Atheist- would you take god away?

[Shakes]

If you could convince some one through prue logic and reasoning that god did not exist, would you do it?

Also, if you knew that said person's faith was very important to them; would you take it away?

[Lynn Bodoni]

It would depend on how that person expressed his/her faith. Someone leaves me alone to enjoy my godless heathenism? I leave him/her alone. The people who go door to door, trying to bring me The Word? The people who take advantage of the loophole in the Do Not Call list to call my phone and play an automated message, advising me that I need to Come To Jesus (and their church)? THOSE suckers get their faith taken away, becaus they are pestering me.

I'm not answering the poll, because it will really depend on whether or not a given believer is willing to let me alone.

[Mr. Kobayashi]

History has shown us that believing in things because of empirical evidence is far better than believing in it through blind faith and wishful thinking, often tinged with a dash of masochism.

[SecondJudith]

Most religious people I know in my community don't believe in the supernatural/a transcendent god. I find my religious practice to be more fulfilling when I'm doing it with full acknowledgement and knowledge of the fact that a transcendent god is extremely unlikely.

I know it's only my own experience, but as a highly observant religious practitioner, I am happier not believing in a god than I was when I was younger and believed vaguely in one.

If every religious person in the world suddenly lost their belief, I figure they will either stop participating in religion altogether, or start thinking about it differently. If belief in the supernatural is the only thing causing people to participate in religion, then it's probably a good thing that they stop. If they have to explicitly think to themselves, "right, the reason I am doing this is because community is important to me, I like this group of people, I think the art is beautiful and we have a good organisation for doing charitable works", they can focus more on those things and (again, in my experience only) ultimately be happier. Because those are pretty good things to focus on.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

If you could convince some one through prue logic and reasoning that god did not exist, would you do it?
Depends on the god. I also very strongly suspect that if I succeeded in removing that god by logic and reasoning alone, it would just be replaced by some less counter-factual definition of a god.
Also, if you knew that said person's faith was very important to them; would you take it away?
Important in what way?

[runner pat]

Is godaway anything like Amway? :D

[Der Trihs]

If you could convince some one through prue logic and reasoning that god did not exist, would you do it?

Also, if you knew that said person's faith was very important to them; would you take it away?Yes, and yes. Religion is foolish and destructive. And if it if important to them, that just makes them more of a danger to themselves and others. It's generally the people for whom their religion is important who do things like fly planes into buildings because of it.

[Mangetout]

Yes, and yes. Religion is foolish and destructive. And if it if important to them, that just makes them more of a danger to themselves and others. It's generally the people for whom their religion is important who do things like fly planes into buildings because of it.

Or, you know, feed and wash diseased beggars and stuff.

[bookaholic]

I would rether know reality, no matter how disapointing, than to fool myself into living in relation to lies. Or, more well put by Mr Sagan:
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring". - Carl Sagan

[Linty Fresh]

It would depend on how that person expressed his/her faith. Someone leaves me alone to enjoy my godless heathenism? I leave him/her alone. The people who go door to door, trying to bring me The Word? The people who take advantage of the loophole in the Do Not Call list to call my phone and play an automated message, advising me that I need to Come To Jesus (and their church)? THOSE suckers get their faith taken away, becaus they are pestering me.

I'm not answering the poll, because it will really depend on whether or not a given believer is willing to let me alone.

This is pretty much the way I feel about it. Just about everyone I know, including my wife, is a believer, and pretty much all of them are cool about my atheism. If a person came calling at my apartment, they would be told nicely but firmly to take it somewhere else. If they persisted in trying to shove it down my throat, I would tell them to shove it up their ass. I probably wouldn't take the time to debate with them, unless I really felt like it.

In a theological debate chatroom, sure. That's what they're there for.

Crazy street preacher? He's crazy. Don't involve yourself with crazy.

Everyone else, including the guy on the street who asks you if you've come to Jesus? Meh, what are you going to do? I treat annoying religious people the same way I treat every other annoying person: As politely as possible, as gently as possible, and as quickly as possible, disassociate from the conversation and send them on their way. If they don't take the hint, lose the politeness and tell them to fuck off. Debating is for law schools and chatrooms. That said, if the guy just wouldn't let it go, I'd probably go ahead and fuck with his head, not to win an argument with an idiot (They don't give out Nobel Prizes for that), but to out-annoy him and get him to want to go away.

People believe for all sorts of reasons, and it's none of my business why or how, nor do I really care one way or the other, as long as it doesn't interfere with the textbook I'm trying to get through. A person who would try to talk the belief out of a woman who is convinced that her five year old daughter is waiting for her in heaven, or a person who would try to fuck with a recovering alcoholic's belief in a higher power keeping him sober and sane strikes me as a royal dick, and one Prince Philip in the world is enough.

[Walmarticus]

I voted no because an individuals religious beliefs are usually inconsequential. Most religious people aren't knocking on my door when I'm trying to masturbate. Some theists fly planes into buildings, but others bake pies for the lord. I like pie.

