about the party continuing without me. I still am -- I mean, who wants to miss a good party? Envious? Yup. Angry? A little (less so as I age, because, well -- life). But no more "hopeless" now than then.

I do hope, though, that when the moment of my extinction (my disappearance) comes, it will be in circumstances that allow me to shout: "I was alive! What a lucky, fantastic coincidence it has been!" Like everyone else, I will have no control over those circumstances, but . . . a guy's gotta hope for  somethin', right? Me, continuing forever? A nice idea (at least from my vantage point), but hardly a necessary one. I'll disappear one day, or one night, but I'm a big boy and I can take it.

Quite beautifully put- mostly I feel the same way though hedge just a little on the 'continuing forever' part, for which  everyone else could rightfully take me to intellectual task, so we will not elaborate.  Read recently "Death Takes No Holiday" an excellent essay and meditation by Joseph Epstein (whose writing I love), who expressed also beautifully same sentiments, and was looking for a place to c&p closing his paragraphs.  This is it!
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/death-takes-no-holiday/

Sana,just because your parents took you to church when you were young doesn't mean you automatically know anything about Christianity.  Your comments concerning Christianity only indicate that were exposed to a dysfunctional person that claimed to be Christian. That person could be yourself or someone else. Only you would know, or would you?
Then, it seems as if you experienced a difficulty in life, blamed it on this "God" of your making and then decided you hated "God" or believe there is no higher power in this universe because you didn't like what your life was. Gotta blame somebody right?

There's only the bible, after 20 years you should know globally what's inside - even if you did not read it - or you have been sleeping in church for the last 20 years. The existence of a higher power is very discussable, as we will see in this thread  :)

Right but it was expressed with the sort of condescension I am often accused of showing theists. They certainly are free to complain about it and so am I. Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" is a leap into the abyss of superstition. Its like saying "you will never enjoy the sense of flying until you jump off a cliff"

My point is that every life experience we have, no matter how deeply spiritual or emotional we feel they may be, have been experienced by others of different faiths and no faiths long before us.  It is arrogant and naïve to think that only those spiritually afflicted in one way can truly feel emotions deeply.

 I could say the same about my atheism. I didn't wake up one morning and discover I was an atheist. It came from years of study, contemplation, debate, doubt and uncertainty and a fierce desire to know the truth. At 18, I gave up any belief in any religion { I was raised a Catholic and educated mostly by Jesuits} sometime later I gave up any belief in God. It hurt. However I felt it was the pain that comes from years of wearing chains and I was ecstatic that I had removed them and cast them aside. I felt free and still do. I am a recovering theist and a very happy one. I write about God and Religion because I am interested in the subject. I also know that unless I raise some anger or annoyance in the OP people will not get involved in the discussion.  I mean no harm. I have been around the cyberspace block a few times and am well tanned by the experience.

You don't think atheists have hope?  I'm not a true atheist, but as a pretty hardcore agnostic, I can tell you I have every bit as much hope as a person can have.  Hope to live a good long life.  Hope to do well.  Hope to take care of my family.  Hope for my genetic line and their prosperity and eternity.  Hope for mankind.    What kind of hope do you think I am missing?   Hope to see my parents in heaven?  I didn't think that that was hope....I thought that was faith.   Christians "know" it on faith.    You don't hope it's going to work....right???

Please expand on the hope you have that I don't have, and when complete, explain how it makes my life bleak.

I'm sorry, its nothing more than human arrogance and nearsighted worldview.  Something very common in every religion since the beginning of time.

"You simply cannot be as (whole, happy, hopeful, insert your favorite adjective here) since you do not share my particular spirituality or religion".

People's needs that give them feelings of well being or allow them to reach places where they can nurture feelings of well being are described by Maslow.  I must have missed the part about religion being necessary for the best self-actualization results.  Religion can certainly fit the bill for some people to move from one rung of the hierarchy of needs to another, but it is not required.  Religion may boost love, belonging, self esteem in people and help them fulfil self actualization, but so too can many things.

When it comes to happiness I will take atheism happiness any day over what the theists call happiness. Theist joy is all about fearing God and giving in to his will.... while ours is all about being free of the chains of superstition.

