Don’t Replace Religion; End It

[cleanhippie]

Religion cannot and should not be replaced by atheism. Religion needs to go away and not be replaced by anything. Atheism is not a religion. It’s the absence of religion, and that’s a wonderful thing.

Religion is not morality. Theists ask me, “If there’s no god, what would stop me from raping and killing everyone I want to.” My answer is always: “I, myself, have raped and killed everyone I want to ... and the number for both is zero.” Behaving morally because of a hope of reward or a fear of punishment is not morality. Morality is not bribery or threats. Religion is bribery and threats. Humans have morality. We don’t need religion.

Religion is faith. Faith is belief without evidence. Belief without evidence cannot be shared. Faith is a feeling. Love is also a feeling, but love makes no universal claims. Love is pure. The lover reports on his or her feelings and needs nothing more. Faith claims knowledge of a world we share but without evidence we can share. Feeling love is beautiful. Feeling the earth is 6,000 years old is stupid.

Religion is often just tribalism: pride in a group one was born into, a group that is often believed to have “God” on its side. We don’t need to replace tribalism with anything other than love for all humanity. Let’s do that, okay?

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/22/is-atheism-a-religion/atheism-should-end-religion-not-replace-it

[djean111]

1. Penn Jillette at his clearest.

I agree with his comparisons, but as an atheist, I don't care if religion exists, I just want its influence over things ended.
Don't need to care about what others believe - especially if religion is the only thing that makes some compassionate or whatever.

[cleanhippie]

3. "I just want its influence over things ended" That pretty much sums up most non-believers.

And I think that is what Penn is getting at. There will be some that will say he is calling for a ban on religion, but he is not. Those that say that are simply suffering in their own insecurity.

[tama]

2. Cool

"We don’t need to replace tribalism with anything other than love for all humanity. Let’s do that, okay?"

I'm in. And as words are matter of definition, I hope you can include also those who want to call "love for all humanity" (or for all sentient beings) "religion". It would be rather silly to let the whole effort fall apart just because of dispute over meaning of one word...

[Jim__]

8. "We don’t need to replace tribalism with anything other than love for all humanity. "

Yes, and where is the evidence that we can do that? Or, are we supposed to just accept this on faith?

[tama]

12. Who said "Yes we can"?

And how were you supposed to accept that?

[Jim__]

13. Penn Jillette.

Let’s do that, okay?

[tama]

14. And many others

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1249932
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=34043
etc

Obviously there is no evidence or guarantee that so will happen, only assumption that it is not impossible and intention or will or wish or confidence towards that direction. I have no problem calling that 'faith', or avoiding that word if someone is allergic to it.

[Jim__]

30. I don't have a problem with accepting things on faith.

A lot of life is based on accepting things on faith. I have a problem with the shallowness of Jillette's argument. First, he denigrates religion because it is just faith:

Religion is faith. Faith is belief without evidence. Belief without evidence cannot be shared. Faith is a feeling. Love is also a feeling, but love makes no universal claims. Love is pure. The lover reports on his or her feelings and needs nothing more. Faith claims knowledge of a world we share but without evidence we can share. Feeling love is beautiful. Feeling the earth is 6,000 years old is stupid.

Then he pushes his tribalism and utopian faith on the rest of us:

Religion is often just tribalism: pride in a group one was born into, a group that is often believed to have “God” on its side. We don’t need to replace tribalism with anything other than love for all humanity. Let’s do that, okay?

The world will be a better place when we replace the faith of all the other tribes with the faith of his tribe. Such a powerful argument!

[tama]

31. Yes, the contradiction is easy to point to

However, I see more potential in accepting Jillette's vision in good faith from the more general agreement that especially in our globalized and ever more interdependent world in-group "tribalism" is serious problem, and that at least as individuals we can consciously and rationally and through various spiritual practices develop more global level of in-group sentiment and compassion. But rather than categorical condemnation of all religions, we could use Jillette's wish and advice as a criterion to value benefit of various religious beliefs and practices, are they genuinely offering support for developing global compassion, or more into divide and conquer. And if this suggestion was shared with Jillette, for the sake of consistency I believe he would quite likely agree.

