Anti-Theism. Does Religion do Anything Good?

[masmdu]

I'm becoming less of a Atheist and more of an Anti-Theist. Religion seems to actually do more damage than good. And the "good" claimed by religons are all things that are and can be achieved outside the framework of religion.

Some of the info that is helping me come to this realization comes from watching Pat Condells videos on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXzladhscMQ

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. simple answer: No.

Just look to the ultra-religious populating the extreme right of this country, Israel, Pakistan, Ireland, Indonesia, and many others, and see where most of this globe's troubles start. And why.

Religion is not a healer, but a divider, a creator of war and strife, a danger to modern society.

[masmdu]

2. Agreed

[salvorhardin]

3. Quibbles

Atheist and Anti-Theist are not orthogonal choices. Atheism only refers to whether you believe in a god, while anti-theism is a particular stance towards religion. To say you're becoming less of an atheist implies you're more willing to consider belief in a god.

While I certainly won't argue with you that religions are responsible for a lot of the pain and suffering in the world I would posit that to be anti-theist is a bigoted position (note: I'm not calling you a bigot). It requires an exceptionalist attitude toward religion, when one can just as easily point to other social phenomena as being the "root of all evil" such as corporations, totalitarian governments, etc.

You're also making an Utopian claim in that you're saying the world would be better off without religions. I doubt that would be true. Human nature will still be human nature. People will still form tribes around other beliefs and will still look for reasons to do harm to other tribes based on those beliefs.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

8. religions were formed to fill in the blanks, where

ignorance of the world around us abounded, haunted us, even killed us. Ye Olde Testament is a testament to that ignorance. So are virgin sacrifices, fears of the unknown, even rituals about food, bathing, sex, and more.

Ignorance and religion are so intertwined, that you cannot separate the two today. Even worse, by demanding "Faith" over "Reason" religions routinely create willful ignorance, and foist it upon their innocent children. In turn, their yutes brainwash their own spawn with religion, causing a never ending cycle of ever growing ignorance and foolishness. When 7 of the GOP candidates for president question the existence of evolution, you know something is wrong in this country.

[salvorhardin]

14. Were they?

To say, "religions were formed to fill in the blanks, where ignorance of the world around us abounded...," I think is to conflate religion with supernatural belief. It's to suppose that religion either came before or was concurrent with supernatural belief.

That doesn't seem very likely to me.

But you say that religion and ignorance are so intertwined that they can not be separated today. Again, I don't see that as a supportable statement given that there are millions of non-ignorant people who are also religious. Is Ken Miller ignorant? Was Martin Gardner ignorant? It's not hard to name very many well-known scientists, skeptics, humanitarians, people of all careers and walks of life who are both not ignorant and still religious.

As for brainwashing children, we all do that. It's called cultural indoctrination.

[JackintheGreen]

19. Weren't they?

I suppose it all depends on your definition of "religion," which might include a belief in supernatural forces or merely be the institutionalization of said beliefs, i.e. reducing to a mere administrative function devoid of content. This could be how you see it, but not how most other people do, I should think. You could go back much further, but I think the modern conception of what "religion" is was crystalized best by Giambattista Vico in the first half of the 18th century. I'm not attributing the notion to him, mind you, just citing him as an example of its codification.

[salvorhardin]

37. Aye, I view religions as being institutions in practice

I think it makes sense to divorce supernatural belief from the concept of religion.

As for the precise definition of religion, I quite agree with John Wilkins that it's probably polysemic:

It refers to no single property or even cluster of properties. We “define” religion as those social and cognitive and psychological behaviours that happen to approximate our own exemplar of it, even if we are atheists: like the joke about the Irishman asking the atheist if he is a Catholic or Protestant atheist. It is simply not a natural phenomenon. There are a plurality of natural phenomena, such as ritual behaviours, certain cognitive dispositions such as the tendency to take an intentional stance to natural phenomena, and so on, that are natural, but the class, the category of religion, is a mishmash.
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/05/21/ruminations-after-oxford

So if one wants to talk with any precision or accuracy about religion, religious belief, religious practice and their role in society then one has to abandon folk definitions and look more closely at all of these concepts. If one simply says that supernatural belief equates to religion then you would have to say that believers in UFOs or the Loch Ness Monster are a religion.