If the option was to remove religion, sure. But, there's no way I'm going to make an individual stop being religious- what an asshole, I would be. It in no way hurts my elderly neighbor to enjoy the belief that she's made in God's image. I understand that schools are pretty shitty when they can't teach evolution, but how much of that is my neighbors fault? Well, unless I can say with any degree accuracy, I'd rather leave her alone than engage in logic vigilanteism.

I'm all for rampant gay marriages and video games on Sunday mornings, but leave my neighbor the fuck alone. She bakes pies.

[Der Trihs]

Or, you know, feed and wash diseased beggars and stuff.
Unlikely. Religion is and always has been a force overwhelmingly for evil in the world. A believer would be more likely to tell himself that the beggar is being punished by God (or whatever) for his sins and deserves further punishment than to help him.

[needscoffee]

This is like asking if I would take Santa Claus away from someone, and the answer is, obviously, yes.

[Ibanez]

To be honest. I'm suprised at the results of the poll.

Some atheists are a bunch a meanies it would appear.

I know alot of people who believe in God, Jesus or whatever. Gives them purpose in their lives or a reason to exist or to be able to cope. Why would anyone want to destroy that in someones life.

Is their belief in someone fictional being really bother people that much ?

What ever floats your boat is how I go about living my life if people believing in something helps them live a good life they can knock themselves out it isn't hurting me.

[Boyo Jim]

Yes, unless they say something like, "Only my faith in God prevents me from releasing my anger in a murderous rampage against those who have wronged me."

[Linty Fresh]

Unlikely. Religion is and always has been a force overwhelmingly for evil in the world. A believer would be more likely to tell himself that the beggar is being punished by God (or whatever) for his sins and deserves further punishment than to help him.

Oh yeah, that's another reason I don't try to change theists' beliefs. We atheists believe in a lot of weird stuff without proof, too.

[Boyo Jim]

To be honest. I'm suprised at the results of the poll.

Some atheists are a bunch a meanies it would appear.

I know alot of people who believe in God, Jesus or whatever. Gives them purpose in their lives or a reason to exist or to be able to cope. Why would anyone want to destroy that in someones life.

Is their belief in someone fictional being really bother people that much ?

What ever floats your boat is how I go about living my life if people believing in something helps them live a good life they can knock themselves out it isn't hurting me.

What if you knew someone who is happy as a clam in the certainty that his race is superior to all others. If you could convince him that no race is better or worse than any other, would you? Remember, he might feel worse because he won't feel superior any more.

[panache45]

Is godaway anything like Amway? :D

I think the brand name would be "God-B-Gone."

[Inner Stickler]

I think, generally, people are happier without the stress of religion and faith and I don't think it would take any time at all for them to understand and prefer the godless lifestyle.

[Grumman]

I know alot of people who believe in God, Jesus or whatever. Gives them purpose in their lives or a reason to exist or to be able to cope. Why would anyone want to destroy that in someones life.
Because if it was any other fictional character, you'd see how fucked up that is. If someone could only get through life because they thought Harry Potter was real, and tithed 10% of their income to Rowling in gratitude, they'd be considered a complete loon that needs help.

[Boyo Jim]

I think, generally, people are happier without the stress of religion and faith and I don't think it would take any time at all for them to understand and prefer the godless lifestyle.

We'll introduce them to sodomy later. :p

Small steps.

[Der Trihs]

Oh yeah, that's another reason I don't try to change theists' beliefs. We atheists believe in a lot of weird stuff without proof, too.Like it or not, religion is destructive to society (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece). It makes people less moral, less well inclined towards others. Simple observation should tell you that. Just because religious people claim over and over that religion makes people moral doesn't make it any truer than the rest of their nonsense.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I don't actively go around looking to argue anyone of their faith, but if they want to start the argument, I'm happy to engage them, and don't feel bad about it if my arguments cause them to doubt.

[Strinka]

If God does exist and someone can show that to me using only reason and real evidence, I hope that they would. More generally, if I believed anything that wasn't true, and someone could show that to me using only reason and real evidence, I hope that they would. I want to believe what's true, regardless of what the truth is.

Besides just being an end in itself, truth also helps in achieving other goals. If I'm trying to devise a better vacuum cleaner, believing that the dust is sucked up by gnomes won't help. If I'm trying to do good and help people supernatural claims made by religion are relevant.

[Walmarticus]

Like it or not, religion is destructive to society (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece). It makes people less moral, less well inclined towards others. Simple observation should tell you that. Just because religious people claim over and over that religion makes people moral doesn't make it any truer than the rest of their nonsense.

Yes, but an individual is not society. What if you couldn't know whether the person you logic bomb is a sweet little grandma or Pat Robertson?

[Ranchoth]

Like some happy, small-town farmer who was just trying to live their life and never hurt anyone? No.

Some religious fanatic or holy roller who was causing a lot of trouble, or getting people killed or something? I wouldn't be opposed. But of course, the same pragmatic streak in me that would be fine flicking their god-switch also notes that I might just end up with a crazy fanatic who now wasn't religious. :smack:

[sundog66]

This is your brain: ()
This is your brain on godaway: (****)

So to answer your question, no, of course, I would never take godaway, atheist or not.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Keeping in mind my above-mentioned questions and remarks:

On average, I see no reason to suspect that talking someone out of a personal (especially) or impersonal god by pure reasonable argument is going to do more harm than good, and I personally would like to have a convincing, civilized and above all reasonable argument with someone who could tell me when I'm wrong. And I agree the existence of some kind of god could be very important - again, depending on the type of god.