I'm sorry if you found my "being in love" analogy tedious...but I still think it is a fitting one.  And the reason I can make statements about atheism is because, as you have frequently pointed out, it is an intellectual exercise of which I'm perfectly capable of thinking through (and have).   My entire point was spiritual experiences...just like falling in love...are not solely an intellectual exercise.  And for the record, I'm speaking in the context of theism, not Christianity. For now. And that is somewhat meaningless, not to mention it isn't true worldwide compared to theism.   You are mistaken.  I don't value atheism as much as I do theism, but I'm not expressing "disgust".   As for you experiencing me being condescending, well, first of all you hardly have room to talk on that score.  But I'm not going to apologize for believing my views are superior because if I didn't, I wouldn't hold them.   But I'm not trying to proselytize or convince anyone to change their mind...just sharing what I think.  

You are in no position to judge my reasoning as you are not informed as to what either my belief or my reasoning about it is.  Dismissing that of which you are ignorant neither makes what I believe a "fairy tale", nor is that a logical or reasoned response on your part.  Furthermore, what I have been pointing out is that spirituality is experiential in addition to being intellectual.  As is your habit, you focus on the tree I'm not even discussing while missing the forrest.  Correction noted, but it is a non sequitur.  I never claimed one could reason their way to God using only earthly logic.  I am, in fact, stating you cannot.  But neither can you support your POV without faith either.  Well no, actually it wouldn't.  You can only describe your perspective from the outside about something which you cannot know having not experienced it.  And from the way you write, it doesn't appear you've spent much time on religious philosophy studies either.  Well, I'm glad you feel that way about what you've chosen to belief and put your faith in, but I don't.  I can compare the two as per my own experience...you cannot.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/death-takes-no-holiday/

... The truth is that I have been waiting to die for quite some while now. I do not wish to die, certainly not until, as Socrates says, “life has no more to offer.” I’ve not found that life has anywhere near run out of delight for me. I’ve never considered suicide, though I have, at different times, out of spiritual fatigue, thought I would welcome death. “All is finite,” wrote Santayana, “all is to end, all is bearable—that is my only comfort.”

Yet, though, contra Dylan Thomas, I hope to be allowed to go gently into that good night, I do not figure to welcome death when it arrives. Like everyone else, I take blood tests with my annual physical, and each year I expect the results to be disastrous, showing I have three different cancers, Parkinson’s, incipient Lou Gehrig’s, and what looks like Alzheimer’s well on its way. I am waiting, in other words, for both shoes to fall.

When they do, I shall not be shocked or even surprised, but disappointed nonetheless. I have had a good and lucky run, having been born to honorable and intelligent parents in the most interesting country in the world during a period of unrivaled prosperity and vast technological advance. I prefer to think I’ve got the best out of my ability, and have been properly appreciated for what I’ve managed to accomplish. One may regard one’s death as a tragic event, or view it as the ineluctable conclusion to the great good fortune of having been born to begin with. I’m going with the latter.

Unless the Dirty Tricks Department, which is always very active, gets to me, and makes my final years, months, days on Earth a hell of pain and undignified suffering, I shall regret my departure from life. On his deathbed, Goethe’s last words are said to have been, “More light, more light.” Gertrude Stein, on hers, asked, “What is the answer?” and when no one replied, laughed and asked, “Then what is the question?” I don’t have a final draft of my own deathbed words, but I do have a theme, which is unembarrassed thanksgiving

And you are wrong about a number of things in your line of "reasoning"....we don't know if matter popped into existence or was just going through a big crunch.  And, once in existence....all things don't happen randomly.  -snip-  This is not to say a bearded man didn't create matter just to watch it expand and crunch for all eternity....you just cant really "reason" your way there with any earthly logic.

1) Being ignorant of my beliefs in their entirety, or the totality of my reasoning, you are not. 

2) Your "demonstration" of my "error" is a non sequitur as I already stated.

3) What you said was this:  you just cant really "reason" your way there with any earthly logic. What I replied was this:  I never claimed one could reason their way to God using only earthly logic.  I most definitely made it clear it is ultimately a faith view, but then so is yours.  But what I have been arguing, which you seem to be incapable of grasping, that spirituality is also experiential.  Do you understand the difference between logic and experience?  And that one may be both logical in their reasoning AND have experiences that can't be explained solely by logic? 


You have no point, but then you never do.

 Religion and an awe in something bigger than us are two completely different things.  I  understand religion and its human evolution just fine. I also don't understand a higher power just as much as you have no clue about any, if it exists.  So I am capable of understanding just fine.  I have had every bit as deep and emotional inspirational mind blowing experiences that you have (Im being generous, lets face it...I've had a lot more).  While I don't know what your personal religious feelings are and I don't care, I know that you have likely been moved very deeply, as just about every human on earth is capable regardless of their beliefs.  You are not special because you believe one way and I believe another.  You have no dibs on powerful feelings of existence and the absence of bleakness.