[JackintheGreen]

41. Knowing the terms

as you see them clarifies your position, and I agree that is makes sense (to us) to divorce belief systems from religious systems. Thus "religion" is the sum total of administrative institutions designed to guide/control supernatural belief. But you dismiss "folk definitions" too readily.

However we might discuss religion as an abstract concept, however philosophers and academics debate its semiotic structure, that is not how most people think about and understand religion. We cannot discount folk knowledge of a thing because that is precisely how the thing is used day to day. If one wants to redefine the terms and use them to persuade the community set , the argument will be little served by using terms the target community doesn't accept or understand.

Nazism has been considered by some to be a "state religion," as have Soviet-style communism. Nobody would argue that these are based primarily on supernatural beliefs, but it has been argued that they still rise to the level of religion, in your preferred sense. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the conversation much at ground level.

[salvorhardin]

51. I'm not discounting folk knowledge

Indeed, I'd argue that atheists need to pay more attention to what people believe and how they practice their religion. It's the lager lout anti-theists that participate in overly reductionist arguments against religion like "religion is the root of all evil".

[JackintheGreen]

53. Bonus points for "lager lout"

Cheers!

[msanthrope]

36. Religion is supernatural belief. n/t

[salvorhardin]

38. Is it?

Then people who belief in ghosts constitute a religion?

[msanthrope]

47. "Father, Son, Holy Ghost...." n/t

[salvorhardin]

52. I think you missed the point

You made the claim that religion is supernatural belief. That's ridiculous. There are plenty of people who have supernatural beliefs yet those beliefs do not constitute a religion.

[DeSwiss]

58. I religion rational - NO.

Then it is super-natural. Period.

[Dorian Gray]

64. I agree with this....

human nature is what it is.

[Dogtown]

4. It provides a comforting

alternative to reality for those who spend their lives fearing death.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. so the answer is to have religion in order to prevent death?

Yeah, that's the answer. Just like prayer healing an amputated arm, or a paralyzed leg. Instead, why not treat death as part of life, and take away the ignorance that drives so much bullshit and damage that religion does?

[Dogtown]

30. That answer is "pushed"

by the dealers of that particular "drug".

Reality-based education in dealing with death teaches independence of thought. Preachers don't want that, it would ruin business.

That's why they push "abstinence" as birth-control; real birth-control training would stifle their "market-share".

[patrice]

5. Instead of re-building the wheel over and over, why don't we have non-denominational charities?

Non-denominational charities dedicated to specific needs. There could still be religion and such, but churches could pool their giving by all of them giving to the same non-denominational charities. It would be more efficient, but they will probably reject this idea, because they want control over their own charities and deep down they consider one another enemies.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. In some cases they do cooperate, like in hurricane relief on the Gulf Coast

The center I worked at was a joint Lutheran-Episcopal project, and later, as the needs changed, the various religious groups parceled out the division of labor to avoid duplication.

That happens quite a bit once the actual crisis is over (when it's best to have as many groups as possible offering assistance to as many people as possible) and long-term needs must be met.

For example, programs for the homeless in downtown Portland were coordinated so that churches' meal programs together covered all the meals for the week.

[TexasObserver]

6. No, religion does not do anything good. It does the opposite.

It tells bigots they aren't bigots. It tells them they're special and blessed because they wear a hat to church, or because they don't wear a hat to church. It reassures them they can be racist, sexist, homophobic and hateful.

[muffin1]

16. +1,000,000

Beautifully said.

[SidDithers]

33. Well said...

while religious organizations can affect good through their charitable works, religion can also provides cover for despicable attitudes and ideas.

:thumbsup:

Sid

[old mark]

7. I was forced to go to a religious school through high school. I stopped believing

around age 11 or so. I have found little real good that religions do that is not overshadowed by the terrible burden they inflict on theie believers and those their believers persecute.

It is not a matter of "good vs bad religions" - none are very good and all can be very bad.

It is time human beings grew up a little bit.
rec.
mark

[Silent3]

10. Starting the countdown...

...until this thread gets bumped to the R/T forum to die a slow death. :)

[JackintheGreen]

11. I just can't agree with this

Let me begin by saying I am not religious. The most supernatural thing about me is that I have to sleep with a blanket over my head because monsters can't get you if your covered (a weird but tenacious remnant of my youth...), but I do come from an extremely religious family: 1 cousin is monseigneur in Boston, another a Jesuit, grandparents were missionaries, mother a pastor, etc. And with all this I do not believe.