So I'll vote yes on both.

[elfkin477]

Is godaway anything like Amway? :D Godaway. Apply directly to the spirit
Godaway. Apply directly to the spirit
Godaway. Apply directly to the spirit
Godaway. Apply directly to the spirit

:p

[wolf in second hand clothing]

Sure. If nothing else we'd get rid of a parasitic class of clergy, and have some spare resources to contribute to schools or something that actually makes a difference in this world.

[AnalogSignal]

We do have an omnipresent, omniscient god called Google. Voting yes is blasphemy against Google-god.

[Der Trihs]

Yes, but an individual is not society. What if you couldn't know whether the person you logic bomb is a sweet little grandma or Pat Robertson?
It makes little difference since the granny is directly or indirectly helping support people like Robertson.

[Walmarticus]

It makes little difference since the granny is directly or indirectly helping support people like Robertson.

I'm supposed to take it on faith that granny's beliefs supports Robertsonians? It's quite possible that her beliefs support nobody but granny. I'm certainly in no position to know. Until I do, I'd prefer not taking a bet with a chance that I might rape her brain with my logical hocus pocus.

[Der Trihs]

I'm supposed to take it on faith that granny's beliefs supports Robertsonians?She supports him if in no other way than by supporting the same kind of faith based belief system he does, and by doing so promoting the idea that that is a valid form of reasoning.

[Cammacdon]

Taking it away implies it was there in the first place.I don't think anyone that is not a child is a 100% true believer. They're just fooling themselves, and deep down they know it.

[HMS Irruncible]

If you could convince some one through prue logic and reasoning that god did not exist, would you do it?
If they are using their religious belief to justify or support proselytism, evangelism, or any other form of jerkitude, then I would cheerfully crush it. It seems cruel, but then consider you're also taking away things like the threat of eternal damnation and guilt over masturbation, so I think it would be very salutary.

There is one exception... the people who apparently are just one Hail Mary away from being a sociopath; i.e. one of those people who goes around saying "If God doesn't exist, then what's to stop me from cheating, stealing, and doing whatever I feel like?" I would not take religion from these people unless I could also pre-emptively sentence them to prison so they couldn't harm anyone.

[Walmarticus]

She supports him if in no other way than by supporting the same kind of faith based belief system he does, and by doing so promoting the idea that that is a valid form of reasoning.

Since you could not possibly articulate that in any remotely quantifiable terms, I suppose I should indeed take it on faith that farmer Ned's basement baptisms are as destructive as Osama's jihad.

While I don't object to faith based reasoning in any absolute terms, I think one should have more compelling reasons to justify wailing on the brains of sweet little old ladies with their logical jiu jitsu.

[Ibanez]

What if you knew someone who is happy as a clam in the certainty that his race is superior to all others. If you could convince him that no race is better or worse than any other, would you? Remember, he might feel worse because he won't feel superior any more.

The difference between my Chinese neighbor and Jesus. Is that I know that my neighbor is real, seriously I shook his hand the other day when I wished him a Merry Christmas. Your going to have to come up with a better comparison than reality vs. Jesus.

[Ibanez]

I don't actively go around looking to argue anyone of their faith, but if they want to start the argument, I'm happy to engage them, and don't feel bad about it if my arguments cause them to doubt.

Same here.

[Fretful Porpentine]

No, unless convincing them that God didn't exist was an incidental result of fulfilling my professional obligations (i.e., giving college freshmen the intellectual tools to examine an argument critically and spot logical fallacies). Otherwise, it's none of my business what other people believe.

[Ibanez]

Because if it was any other fictional character, you'd see how fucked up that is. If someone could only get through life because they thought Harry Potter was real, and tithed 10% of their income to Rowling in gratitude, they'd be considered a complete loon that needs help.

Alot of people believe in fucked up things. So what. If it isn't harming your life or anyone elses it's really of no business of anyone to set them straight.

I think alot of people are really underestimating how important faith is for some people in order to live a positive life. That could be for a variety of reasons.

From what I've noticed these people have a real hard time accepting the fact that their may be nothing after death for one. It really freaks them out. For me it doesn't personally the idea of the big long sleep doesn't scare me the slightest.

Also, some people find life difficult. Just day to day things and find it hard to be positive. Positive thinking can work wonders for people that have a hard time getting through life. So if they feel they go to church every sunday and pray to Jesus and tell themselves that if I go to church and pray everything will be ok. Who are we to tell them their methods are ridiculous.

Real atheists aren't suppose to give a shit what other believe in . If they try and convert me or want to debate it that's another story but I choose to live and let live.

[Wesley Clark]

Depends. I know all about the concept of 'live and let live' and all that. But when it comes to religious people who are authoritarian, draconian or who are turning science and social/economic justice backwards yeah I'd take their god away if it made them less likely to turn society backwards.

