So, long story short, I recently became atheist (after no small amount of research and hopes to be proven wrong) but now, knowing what I know, I can't help but wonder if there is actually something genius about the saying "Ignorance is bliss." Granted, I feel liberated and glad for understanding why God, well, does what he does (letting thousands die for pointless reasons, horrible things happening to good people, bad guys having a happily ever after on earth). Because he's not there. Never was. He wasn't there when my father died, wasn't there when my friend died in the hospital, wasn't there pretty much every time the shit hit the fan in my life. And I'm talking about MY life alone, not even going to go into the victims of the Holocaust, natural disasters and epidemics.
But the thing is, whenever all these things happened, I'd sulk for a bit (understatement) then just console myself with the thought of seeing them again when I died. We'd be reunited and then we'd get OUR happily ever after. This is what the majority of the MAJORITY (...of the MAJORITY) of the world thinks. Lots of religions, lots of happy endings. Now, if these people were suddenly shown (SOMEHOW) undeniable proof that what they thought, what they HAD to believe in was wrong and never going to happen (in short, was total BS), wouldn't that actually do more harm than good? If a mother just lost her son, wouldn't it be the merciful thing to just say that they'd meet again in due time? If it were up to me, that's what I'd say even if I knew that it wasn't true (unless they know I'm atheist 'cause in that case I'd just keep my mouth shut). My point is, it might be a delusion, but the comfort it brings can't be gotten anywhere else. I know.
Don't get me wrong, I know that people have done some really effed up things in the name of religion. Some of the worst things ever done. But I think religion has sort of made life worse and better at the same time. Imagine this scenario for example: Everyone on Earth now believes (or lack thereof?) that there is no god, there is no after life, nothing. Be honest, do you suppose crime rates would go up or down? Do you suppose most people would simply shrug and keep rollin' that Thanksgivin' turkey? ALOT of people would still remain as they were: good people. But ALOT would stop giving two shits as well. Religion is kinda like a sheperd, it keeps the loony ones in line with the fear of little things like burning for the rest of eternity. Just sayin'. I know not everyone's crazy and/or unable to deal with the pain of losing someone FOREVER (I mean, I'm alright, aren't I), just saying not everyone has that same fortitude. I think we should let those that Know to Know, and those that do not, to not.
All of this is only my opinion (I'm only one tiny person in the WORLD), and I'd really like to know what other people think about this dilemma. If you had the power to remove religion from the equation, would you do it?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
lying to someone and or living a lie is never good.
That's true, I'll admit. But I suppose I just don't have the heart to devastate someone like that. It's a great and horrible trait. :/
It's always good when the lie provides comfort. Lying is not an intrinsically bad thing and when people generalize life as you do - because it's an easy thing to say and sounds oh-so virtuous - they really do not understand their own species. You can say white is white and expect the statement to be inarguable. You cannot say lying is bad and expect the same results. People want to be lied to only insofar as they trust someone else to provide them with truthful and/or suitable answers that comfort their psyches.
People are stupid. There's no getting around that as a fact. Hence we have gods living in their heads and all that represents that kind of thinking. Tell them they have a god waiting to embrace their immortality and they will believe you. Tell them the wall paint is wet and they have to touch it to believe you. They're just that stupid. That also means they accept lies as they would truths.
Welcome to the sane group of people.
Congratulations it is not an easy achievement.
"but the comfort it brings can't be gotten anywhere else. I know."
Not really.
There are consciousness hypothesis which give the possibility for reincarnation and the idea that we are all connected to one another.
So while you are alive your conciseness gains experience and is not born with your body. Neither does it die with your body.
There is nothing religious about it, just explains some mysterious events scientifically instead of dogmatically.
If you are interested in this hypothesis mail me.
It is never a mercy to lie to people, and giving false hope is evil.
You are just deceiving them.
Think of it as telling a child that at the end of the day you would give him a sweet that you already know you won't do.