That said, you say:

"And the "good" claimed by religons are all things that are and can be achieved outside the framework of religion."

And it's true. There is nothing done in the name of god that cannot be done for other reasons, be they human decency, atheistic morality, simple self-interest, or whatever else might move you.

But that isn't the way things actually are. I will not dispute that religion causes strife, factionalism, communalism, war/death/murder, hatred, Phred Felps's douchebaggery and a slew of other ills. But there are MILLIONS of people who do good things, or who simply live decent lives, because of a morality instilled in them by religion. Some do it out of fear, some do it out of devout interpretation of the teachings of their church . By they don't do it outside the framework of religion.

Could they? Of course they could, but they don't. That isn't the shape of the world we live in. Deride religion all you want. I do. But many, many "good things" that you see in the world are rooted in the religion of the people doing those good things, just as the horrible, hateful things done by others are rooted in their messed up view of god.

For perspective, look at all awfulness wrought by atheistic moralities: Soviet gulags, Nazism (was *supposed* to be secular - I would argue it wasn't), the selfishness of Randian politics, etc.

Atheism - and antitheism - isn't naturally any more "good" than theism.

[dmallind]

12. Somewhat counterintuitively for me, yes it can

The sum total of harm and benefit caused by religion is a question way too grand and complex for me to even estimate, but that does not mean its beenfit is zero.

It takes irrational beliefs for humans to do unreasonable things. Irrational beliefs (which incidentally is not the same as either insane or wrong - just means beliefs without a valid rational argument supporting their claims - for example the idea that the Dolphins will win the next Superbowl is an irrational belief. It may be true, and it's certainly not insane. Bear this in mind before you whine about the word) by definition include religions. Unreasonable things are not always bad, Some unreasionable yet beneficial things are inspired by religion. People can be driven by their religion to fly planes into buildings, but they can also be driven by their religion to alleviate suffering and help the needy. That atheists who do those things also exist is irrlevant. There are unquestionably people who only do these things because they think their religion - their irrational beliefs - requires it. THEY would not do it without their faith just because Gates or Geldof do. So why would we want to take that impetus from them?

The bugger of course is that it's nigh on impossible to remove the irrational belief from Bin laden while leaving it in Schweitzer - before you know which is which!

[AnArmyVeteran]

13. I'll repeat it: Religion is Organized Insanity...

[JCMach1]

15. In a rational, scientific world it is only holding the human race back

So, I tend to agree with the OP

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science

In an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, due to air Monday evening, Hawking expounded upon the largest questions, those that transcend iPhones and androids: Can science and God live happily ever after?

According to ABC News, Hawking first tried to define God in a way that he, as a scientist, might feel comfortable: "What could define God (is thinking of God) as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God," he said.
Indeed, he expressed disappointment at how humans have thought of deity.


"They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible," he said.

Perhaps there will be some who might conceive that stranger things have happened. Others will nod sagely, while still secretly hoping there is another life after this one. However, couldn't one imagine a point at which science and religion somehow meet, shake hands and positions and agree on a concord?

Hawking, who has already recommended that we should steer clear of aliens, suggested to Sawyer that this was somewhat less likely than North Korea winning the World Cup: "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, (and) science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."




Cross posted in the science forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x67523

[undeterred]

18. For the last 2 years I've been getting food from a food bank

in a warehouse. The number of people who go there has increased from a few hundred to a few thousand a week. They have free meals twice a week and free clothes. The couple who started this are lovely people who live what they believe.

There is a sign on the wall that says:

35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

[dmallind]

22. A good example - but onesided as stands.

The single most successful fundraising event in history? Rasing over 1/4 of a billion to feed the starving? Organized and driven by an atheist. Same for at least three if not four of the top 5 philanthropists on earth (the 5th is Jewish). They just doen't tend to post snippets from Dennett all over their kindness.

[undeterred]

23. Its not an example.

Its real life, my life.

[dmallind]

26. What on earth does one do to preclude the other?

In fact to be a valid example of immanent action, an example HAS to be from real life.

Or are you saying Live Aid never happened?