The problem is an authoritarian who expressed that through religion might just find a secular outlet for those feelings. Nationalism or fascism as examples.

Basically, I'd want to take authoritarianism out of people if I could more than religion.

The more agnostic societies seem to be better run than the more religious ones from the little I know about it.

[Rushgeekgirl]

I took away my Mig's beliefs somewhat, and even just a little has caused him a lot of sadness. He's a simple guy. Not stupid, just simple. He can't read very well because he never went to school. He works 60+ hours a week and doesn't ask for much. He is the kind with quiet faith, who just believes Jesus will make things better, even if we don't understand. "Mysterious ways" and all that.

Sometimes I think people need their gods, even if they are just in their own imaginations. That doesn't make them stupid or weak, it just makes him faithful, and possibly more imaginative. It's not hurting me that he believes, so I don't talk to him about religion anymore. To me it's just not that big of a deal for me these days. Perhaps it's because I don't at all believe religions are destructive or foolish. I think we all have the capacity for foolishness and destructiveness and we use all sorts of labels to get what we want. It's part of our awesome humanity.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Sometimes I think people need their gods, even if they are just in their own imaginations. That doesn't make them stupid or weak, it just makes him faithful, and possibly more imaginative.
What use is it to be faithful to something that isn't faithful back?

It doesn't take any imagination to simply swallow religious beliefs whole, by the way. Just the opposite, actually.

[Rushgeekgirl]

What use is it to be faithful to something that isn't faithful back?

It doesn't take any imagination to simply swallow religious beliefs whole, by the way. Just the opposite, actually.

Well they certainly think it's being faithful back.

[Grumman]

Real atheists aren't suppose to give a shit what other believe in.
Since when are you the Grand Arbiter of what real atheists are and aren't supposed to do? Being a real atheist means that you do not believe in god. That's it.

I give a shit about what other people believe in because their judgement is suspect if the foundation of their thought process is suspect. Religious thought can lead someone to the right conclusion, but only either by being derived from secular thought, or by pure chance.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Real atheists aren't suppose to give a shit what other believe in . If they try and convert me or want to debate it that's another story but I choose to live and let live. I take it you've never heard of Christopher Hitchens, Madelyn Murray-O-Hair, and Richard Dawkins, to name a few atheists who DO or did give a shit what others believe in?

[Ibanez]

Since when are you the Grand Arbiter of what real atheists are and aren't supposed to do? Being a real atheist means that you do not believe in god. That's it.

I give a shit about what other people believe in because their judgement is suspect if the foundation of their thought process is suspect. Religious thought can lead someone to the right conclusion, but only either by being derived from secular thought, or by pure chance.

Because someone gave me a cap that said so that's why.

But seriously, following your own advice

"Being a real atheist means that you do not believe in god. That's it."

It's fine to debate it generally but to make it your mission to try and "save them" from their delusions makes you just as offensive as the jehovah witnesses that coming banging on your door every sunday morning while your having breakfast.

[Grumman]

But seriously, following your own advice

"Being a real atheist means that you do not believe in god. That's it."
That wasn't advice, it was a definition. See if you can work out why this distinction is important.

It's fine to debate it generally but to make it your mission to try and "save them" from their delusions makes you just as offensive as the jehovah witnesses that coming banging on your door every sunday morning while your having breakfast.
Telling the truth is just as offensive to your worldview as telling falsehoods? Really?

[stpauler]

Also, some people find life difficult. Just day to day things and find it hard to be positive. Positive thinking can work wonders for people that have a hard time getting through life. So if they feel they go to church every sunday and pray to Jesus and tell themselves that if I go to church and pray everything will be ok. Who are we to tell them their methods are ridiculous.


Yeah, except for positive thinking doesn't work wonders. (http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/brightsided.htm) Or more precisely, it doesn't work. (http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/regarding-self-regard/200903/should-we-re-think-positive-thinking)But are positive self-statements actually beneficial? In an experiment that will be published in Psychological Science, Elaine Perunovic, John Lee, and I tested this idea. We recruited people to participate in our study based on their scores on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, which has 10 questionnaire items such as, “I feel that I have a number of good qualities.” People who scored in the lowest third of the distribution of Rosenberg scores (low self-esteem) and in the highest third of the distribution (high self-esteem) were invited to come to our laboratory, where we randomly assigned them to one of two conditions. We asked participants to either repeat to themselves the statement, “I’m a lovable person,” (positive self-statement condition) for four minutes, or to write down their thoughts and feelings (control condition) for four minutes. Our results indicated that people who were low in self-esteem felt worse about themselves after repeating the positive self-statement. Their moods and their “state self-esteem”–their feelings about themselves at that moment–were more negative than those of lows in the control condition. In contrast, people with high self-esteem did feel better after repeating the positive self-statement, but to only a limited degree.

[Dung Beetle]

Godaway. Apply directly to the spirit
Godaway. Apply directly to the spirit
Godaway. Apply directly to the spirit
Godaway. Apply directly to the spirit

:p

Oh man…I’m going to need some Pissaway when I launder these panties. :D

I’m not sure how to answer the thread question. Like Lynn, I think it depends on the believer. They aren't the most stable bunch, you know...