[ladjf]

4. This OP is a simple but very good explaination why the human race would be better off without

religion. nt

[cleanhippie]

6. Agreed.

[humblebum]

15. Unfortunately, or fortunately as the case may be, history shows that explanation to be wrong.

Nonetheless, it was a good explanation even if it is only opinion, not fact.

[ladjf]

22. IMO, history has shown that religion has been bad for the human race more often than not.

But, I like the courteous tone of you disagreement. We could use a lot more of that on DU.

[humblebum]

5. As long as there are declared atheists there will be religion. nt

Last edited Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:43 PM - Edit history (1)

[LeftishBrit]

63. There will always be religion - but it has nothing to do with the existence of 'declared atheists'

[humblebum]

64. So who said that it did? But you have validated my statement that

as long as there are declared atheists there will be religion. There would also be religion without declared atheism as history shows us.

[kestrel91316]

7. Mr. Gillette apparently hasn't read the Bill of Rights.

Religion should not be permitted to override anyone's civil rights. But calling for it to be ended is beyond the pale.

I know many, many religious people who are quite liberal and believe firmly in the separation of church and state. Their voices get drowned out by a noisy minority, IMHO.

[humblebum]

9. Mr. Jillette is an outspoken narrow-minded bigot. He has made the statement

"I KNOW" there is no God." Now, if his basis for making such a declaration was that he could not empirically prove God, then he is in effect saying, "if I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch God then God doesn't exist."

It doesn't get much more narrow-minded than that.

[amuse bouche]

16. That's hilarious

Narrow minded bigots are what populate religion. It's where they go to rationalize their hatred of others and get shielded from their crimes

[cleanhippie]

18. It is highly likely you are dealing with one right now.

[cleanhippie]

10. Perhaps try reading it again. He is not calling for a ban.

Then read the first response. That is what he is getting at.

[humblebum]

11. Where did i say he was calling for a ban? I was critiquing the credibility and motivations of

Penn Jillette.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

20. He IS calling for a ban on religion

[cleanhippie]

36. No, he is not.

He is saying we should be moving past it. Let's end it. As in a movement.

Much different than banning it.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

43. He is calling for the ABOLITION of religion

Which is a synonym for banning religion. He is an atheist bigot, and you are apparently supporting him in his bigotry.

[cleanhippie]

45. Your attempts to insert words and meaning not there will not change his actual words and meaning.

[rug]

17. A strange postion for a self-described libertarian.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

19. Once more the atheist bigots get to trot out their bigotry

And this is perfectly acceptable on DU. If I were to make the same sort of noises about blacks or Hispanics, I would -- quite rightly -- be shot down. But bigotry against religion is just hunky-dory.

[Promethean]

21. Maybe if Penn was openly bigoted in the article that would be true

Instead he uses what to some would be a few shocking catch phrases then goes on to state his point. A word-smithing trick which I point out is extremely commonly employed.

But really making posts like this are just another attempt to demonize Atheists. Calling Atheists Bigots and claiming they are oppressing the religious are just tricks to make Atheists appear malicious when all they are asking is for the same consideration Theists have.

[humblebum]

23. This particular article by him is not what solely identifies him as such. It's the

long history he has of anti-religious rantings, and trying to pass off a narrow POV as superior logic.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

25. Sorry, but saying that religion should be abolished for the greater good IS bigoted

But really making posts like this are just another attempt to demonize Atheists.

Sorry if saying that atheist bigotry is bigotry displeases you. The truth hurts, doesn't it.

Calling Atheists Bigots and claiming they are oppressing the religious are just tricks to make Atheists appear malicious when all they are asking is for the same consideration Theists have.

Right. "Don’t Replace Religion; End It" is showing consideration for believers. Penn is just one more atheist who refuses to admit that believers should be treated with consideration. I am quite willing to treat atheists with consideration, with two exceptions: (1) When they are showing bigotry and (2) when they whine that believers are actually showing their religious beliefs in public and it hurts their tender feelings.

And don't come back with a whine that atheists are not accepted in society. My mother's family were Austrian and Czech Jews -- they were killed for being Jews.