He would feel better for a while, he would even delude himself for a while even after you fail in giving him the sweet.
He might even forget about it, but somewhere deep inside him he knows you are not reliable.
I would rather give hope with things that science can explain then with things I know they are a lie.
Jeff - "So while you are alive your conciseness gains experience and is not born with your body. Neither does it die with your body...There is nothing religious about it,..."
That is New Age religion Jeff!
I disagree. Belief in the supernatural is a delusion and it is an acquired delusion that is systematically incorporated. Liberation from this line of thought is akin to being cured from a mental disease, which is what a delusion is. I do believe that a deluded person would be far less reasonable than a non deluded one and so the non deluded person would be more amenable to discussion and thus less dangerous. Secondly atheism isn't something new and extraordinary. Religion used to boast of being just that. Irreligion was the first ordered thought and all religions used dogma and power to overcome the idea of rational thought. Hindus had a school of thought called nastika charvaka which was rationalism and atheism. Abrahamic religions too advocate to be weary of disbelievers as they lead you astray and so on. It does seem that a lot of people hold steadfast in their religion, especially in times of crisis, And for them to change would be cruel and frankly impossible. However untainted and in- indoctrinated minds could learn to rely on faculty of reason and thought rather than regressing to a primal instinct of recoiling in trying times, which would prove to be far more beneficial for people and their societies. Lastly I really do believe that irreligious people are far more likely to be upstanding, and not commit crimes as they do not have religion to fall back on when things go awry, and so will always think before they leap rather than jump headfirst into bad situations hoping for a god to deliver them. We derive our moral codes from within and thus are far more true to it than those that get it from without.
You make a good case. However, I'll have to counter with this: When you see a bar of gold sitting right in a furnace, you don't reach out to take it because you KNOW it will hurt like hell (literally). But what if you KNEW the fire didn't burn after all(assuming, of course), what was stopping you from taking it then? We may derive our moral code from within, but human beings are flawed. Being able to do something pleasing without repercussions is quite a tempting offer. Not everyone thinks the same way as morally upright people, that's a fact.
LeonardThawne : "If you had the power to remove religion from the equation, would you do it?"
We are working on that . There is no way of producing a global "Eureka" moment where we suddenly pull the plug on religious thinking. If that were possible then Mark Twain , Thomas Huxley, and Bertrand Russell would have accomplished the feat long ago.
For those miscreants intent on harming others we have laws and jails to protect and deter. At this moment it seems we are in imminent danger of harm from theists not from newbie atheists.
chimp3: "There is no way of producing a global "Eureka" moment where we suddenly pull the plug on religious thinking. If that were possible then Mark Twain , Thomas Huxley, and Bertrand Russell would have accomplished the feat long ago."
I am aware of that. Truth be told, I strongly doubt such a thing could happen in my lifetime.
However, there are only so many jails in the world, and I know there HAVE to be people who've thought: 'If God wasn't watching me right now, I would totally steal that ride'. I do agree with you, though, that theists are the imminent danger. AT THIS MOMENT.
Religion has always been a good thing and will continue to be regardless of the anti-theistic railings of the few who egotistically think they are the enlightened ones. They may well be on the next rung up on the ladder of intellectual evolution but they certainly do not understand their own species.
Humans need to know they are wanted. It's the herd instinct to have a sense of belonging, a sense of community and the social strength it represents. If there was no sense of such a support structure man would be preying upon himself in short order just because he can. Man, natures most destructive creature, needs to kill and there's no boundaries for it unless he's compelled to them. Religion created value for human life. It did so by giving man a choice of doing good and claiming immortality as a reward, or doing evil and being cast into the fires of damnation as a punishment. Not really a choice, man felt compelled to do good. That's what religion did to primitive man and because he is still a primordial blood-lusting species, it still provides for policing his barbarism.