[Nzinga, Seated]

I have always liked this passage: (hope it isn't too long)

'And what is the saint doing in the forest?' asked Zarathustra. The saint answered: 'I make songs and sing them; and when I make songs, I laugh, cry, and hum: thus do I praise God. With singing, crying, laughing, and humming do I praise the god who is my god. But what do you bring us as a gift?' When Zarathustra had heard these words he bade the saint farewell and said: 'What could I have to give you? But let me go quickly lest I take something from you!' And thus they separated, the old one and the man, laughing as two boys laugh. But when Zarathustra was alone he spoke thus to his heart: 'Could it be possible? This old saint in the forest has not yet heard anything of this, that God is dead!'
—trans. Walter Kaufmann, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Prologue, sect. 2.

I would probably ask their permission. I would warn them that I am convinced that I can convince them with simple logic, and if they wanted to proceed, I would apply the godaway.

I have wondered; if my child was dying from cancer or something, with very little time...would I apply giveagod? I mean, right now, she says she doesn't believe in an afterlife... I might be tempted to give her some comfort. I'm not sure.

[Ibanez]

Telling the truth is just as offensive to your worldview as telling falsehoods? Really?

Yeah, really.

Tell the truth if people ask for it. But I don't think its any business of yours to go around trying to shake the foundation down of what people believe in if it helps them and isn't hurting anyone else.

You help some old lady after she had a spill on the street and after she thanks you with a "god bless you son" your going to rip into her about how god doesn't exists, really ?

People believe in all sorts of things, I have a friend who's a certified 911 foiler but he knows not to debate it with me. Because it just upsets him.

[Ibanez]

Yeah, except for positive thinking doesn't work wonders. (http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/brightsided.htm) Or more precisely, it doesn't work. (http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/regarding-self-regard/200903/should-we-re-think-positive-thinking)

Well it help me from stopping my anxiety attacks.

But go ahead tell me what really stopped them.

[stpauler]

Well it help me from stopping my anxiety attacks.

But go ahead tell me what really stopped them.

Ahh, so the plural of anecdote is now data?

[Acsenray]

Or, you know, feed and wash diseased beggars and stuff.

You don't need religion to show you how good it is to help people. That's self evident. If all religion went away today, people wouldn't stop helping other people.

But religion is useful to help you convince yourself that it's okay to hurt people. It's a comfort to the evil.

[overlyverbose]

There are crazies on either side. It'd be douchey of me to try to enlighten someone who didn't care to be enlightened. I don't want to be witnessed; why would I witness someone else - just so I can say "nyah-nyah! I'm right!"?

Seriously, though - what do you (general you; I'm not referring to anyone in particular) expect someone to do with that? Now that they believe like you do...what? What happens next? Are they supposed to evangelize atheism? What is taking god away supposed to accomplish?

As long as the person thinks rationally and isn't affecting me negatively, whether or not they believe in god is like meaningless trivia that's trotted out at parties.

[Boyo Jim]

... If all religion went away today, people wouldn't stop helping other people....

If all religion went away today, every religious person would attack the nearest person they don't like claiming, "He stole my religion"

[Boyo Jim]

Listen folks, if you got in an argument with anyone about ANYTHING, and convinced them that you were correct and they were wrong, how is that bad, assuming you were in fact right?

[Walmarticus]

Listen folks, if you got in an argument with anyone about ANYTHING, and convinced them that you were correct and they were wrong, how is that bad, assuming you were in fact right?

It's not, but the OP also included this:

Also, if you knew that said person's faith was very important to them; would you take it away?

So, I don't think it's an argument exactly.

[overlyverbose]

You don't need religion to show you how good it is to help people. That's self evident. If all religion went away today, people wouldn't stop helping other people.

But religion is useful to help you convince yourself that it's okay to hurt people. It's a comfort to the evil.

I see what you're saying, but plenty of people have been hurt in the name of science, too. Eugenics in particular comes to mind. It opened to door for a whole world of hurt for many, many people. I don't know how many were harmed by eugenics vs. religion, but people can twist logic and use flawed science to come to any conclusion they want.

For example, the guy who "proved" that vaccines caused autism was almost single-handedly responsible for a huge movement that has caused otherwise educated people to avoid vaccinating their kids, which results in decreased immunities, increased illnesses and potential death, presumably so that one scientist could profit from his relationship with a bunch of attorneys.

Religion isn't evil. Science isn't evil. Some people are evil. Both religion and science can be used to convince yourself and others that evil is okay.

[Boyo Jim]

It's not, but the OP also included this:



So, I don't think it's an argument exactly.

I think it's a good thing when someone learns they've been investing a lot of time and energy, an in the case of religion -- money, on an incorrect idea.

I;m not talking about hammering at their beliefs over and over again over a long period of time, which would be a huge waste of MY time, but if you could sit someone down and over the course of an hour or two, talk them out of their delusion, it's win win.

[Czarcasm]

[Mod mod]Changed title from "Atheist would you take godaway?" to Atheist- would you take god away?"[/Mod mod]

[Procrustus]

I wouldn't do it because I don't care enough or have enough energy to try. However, if it were easy, sure I'd take god away. And probably be thanked for it.