[rug]

33. He says lots of supid things.

"If you can just convince the dope people that the gun people are right and the gun people that the dope people are right, we could actually live in a lot more freedom." Glenn Beck program on CNN (2 November 2006)

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/02/gb.01.html

[Jim__]

35. Wow! Sounds like him and Glenn Beck are marching to the same imaginary drummer.

[mr blur]

29. Get a new whine, this one's already getting old. Get over yourself.

[humblebum]

24. "Religion is often just tribalism" - has he bothered to investigate the history of

radical and militant atheism?

[Phillip McCleod]

38. if he has then like most atheists today he probably found it wanting

atheism has been cynically used in the 20th century by some but not all communist movements just as religions have been used cynically to justify heinous acts. today's atheist movement is not communist and is not cynical it is compelled by the force of history. confronting religious privilege in the public sphere is a far cry from imposing penalties on private worship.

[cleanhippie]

49. But, but, but, but......MILITANT ATHEISTS! MILITANT ATHEISTS!!!

You are dealing with a one-trick-pony, friend. You'll get nowhere with this one. He is all militant atheists, all the time.

[Phillip McCleod]

50. ah yes well lest we forget for one moment

that religious privilege is justified by atheist inhumanity.. (sarcasm)

[humblebum]

62. I guess the same could be said for your anti-religious blatherings, which

really are "all the time."

[humblebum]

55. "today's atheist movement...

compelled by the force of history. confronting religious privilege in the public sphere..." - yes, that's what I said, tribalism.

[Phillip McCleod]

56. pathetic.

[humblebum]

59. But oh so true, and a little more so than you would admit.

[Kalidurga]

26. I agree religion should end and it will for the vast majority.

The US is the leader in theists among industrialized nations. But, even in the US non belief is growing. However, I see nothing wrong with having an alternative. Like block parties where people hang out and develop communities. Or centers where people can go and read like libraries, but with a focus on activities and conversation which can be about anything, politics, movies, music, tv shows, whatever. People seem to need social interaction and I have no problem with that. And people will divide themselves into tribes it is a natural behavior. I read an article here on Republicans and Democrats self selecting where communities are becoming far more of one group than the other. We use all kinds of labels for ourselves, I don't get that so much, but I see this clearly exists. The trick is to be able to be aligned with communities or a community of your choice, but still have no less compassion for people who are in other tribes.

[LARED]

28. Can someone point me to the Theist that says this?

Theists ask me, “If there’s no god, what would stop me from raping and killing everyone I want to.”

I'm having a hard time believing theists with a few functioning brain cells believe that the absence of God unleashes moral depravity.

[Phillip McCleod]

39. i had a cop ask me more or less that exact question one time.

except it was in the context of a conversation about existential anarchy and i was handcuffed to a chair at 4am and he said, "if we live in anarchy, what's to stop me from killing you right now?" and his face was about two inches from mine.

my answer to the above would be the same, 'your conscience'.

[tama]

41. Good answer

And in anarchy there would be no robocops defending power hierarchy of few against many to arrest and cuff and threaten you because of of you acting according to your conscience.

[Phillip McCleod]

42. at the time i was arguing that we already do live 'in anarchy'

that its the underlying ontological state within which we act and have always acted and always will. that we build order and devolve into chaos all within a state of anarchy. that human laws are not imperative we are free to speed on the highway and the police are free to pull us over. that laws are patterns emerging from complexity.

doesn't mean there won't be robocops because in anarchy we are free to invent and use them too.

[tama]

44. Natural state, yup.

Anarchy means both freedom to (try to) build power hierarchies, and ethical and empirical wisdom advising not to.

[Phillip McCleod]

46. i see it as more value-neutral than that

having to do with our capacity to create and destroy forms of organization. more like group dynamics and less like utopia.

[tama]

47. My "value theory"

is more about basic psychology of causes of suffering and anarchic cessation of causes of suffering. Which doesn't mean there isn't also lot to learn about suffering, by suffering. There's no "should" implied by my value theory.