You have no case as I am right that you have no experience that parallels mine.  I don't care if you think that is arrogant, it isn't any less true.  And I don't care if you think it is arrogant to say you don't even know what you don't know, it also isn't any less true.

A pitcher can come new to the leagues, sk, and throw 100 miles an hour. And he can still be beat, and often is, by an older pitcher who knows the tools of his trade. Raw power is not a substitute for refined and sober pitching skills, and being smart is not the same thing as being wise. C'mon, tell me you don't look back on your younger years and smile at the you you were then. I sure do.

It's called growing up.

I cannot help but read your words,  and find in them a little of, "methinks he doth protest too much".

I will be tacky at this point  to quote James, "The Varieties of Religious Experience" and your own worldview in the following, er, vein. It is said that circumcised guys are less sensitive than non-circumcised guys (based on the number of receptors in the foreskin blah blah blah). But you know what? No circumcised guy for life is ever going to know yea or nay and no uncircumcised guy, unless stupid enough to undergo the procedure at some late stage, will know either. There are some divides that imagination in the abstract cannot cross, circumcision and religious experience, no matter how tacky the comparison, are alike in that respect. ;-)

(If you've never read that guy, do yourself a favor and do so; for an easy entrance, I recommend Surprised by Joy).

Better yet, The Screwtape Letters. A really enjoyable way to approach the subject IMIV. Lewis was one of a generation of post WWI writers, of the "Lost Generation", he, CP Snow and others, who were alienated from their lifestyle (before Chantal Delsol) and sought to return to Christianity, but in a more intellectual approach, Fabian Christianity if you will. Tolkien was also in that vein, but in an extremely, extremely restrained fashion, as when Gandalf says to Frodo by way of comfort someting akin to "This is not all there is, there is a reason, a plan, and an understanding behind why this all is happening."


Anyway, because I have never once observed even a scintilla of evidence for the existence of anything but that which physically exists, I am, as I have already said, a pretty simple atheist.

I will, um, pass on that statement, which I find passing strange coming from someone as smart as thee.

 I also have no problem with becoming worm poop, the prospect of which has never once made me feel hopeless... But no more "hopeless" now than then.


But I don't think that hope refers specifically to our individual continuance, rather to a teleology behind the universe that we are desirous of knowing exists. What makes atheism so pale and grey is that there is no purpose to anything if there is no dualistic universe, it's just a mechanical marvel, that's all, and all the joy you took in your celebration of your mom above is nothing but matrix programming.

I remember that back when I felt persuaded to consider the possibility of the existence of a higher power, whether it was the Holy Trinity of my childhood or the Guiding Oneness -- whatever that means -- of my agnostic stage, I didn't feel any day-to-day difference from how I feel now. I was still quite displeased, for example, about the party continuing without me. I still am -- I mean, who wants to miss a good party? Envious? Yup. Angry? A little (less so as I age, because, well -- life).

 
I remember reading Vernor Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep, just a SUPERB scifi novel, and feeling so incredibly bitter when I put it down that I was never going to see not so much necessarily the particular universe he created, but rather the concept of a universe essentially ordered by man and other species that he laid out. As a historian, to me, life is like reading a great history, but knowing that I'm never going to get to see the fucking end of the story. Very, very, very, very irritating. C'mon, I linked it to the ebook edition, anyone who has any fucking imagination whatsoever (guys anyway) should read that book.

Finally, I'm sorry, it would irritate the fuck out of me if the atheists are right, because it would just make all of human history and human sentience nothing but a sick joke of nature that were better ended at the earliest possibility, rather than dragging out a species doomed to self-destruction till it takes the world down with it.

Agree and agree!   I just re-read Vernor Vinge's  recently and it was even better with more life experience behind me.  What's funny, to me anyway, is that I love all CS Lewis' works except the Narnia series.

There is nothing more sickening than religious people telling nonbelievers our lives must be bleak in comparison.  Typical religious superiority complex.

"If you don't follow our faith, you cant possibly know my kind of happiness you poor bleak wretched creature."

When I hear that message, which was pretty loud and clear in here, I want to throw up.

In fairness and in support of our secular laws, since I think people who follow any organized religion are fools and idiots, it is simply equal time if they want to call my life bleak.

That is not to dismiss that you can't be happy in this life, but rather that you entirely miss the experience of hope which expands it.  You can't possibly say that you don't need that or that it has no value  because you can't know what you are missing. While a person of faith can intellectualize the experience of atheism, an atheist cannot sufficiently intellectualize what is authentic spiritual experience.  It is akin to talking about being in love versus actually being in love.  I've no doubt one can live a happy life without ever being in love, but who would want to do so once they hold the experience of actually being in love?   