[Rushgeekgirl]

Ahh, so the plural of anecdote is now data?

No but it illustrates the point beautifully!
Some people feel the need to believe in gods and religions, and just because we don't doesn't mean they don't. Whether it's ridiculous or not to us doesn't matter. It's not our belief.

I personally think it's silly how so many people believe in ghosts. I have a very clever, educated best friend who loves those moronic ghost hunter shows and truly believes there must be some sort of "imprint" left behind to wreak havoc with all this negative energy. She doesn't believe in gods or religions but she thinks ghosts exist. I don't know why she feels the need to believe in ghosts. Maybe she holds some hope that her older brother who died years ago may still be able to contact her one day. Maybe she hopes to be a ghost after her physical body dies. Maybe she thinks she's seen one and this allows her a measure of comfort. We can talk all day about how there's really no evidence of the existence of ghosts, but she has found something to believe in and has enough evidence for her own belief.

I've noticed a lot of believers of various things claim to have had "experiences". Otherwise intelligent people who, one day out of the blue tell you they've had an experience, and their experience somehow proves to them that whatever it is they now believe in is clearly real. I belong to a great little board originally based on religious beliefs. We manage to have great conversations on the topic without the snark and condescension simply by recognizing that we can't know everything. What we call ghosts may very well be some sort of energy we don't yet understand. I doubt it personally, but who knows? I certainly don't know everything. However I do know enough to have decided I don't believe in ghosts. Or gods.

As for me, I'm absolutely certain that the god I grew up believing in doesn't exist and I've seen enough evidence to cancel out any other god idea I've considered. That's why I'm atheist. And I guess aghostist? I'm sure there's a real term for that one but damned if I can come up with one.

But it doesn't hurt me to know that my Mig and my best friends have beliefs in things I am certain are not true. We just talk about different things. If either of them became obsessed then maybe it would become a concern but otherwise they are welcome to their spiritual beliefs. It might do me no good but it apparently does something for them. I have no need whatsoever to proselytize, and in fact find it annoying regardless or the belief or opinion. I don't find the need to push other things I don't believe in, so why would I push people not to believe in their gods?

[Rushgeekgirl]

Listen folks, if you got in an argument with anyone about ANYTHING, and convinced them that you were correct and they were wrong, how is that bad, assuming you were in fact right?

I don't really do arguments. They never lead to anything productive. Occasionally my SO and I will argue out of frustration about who was supposed to refill the tea pitcher (because you should never leave less than a glass full! That's just rude!) but if we both just try to be kind and respectful the pitcher will remain at a satisfactory level. We're both in charge of maintaining that atmosphere.

[Rushgeekgirl]

If all religion went away today, every religious person would attack the nearest person they don't like claiming, "He stole my religion"

And well they should! Because that's what has happened, has it not? Do you think they'd just give it up without complaint? It would be taken away from them.

[Rushgeekgirl]

I think it's a good thing when someone learns they've been investing a lot of time and energy, an in the case of religion -- money, on an incorrect idea.

I;m not talking about hammering at their beliefs over and over again over a long period of time, which would be a huge waste of MY time, but if you could sit someone down and over the course of an hour or two, talk them out of their delusion, it's win win.

Not everyone who believes in gods give away their money, but so what if they did? It's their entertainment fund. If they are being entertained it's not my business.

And it's NOT win/win if, upon discovering that their fantasy afterlife isn't true, it causes them pain. I know when it finally hit me I became distressed, then depressed, then resigned. It took me almost twenty years to finally be comfortable with the idea that this is it. I wanted nothing more than to be with my family when I die and upon the realization that I'd never see my mother again in any shape or form it hit me so hard. And that desperate search to prove to myself I was wrong, that there really was a god in Heaven who loved me and had my best interests at heart; that fruitless, desperate search just about killed me. So no, it's not win/win for some people.

You simply must look at the other side, step in the other person's shoes and acknowledge that their beliefs may really help them before you pride yourself on ripping them apart. Otherwise you're just being selfish so don't try to pat yourself on the back as though you've saved someone.

[Nzinga, Seated]

...I have a very clever, educated best friend ...She doesn't believe in gods or religions but she thinks ghosts exist....

I wish your friend was a doper who started an 'ask the woman who believes in ghosts but not gods or religions'. I have questions.

[Lynn Bodoni]

I see what you're saying, but plenty of people have been hurt in the name of science, too. Eugenics in particular comes to mind. It opened to door for a whole world of hurt for many, many people. I don't know how many were harmed by eugenics vs. religion, but people can twist logic and use flawed science to come to any conclusion they want.

For example, the guy who "proved" that vaccines caused autism was almost single-handedly responsible for a huge movement that has caused otherwise educated people to avoid vaccinating their kids, which results in decreased immunities, increased illnesses and potential death, presumably so that one scientist could profit from his relationship with a bunch of attorneys.