[Phillip McCleod]

48. i do agree that anarchic solutions to complex problems

tend to be more enduring than if they are imposed on a group dynamic by an external authority using any mechanism.

for example the emergence of life in the primordial chaos.

[tama]

51. Yes,

biological organisms are excellent (and non sine qua) examples of anarchic organization.

[Phillip McCleod]

57. so true that they (incl. we) are "excellent examples of anarchic organization"

around 90% of the biomass in any individual is comprised of microbes, mites, and multi- and single-celled organisms from the millions of mites cleaning our skin to the microbes we can't live without in our intestines to the blood cells running in our veins. all bouncing and organizing all the time without central authority on multiple levels, culminating in this hierarchy that is an individual. i say hierarchy because it's one way of organizing in anarchy and with our interdependent system of organs we are a hierarchy: remove the heart and the body will die. there is mortality my friend. in the inflexibility of hierarchy.

[tama]

58. Hierarchy of dependencies

is important to understand. As 'holy order' of dependence of parts from larger inclusive wholes. A single cell is dependent from the individual organism, single cells die and born all the time in the organism. An individual organism is dependent from the community, community is dependent from the local ecosystem, ecosystem from biosphere, etc. Cancer cells are ignorant, somehow they cease to be informed of organic hierarchy of dependencies, and destroy what they depend from.

And it is strange how dependent urban people, the more and more dependent towards the top of the power pyramid, think and believe they are more important than farmers who don't depend from them, than ecosystem from which farmers depend. Some of us need to climb to the top of hill to realize that they are center of universe, but doing so they sometimes forget that so is every other point of space, a center of universe.

[Speck Tater]

32. Believe only what I want you to believe.

If your beliefs are different from mine then your beliefs must be abolished.

Yes, feeling the earth is 6,000 years old is stupid, but even among the very religious that is considered a ridiculous position taken by the radical minority of crackpots.

The fact of the matter is simply this: For some people religion fulfills some psychological need. Do not presume to take that away from them unless you know how to fulfill that need in them in a healthier way. It's not enough to say to a man with a crippled leg, "You're nothing but a stupid cripple. Throw that crutch away." You have to be prepared to replace that crutch with something better. Otherwise you are not being helpful or "enlightened". You are being cruel and lacking in compassion and understanding.

I am an atheist myself, but the arrogance displayed by many atheist just sickens me. They give atheism a bad name. In fact, they make atheists look just like Republicans who don't give a damn that other people don't agree with them. They just want to brow-beat everyone into agreeing with them.

[Jim__]

34. Well said!

[ZombieHorde]

37. The premise is strange to me because atheism and religion are compatable.

Just ask Zen Buddhists.

[Phillip McCleod]

40. true and not just zen.

i've been atheist since about 12 with a few diversions but i've also practiced transcendental meditation since i was about 12 thanks to my beatnik parents. some time back i also got into quiet mind meditation which i think is a zen practice too but not just zen or even just buddhist.

its pretty hard to not think any thought for more than a few seconds at a time but just takes practice. after my divorce about 10 years back i did a retreat to a tibetan buddhist stupa (here in the u.s. to be clear) and got better at quiet mind using their practice of labeling each thought as it floats by.. not really fighting the thoughts just eventually forgetting to have them.

[deutsey]

60. Philosophical Taoism as well

[Dpm12]

52. Religion just

causes probloems

[tama]

53. Sorry can't resist

"Religion just causes probloems"... of spelling.

[okasha]

54. Faulty comparisons.

Love is a feeling, and rather a nice one.

The statement that the earth is 6K years old isn't a "feeling," any more than the statement that it's several billion years old is a "feeling." The former is a misapprehension of fact. The latter is the verdict of well-supported science. (Both, however, depend to a certain extent on faith. The creationist has faith in the Genesis account. The rest of us have faith that a wide range of geologists, paleontologists and other scientists whose findings confirm each other are not lying to us. Both are in fact appeals to authority--a different authority in each case.)

[deutsey]

61. That's just, like, uh, your opinion, man

As a member of the Church of the Latter-Day Dude, the world's slowest growing religion, I cannot allow this aggression against my religious compeers to stand, man.



http://www.dudeism.com/