[madrchsod]

27. it is clear as the midday sun that these people are evil

because they actually practicing christ`s universal message.

remember all religions are evil.

[dmallind]

31. I think it's more germane that this message is neither uniquely Christ's nor uniquely religious

It's certainly not impossible to be charitable without religion, although as I said above it IS certainly possible to be driven to be charitable by religion.

[ZombieHorde]

49. Compelling argument for religion inspiring some good in this world. nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

20. Does "anti" do any good?

I'm not particularly religious. I go into a church to attend weddings and funerals. Other than that, I usually ignore them. I guess I'd classify myself as "agnostic", if that means "what the heck do I know?".

But I've run into some very annoying self-proclaimed Atheists, who can proselytize at length on their faith and belief in the non-existence of an unknowable. Especially at parties where the beer is flowing. I usually try to extract myself and head for the bathroom or the bar, depending on the needs of the moment. Is Atheism another religion?

:hi:

[dmallind]

24. Interesting

It's strange that people who want to insult atheists accuse them of being religious. That says a lot more about religion than atheism. Nobody ever tried to insult anyone by calling them good and wise and kind and generous.

[darkstar3]

66. Nailed it. +1 n/t

[Junkie Brewster]

28. I'd love to meet some of those people

I live in Georgia, and I meet very few atheists. The ones I do meet are so cowed by all the theists around here that they are usually pretty closeted. I think it would be really nice to meet an atheist who speaks at length about his or her feelings on faith and religion. Certainly a nice break from all of the theists, who get to proselytize all day every day. Even if you're free of religion, it's still a constant presence.

[Fumesucker]

65. Yep, I'm in Georgia too..

Speaking openly of your atheism here can easily and quickly lose you your job, your friends and get your property vandalized.

Right offhand I can't recall ever meeting another person in this state who specifically called themselves an atheist and I've been here off and on for over fifty years.

[mod mom]

32. I suggested to my children to use pantheism.

I've brought them up to respect nature and this term seems much more acceptable to people who usually have little knowledge of the term.

[Junkie Brewster]

21. Religion doesn't do any good. People do.

It doesn't matter if people band together in the name of God, the Democratic Party, or the Girl Scouts of America. Good is done by people who do it, not a copy of the Koran, not a priest's collar, not a yoga mat. Ideas and things don't do anything at all. It's the people who are inspired by them who do good, and for that matter, do evil.

[Lucian]

25. I agree with you.

We can all do good without religion. Religion is a cancer on this world, and it needs to be eradicated.

[mod mom]

29. be careful who you say it to....

after a spinal chord injury, my husband was in a rehab hospital at a university hospital. someone came in to ask which religion he preferred and hubbie, w biting humor, commented "none, I hate them all" (we're anti-war activists and see religion as the reason behind much human conflict). Next thing you know they put him on anti-depressives and send in a shrink. Needless to say when I found out I got him off the meds. :eyes:

[el_bryanto]

34. Is Anti-Theism a bigotry against religion? Or if not, how is it not?

Bryant

[undeterred]

35. Of course it is.

[dmallind]

43. Sure - but anti-pedophelia is bigotry against pedophiles too.

The question the OP asks is really SHOULD WE be bigoted against religion.

Personally I dion't think so - but we should not allow it to have any influence on secular laws and norms either.

[Romulox]

39. It seems misguided to blame "god" for what are ultimately our all-too-human foibles

That's as true for an anti-theist as for a theist. That is to say that non-religious human institutions seem no less compromised than religious institutions to me (which is why I belong to no Party, no church...)

In a way, the theists and anti-theists (culture war mutual combatants) are flip sides of the same coin characterized primarily by their proselytism and desire to moralize. :hi:

[gcomeau]

62. But it makes complete sense to praise "god" for our virtues... -nt

[MineralMan]

40. Depends who you're asking.

For many people, religion is something that is a good thing in their lives. All religion, and all religious people is not a single thing.

I'm a strong atheist, and have been for over 40 years. I think all religions are sops to the fears that humans tend to have about stuff they don't understand or can't accept. But, I'm not a person who would insist that people not believe what they believe. It's of no importance to me, and may be of some help to others.

Where religion oppresses or harms, I oppose it uncategorically. Where it acts in good ways, I have no objection to it. I don't believe any of it, but everyone has the right to believe as they choose.