When the time comes humans have rationalized their mortality and are comfortable with it's finiteness, they will have already (latently) assigned secular value to their lives and be working towards goals bearing a common good. Until then, religion provides that.
Because man still needs to kill, though, they sanction it through their religions and, on balance, that's an acceptable toll to pay considering the consequences of zero boundaries within a barbaric species.
I highly doubt most atheists recognize this because they do not evidence it publicly. Instead, they are openly ignorant of the cause/effect relationships of unchecked destructive power. Rather, they turn from atheist to anti-theist and speak/write through egocentric thought rather than through a well-heeled presentation of man's archeological historicity within the social ordering and civilities he has put in place for himself to abide.
Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, et al, are the true pillars of highly ignorant, ego-centric buffoonery more interested in making mockeries of people, and/or names for themselves, rather than understanding what is represented at the cause/effect level of keeping societies together. Yes, societies have warred with each other but only as societies. That, in and of itself, gives us evidence that societies themselves were constructs of religions for the sole purpose of creating peaceful communities.
The world needs religion and will continue to need it despite the rantings and ravings of the anti-whatever mindset of the secular population and its tendency towards useless and socially destructive mumblings.
The true atheist, on the other hand, understands why his neighbor doesn't simply kill him for any reason whatsoever. He understands there's a fear of god at work and as long as that polices his neighbor's behavior he should be thankful. In the meantime, it's absolutely stupid to dissuade a possible killer from being just that by convincing him there is no god and therefore human life has no eternal possibility, spiritually or otherwise. The true atheist is very happy to leave sleeping mongrels alone and go about his life a silent convert to secularism. In other words, atheists are problematic in that they are extant too far ahead of man's secular evolution and, therefore, endangering themselves simply out of their ignorant use of free speech, which creates a change from silent atheism to vocally disruptive anti-theism, anti-religious, and anti-whatever-the-mood-strikes against belief systems..
Thank you for getting me. Atheists tend to think that when the era of worldwide atheism begins, EVERYONE would continue to act with the same moral ethics as they always did. Realizing that there is no heaven and no hell could very well make people forget the point of religion when it boils down to it: Living your life as a respectable person and loving your neighbour as you would yourself. Humans are imperfect, and being left without boundaries is likely to appeal to the darker side of human nature. Once again I state that this does not apply to everyone, but it applies to enough to be worried about.
regardless of Pitar very stupid arguments that he does not even consider them valid enough to defend in a serious debate(he avoids discussing them), you should actually consider arguments which people are ready to defend.
"Atheists tend to think that when the era of worldwide atheism begins, EVERYONE would continue to act with the same moral ethics as they always did."
Actually NO, Absolutely not.
The world would be much much better, the moment Theism(employed in the most powerful religions) falls from power.
What would happen:
People would start to love doubt as a good thing(which it is) that attacks brainwashing, it attacks manipulative agendas, it attacks lies and misinformation.
People will start to stop believing everything the media says without question etc....
Manipulating people would become so much harder to the point that the truth would automatically emerge from this world of deception.
This improves social health and also better political choices which in the end reflects on the country position in the world.
Here is evidence to show that the more atheistic the society gets the better it scores on most aspects in life:
"In other words: Richer countries also tend to be less religious than poorer nations."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/14/map-these-a...
And, Pitar stop insulting anti-theists like yourself please, it really makes you look dumber then you actually are.
Nyarlathotep: "That's New Age Religion" No, that's a theory that could be correct or incorrect.
LeonardThawne, welcome to the forum. I don't intend to decive people, but I'm not going to say if doing so is correct or not.