As I've pretty steadily maintained, I consider myself an atheist with hopes of some form of dualistic universe.

That said, when I read a lot of non-religious persons, I get a real dog in the manger sense from them: "I can't profit from faith, so I'll be damned if I'll grant you the right to do so: I'll tear it down every chance, every instance I get, I'll characterize those who possess faith as being weak in mind and weak in soul, unable to face life with a man in the sky blah blah blah. I'll find the easiest things to poke holes in, evolution or the age of the earth, and use them to claim that if you don't agree with science you must be a cretin unworthy of being listened to on any subject." I know that when I get frustrated even I am tempted, and probably do sometimes, go that route.

But I really do think that there is a case to be made that the life of an atheist has to be fundamentally bleaker than that of a true possessor of faith, if by bleak we mean less rich in an emotional context.

To me, it is another of life's deals. None of us get to have it all. One of the things we don't get is to experience is BOTH the fullness of our intellectual capacity AND the potential fullness of our emotional capacity, because one MUST be suppressed in order to concentrate on the other. I don't like the term "emotional" that I'm using because I'm not quite hitting it, if something other than that comes to mind I'll substitute, but for now, it takes an emotional mind to a certain extent to suspend belief in the mechanical laws of the universe in order to posit a sentience arising above and beyond those mechanical laws.

Those of us who cast our lot in with the intellect are going to always see the possibility of a dualistic universe of some sort, but we are not living in a dualistic universe, one in which our lives matter more than just being our lives, our short time on earth. We have already cast our lot: we believe in the intellect. We try to slice and dice it way by talking vaguely of some essentially meaningless force in our lives, but we don't fool ourselves at heart: we believe in nothing.

But a person of faith is actually living in that dualistic universe, where their lives have an intrinsic meaning that goes beyond them.

Here's a thought. Why are you so obsessed with the religion of others?
Unless they are infringing on my inalienable rights I could care less what they worship.
That said, you certainly can't compare Christianity and all has done for people to Islam. And don't bother going back a thousand years to make some useless comparison.

Nobody gets to have it all in life. We all make our deals one way or another. I just think that in the context of living one's life absolutely in the knowledge that one is part of a greater whole, there is a bit less bleakness than that of living a life absolutely in the knowledge, as opposed to occasional speculation otherwise, that it matters, no matter how much one enjoys it while on earth, ultimately not a whit in this universe.

There is a true gem in the movie Troy, where Achilles mother tells him he has two futures: one in which he is loved during his life, and passes on to weeping and fond memories of his progeny, in which his grandsons remember him dimly, but still hold him in respect and honor, and then, after that...pfffft. That's about it. OR, he can go to Troy, be killed, and be remembered forever.

That's the split between living one's life in the intellect, and living it in the emotion.

I was going to go the other way, and say that maybe atheists do understand that in the end God and them will be the same thing, they just don't believe in the power of their own minds.

Actions in the world do not need to be rational - it's possible to cook a meal following a 1000 year old recipe that is perfectly nutritious, even though it was devised by someone who had no knowledge of biochemistry. In fact the recipe had been tested by time (and evolution) and had proven itself to increase the survival of the those who ate it.

Religion is just a bunch of recipes for survival - it is tested by evolution and works in reality as it is, rather than a reality scientifically modeled.

Reality that is scientifically modeled may prove itself to increase survival, but since the individual is ignored by the model (ie the model doesn't tell them how to live day to day), people my be inclined to ignore it and prefer to find a system that allows them to justify what it is they actually do with their lives.

Science ignores what we do as individuals.
Science tells us that we are irreverent specs of dust in a meaningless universe - that our sense of self is just a genetic innovation that improves our chance of survival so we can pass on our genes.

Ironically, believing this may not increase our chance of survival (which is all that 'matters' to our genes) - hence religion continues to survive

Religeons were made for people. People were not made for religeons. You see these things have to be kept limited to maintaining harmony. Not to building loosers who look out for sympathy.

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Religions and the whole idea of God was to aid humans in need with hope and belief. If religion is used as an excuse to kill people and seek control, that isn't religion anymore. That's a bunch of sick twats with a twisted dick up their brain.

Yes, I agree that people need to be educated well, to understand the religion topics, need intellectual deep thoughts. There is a lot of lesson to be learned from the creation of the Whole Universe, such as how the planets are standing without any support and they look like as a round ball which floats in the air.