Religion isn't evil. Science isn't evil. Some people are evil. Both religion and science can be used to convince yourself and others that evil is okay. Actually, he changed and misrepresented his findings. He didn't do science, he did propoganda.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece
http://briandeer.com/wakefield-deer.htm

[Der Trihs]

I see what you're saying, but plenty of people have been hurt in the name of science, too. Eugenics in particular comes to mind. It opened to door for a whole world of hurt for many, many people. I don't know how many were harmed by eugenics vs. religion, but people can twist logic and use flawed science to come to any conclusion they want.

For example, the guy who "proved" that vaccines caused autism was almost single-handedly responsible for a huge movement that has caused otherwise educated people to avoid vaccinating their kids, which results in decreased immunities, increased illnesses and potential death, presumably so that one scientist could profit from his relationship with a bunch of attorneys. None of that was real science. They just made things up and called it science. There are much better examples of science used for evil, such as modern weapons.

Still, there's a difference. Science is amoral, it's a tool. Religion is actively destructive; and it's a user as much as it's a tool. The believers are the tools, tools for spreading the religion and for whomever has declared themselves the representative of the gods.

Religion isn't evil. Science isn't evil. Some people are evil. That's typical. Criticizing religion is taboo, so instead we are supposed to demonize humanity. That is just another aspect of how religion is fundamentally anti-human.

Not everyone who believes in gods give away their money, but so what if they did? It's their entertainment fund. If they are being entertained it's not my business.

And it's NOT win/win if, upon discovering that their fantasy afterlife isn't true, it causes them pain.Yes, it IS win/win. Being scammed is a bad thing. Being deprived of your money to finance a scam is a bad thing. Plenty of scam victims are happy while being scammed and unhappy when the truth comes out; does that make the cops bad when they crack down on a scam artist?

[overlyverbose]

Actually, he changed and misrepresented his findings. He didn't do science, he did propoganda.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece
http://briandeer.com/wakefield-deer.htm

Thanks for the links! I stand corrected with respect to the autism issue.

I still don't know what it would accomplish to "take god away," though, provided said religious person wasn't harming anyone. I'm not trying to be dense, but what is the person expected to do with that knowledge? Other than an Oh Moment, what's the point?

It's like me telling someone I've got a dingleberry on my butt. If I go around at a party telling people that, what do they do with that information once they believe me (other than beg me not to tell them)?

[Rushgeekgirl]

Der TrihsYes, it IS win/win. Being scammed is a bad thing. Being deprived of your money to finance a scam is a bad thing. Plenty of scam victims are happy while being scammed and unhappy when the truth comes out; does that make the cops bad when they crack down on a scam artist?
Reply With Quote

[stylecramper]

I think that the reasons for morality/morally good behavior follow a very simple three step process.

1.) I do what is right because I fear what will happen to me when I fail to do right.

2.) I do what is right in the hope of receiving a reward for my good deeds.

3.) I do what is right, because it is the right thing to do. The carrot and stick are obsolete.

I sincerely believe that this is the reader's digest version of how all people learn to live morally. I loosely compare the progression to grade school, then high school, then college. I think of religion, in an admittedly grossly oversimplified fashion. It is a cattle chute, comprised of sticks and carrots that was designed over the course of thousands of years to direct the activities of large numbers of people from a distance.

I think that people give up the carrots and sticks when they're ready to give them up. Some people enjoy being disciplined. Some people enjoy being rewarded. I see these people as the lifelong attenders of churches, synagogues, mosques, etc...

Ultimately, a person has the right to delude themselves in whatever way they deem appropriate. Is it inherently logical? No - it absolutely isn't. It is not inherently destructive either. People can attempt to apply a broken logic to it, and they can use the carrots and sticks toward destructive ends, but the institution itself isn't any more broken than the men who invented it, and continue to administer it.

[Rushgeekgirl]

For Der Trihs, what I can't fix because of the stupid edit time limit:

And this is where I generally end the conversation because it becomes more like an argument with the extreme examples.

But look, it's like this. I find Christmas lights and other yard decorations annoying and wasteful but I don't spend every year arguing with my (Christian Catholic) SO wants to cover our yard and turn the things on every single night from Thanksgiving until whatever it is those Catholics celebrate in January. It's his entertainment funds, not mine. I also don't bitch when I find lottery stubs in his pants pockets. He's more than his little traditions and fairy tales to me and I know him like I know myself, and I KNOW he finds great joy in his beliefs, and the only money he spends is what he uses to feed some of his homeless friends. He doesn't go to church, he doesn't send in a tithe. He just has this faith. I can't understand it, not the way his life has been. He's had a hellish life; I can't understand anyone believing in any higher power that picks and chooses prayers to answer (der he always answers; it's just sometimes "no"). I can see he finds strength in it. I don't get it, but I don't have to. He's a good guy with a god belief. Why mess with the formula?

[Der Trihs]

I still don't know what it would accomplish to "take god away," though, provided said religious person wasn't harming anyone. I'm not trying to be dense, but what is the person expected to do with that knowledge? Other than an Oh Moment, what's the point? Prevent them from harming others, or themselves. Arguments like yours are built on the presumption that religion is harmless by default, which it isn't. It warps judgment, corrodes morality, instigates and justifies cruelty and hatred. Removing religion from someone will make them a better person, because religion is a defect. It makes them safer, because religion makes people dangerous to themselves and others.