It is not religious belief that is the problem. It is the actions of some who believe. Actions should be opposed whenever they oppress or harm. Beliefs are not something to bother with. Everyone has some beliefs, whether religious or otherwise. Often, those beliefs are not supported by facts, but that's none of my business.

Oppose actions, not beliefs. If you oppose beliefs, you overstep your individual rights and impose your beliefs on others. Devote your energy to opposing oppression and actions that harm others. That's worthwhile. Opposing beliefs for their own sake is a source of oppression and harm. It puts you in the position of those you oppose.

[struggle4progress]

42. False gods will not cease to exist simply because we have become so modern

that we no longer call them gods. It is always easy to see the superstitious idolatry of others and hard to see our own. But even if we abandon all religious language, the idols still will be there, demanding our worship of flag or country, our homage to the perfection of free markets, our irrational ad-encouraged commodity fetishism and associated beliefs that a new car will make us sexually attractive or that potato chips will make us happy, our notions that we alone of all humanity are the good and wise; there is really no obvious way to dispel them. We can pretend the false gods are not there, but they are still there, hiding in our interior shadows

Tell yourself you are rid of religion: you will still have a religion, but you will have no words for it; it will become invisible to you and something you can no longer reason about

[darkstar3]

44. So you're saying that everyone has a religion, and they always will?

The only possible response to that is a hearty :rofl:

[struggle4progress]

45. So you cannot imagine others use words differently than you, or associate them

with concepts that do not exactly match yours: that is already a kind of dogmatism on your part

[darkstar3]

46. Words have meaning.

For the sake of effective communication, cultures give up the fluidity of language and define what words they will use in things called dictionaries. You don't get to redefine words at will just to suit your own rhetorical purposes, unless of course you are a Bushite.

Using any dictionary definition of a religion, it is laughable to claim that everyone has one and that everyone will continue to have one. Your feeble attempt to label that statement or my insistence on using dictionary definitions for effective communication as "dogmatism" is reflective only of your own lack of communication skills, and in no way reflective of my actual views.

[trotsky]

56. God-shaped hole! God-shaped hole!

:rofl:

[darkstar3]

60. Fallacy spotting

should be a sport on R/T. Flooding, on the other hand, should not.

[ZombieHorde]

50. You seem to be describing materialistic priorities rather than a religion. nt

[Silent3]

54. What is it about those with religious sentiments...

...that makes them so fond of false equivalencies?

Similarity is not equality. Applying oneself diligently to making money or being beautiful or playing tennis may indeed be a kind of "devotion", these pursuits may even get out of hand compared to other priorities, but that hardly makes such pursuits "invisible" religions. That we might jokingly talk about "religiously" doing such things. it's just casual metaphor, not deep philosophical equivalence. (I can easily imagine you as the type who would want to insist, however, that the metaphor IS a glimpse into a deeper truth, and that it's your personal wisdom that let's you see the truth, while those less wise ignore the significance of the metaphor at their peril!)

If there's no attribution of supernatural qualities, no need for "faith" without evidence, if the choice of pursuits is acknowledged as simply a personal choice based on personal desires without elevating the choice to some greater cosmic significance, it's not religion. It certainly doesn't have any of the qualities that make religion clash with the scientific method.

[rug]

48. Yes.

[skepticscott]

55. It doesn't do anything good that

requires the supernatural, faith-based baggage to make it work.

And you can be an atheist AND and anti-theist if you want to. They aren't the same, but both are sensible and rational.

[laconicsax]

57. Are you slowly believing in a god and simultaneously being against it?

If not, your first sentence doesn't make much sense.

[DeSwiss]

59. Religion is for SUCKERS.

[gcomeau]

61. It doesn't do anything UNIQUELY good.

It can be argued it can be used to impart a sense of morality... but you don't need religion for that.

It can be argued it can be used to build a sense of community... but you don't need religion for that.

It can be argued it can be used to inspire acts of charity... but you don't need a religion for that.

So it sometimes, possibly, when applied a certain way, can give us some beneficial things we could get whether religion existed or not. Meanwhile it deliberately creates mindsets that idolize believing unsupported claims in blind states of ignorance as possessing "virtuous faith"... a detrimental effect with widereaching consequences that outweighs any possible good it can ever be used for as far as I am concerned.