[Guinastasia]

I see what you're saying, but plenty of people have been hurt in the name of science, too. Eugenics in particular comes to mind. It opened to door for a whole world of hurt for many, many people. I don't know how many were harmed by eugenics vs. religion, but people can twist logic and use flawed science to come to any conclusion they want.

For example, the guy who "proved" that vaccines caused autism was almost single-handedly responsible for a huge movement that has caused otherwise educated people to avoid vaccinating their kids, which results in decreased immunities, increased illnesses and potential death, presumably so that one scientist could profit from his relationship with a bunch of attorneys.

Religion isn't evil. Science isn't evil. Some people are evil. Both religion and science can be used to convince yourself and others that evil is okay.


Note: can we dispense with the "religion and science and are incompatible". Or rather, the implication that because a person is religious, they reject all science. Because we know that's bullshit. Okay?
(Note: I'm not talking about the notion of gods themselves existing. More along the lines of, does believing in a god mean you reject things like evolution, germ theory, the Big Bang, blah blah blah)

All right?

[Der Trihs]

Note: can we dispense with the "religion and science and are incompatible"But they are incompatible. Because of its dedication to illogic and due to simply being wrong about everything, religion is an intellectual poison. It ruins anything it touches; the only way religious people can function at all in anything involving real-world matters is by preventing their religion from touching it by intellectual compartmentalization. As for science, the habits of thought required for science are poisonous to religion, as are the facts it discovers.

Bottom line; religion is incompatible with everything, including science.

[Walmarticus]

But they are incompatible. Because of its dedication to illogic and due to simply being wrong about everything, religion is an intellectual poison. It ruins anything it touches; the only way religious people can function at all in anything involving real-world matters is by preventing their religion from touching it by intellectual compartmentalization. As for science, the habits of thought required for science are poisonous to religion, as are the facts it discovers.

Bottom line; religion is incompatible with everything, including science.

BAH! You are saying that people can put their rationality on standby to engage in religion and vice-versa. Fine. I can put scuba diving on standby so I can whistle a tune. They don't go well together, but neither hurts my ability to engage in either.

You might think that being irrational hurts one's propensity for rationality, but I think rationality is only bounded by irrationality.
-personal opinion.

[Guinastasia]

But they are incompatible. Because of its dedication to illogic and due to simply being wrong about everything, religion is an intellectual poison. It ruins anything it touches; the only way religious people can function at all in anything involving real-world matters is by preventing their religion from touching it by intellectual compartmentalization. As for science, the habits of thought required for science are poisonous to religion, as are the facts it discovers.

Bottom line; religion is incompatible with everything, including science.

*sigh*

My point was, let's not assume that people who are religious DON'T believe in science, okay? Not all religious people are creationists, or reject the Big Bang, blah blah blah. Stop with your fucking stereotypes.

THAT was my point. You can argue about religion itself, but don't say that "if you are religious you automatically reject ALL scientific beliefs/truth/theories, etc." Because that's fucking bullshit, you KNOW it's fucking bullshit, and it's fucking insulting.

[overlyverbose]

Note: can we dispense with the "religion and science and are incompatible". Or rather, the implication that because a person is religious, they reject all science. Because we know that's bullshit. Okay?
(Note: I'm not talking about the notion of gods themselves existing. More along the lines of, does believing in a god mean you reject things like evolution, germ theory, the Big Bang, blah blah blah)

All right?

My intention was not to imply that religion and science are incompatible. I was using two very extreme examples for simplicity's sake.

I used to be fairly religious while I was also an archaeologist. Although early human evolution wasn't my field, it didn't take experience in that field to understand that evolution is real. I know firsthand that being religious doesn't automatically imply a disbelief in science.

Mostly I just want to live and let live with respect to religion. I don't know if god exists or not, don't care anymore and don't care whether or not someone else does.

[Guinastasia]

Okay, that's cool then. I'm just sick of the stereotypes -- I'm not some creationist freak because I believe there's a god.

;)

[Rushgeekgirl]

I wish your friend was a doper who started an 'ask the woman who believes in ghosts but not gods or religions'. I have questions.

I'll be seeing her later today so I could ask! Sadly she thinks my message board adventures are boring, but then she works 60+ hours a week so fun time is limited.

[Rushgeekgirl]

But they are incompatible. Because of its dedication to illogic and due to simply being wrong about everything, religion is an intellectual poison. It ruins anything it touches; the only way religious people can function at all in anything involving real-world matters is by preventing their religion from touching it by intellectual compartmentalization. As for science, the habits of thought required for science are poisonous to religion, as are the facts it discovers.

Bottom line; religion is incompatible with everything, including science.

Oh my goodness. Are you being facetious here or are you really this hysterical? Did you just have a really bad experience with a cult or something?

[Czarcasm]

[Mod Note]This is a poll in IMHO, not a debate in Great Debates. Post your reason for your poll answer and(if you must) take the debate elsewhere. Thank you[/Mod Note]

[Mangetout]

You don't need religion to show you how good it is to help people.
Which is why I did not claim that it was so.