You sure?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age
"The New Age is a term applied to a range of spiritual or religious beliefs"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age#Ethics_and_afterlife
"A belief in reincarnation is very common, being viewed as part of humanity's "progressive spiritual evolution". In New Age literature the reality of reincarnation is usually treated as self-evident, with no explanation as to why practitioners embrace this afterlife belief over others, although New Agers endorse it in the belief that it ensures cosmic justice. Many New Agers adopt a belief in karma, treating it as a law of cause and effect which assures cosmic balance, although in some cases they stress that it is not a system that enforces punishment for past actions. In much New Age literature discussing reincarnation, there is the claim that part of the human soul, that which carries the personality, perishes with the death of the body, while the Higher Self – that which connects with divinity – survives in order to be reborn into another body"
I was referring to the "conscience" still existing after death. Not a spirit, not a soul. Not reincarnation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_after_death
"Consciousness after death is a common theme in society and culture in the context of life after death. Scientific research has established that the mind and consciousness are closely connected with the physiological functioning of the brain, the cessation of which defines brain death. However, many people believe in some form of life after death, which is a feature of many r̲e̲l̲i̲g̲i̲o̲n̲s̲."
You can demand it isn't religious, but it sure does sound like magical thinking: a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
From my point of view, it isn't. And I'm not saying I subscribe to that. I do however think that is an interesting POSSIBILITY, and one that should be investigated once the proper technology is developed. If it ever is. It's called being open minded. I don't subscribe to it NOW, because there is no hard proof. However, IF proof should ever come about, I have no qualms with accepting it.
Keeper of Worlds - "I do however think that is an interesting POSSIBILITY,... I don't subscribe to it NOW, because there is no hard proof. However, IF proof should ever come about, I have no qualms with accepting it."
Yeah except that goes for just about any claim: consciousness surviving death, or Keebler Elves fighting Little Bo Peep with lightsabers. Both claims are interesting, both claims have no evidence supporting them. Remember to stay as "open minded" about Kebbler Elf jedi as you are about those silly consciousness claims...
I shall do that, because if I did not, I could not call myself open minded. Just as you cannot.
Keeper of Worlds ignore Nyarlathotep the troll please, we know he cannot even stay on topic.
Thanks for the welcome. I understand the reluctance to purposely lie to someone, I'm just the kind of person who believes in the benefits of a white lie. You never know, a white lie could prevent a suicide if the person is so inclined.
...Well, maybe delay it, at the very least.
True, and I would probably resort to that myself, but only in a "all other options exaughsted " scenario.
LeonardThawne: There have always been lawbreakers that will feel the need to transgress peoples rights and so there will always be the need to police people for it and have laws to govern them, but what is the need for those laws to be divine? why aren't mutually agreed upon laws more apt, like the ones we have today. Infact the current scenario is a testament (pun intended) to the absurdity of religion as a basis for law. in ancient times when religion formed the basis of law not only was the populace more barbaric but so were the laws. maybe those were the kind of laws needed then but not certainly any more. Our laws are not a reflection of those preached and professed in these books. I am sure no one would want sharia for example (I am guessing even islamists would not want it if they were ever to learn what were its tenets). Countries that have a higher atheistic demographic seem to have a lot less crime and a better standard of living as is the case in Norway etc.(I am using the Norway model as a statistical point and not a representation that their atheism is the cause of their low crime which may or may not be the case. I am sure there are other factors as well. It is purely to show that lack of divine law did not hinder their binding to rational man made ones. And I do not wish to make the assumption that religion is the reason for crime in countries with more religious populations) but that does not mean that there is no crime and that they require no policing. No one expects a Utopia where we police ourselves but i do believe that an individual who can reason his moral for himself would be more likely to follow that moral code than one who received it from another source even if it were divine. Lastly to refute your analogy of the gold brick in fire I would say that what would stop me from reaching out and taking the brick would definitely be the consequences of my action and so i would base my actions on the expected repercussion. However your analogy would require tweaking if we would need to put it in perspective. Lets say there is a gold brick lying on a table with equal access (unhindered by a safe or fire, and what not) and i knew this bar belonged to another and so was not mine for the taking. What would stop me from taking it personally is the act of stealing would be wrong as it would deprive another more rightful of its ownership and it would create equal opportunity for others to take what would be rightfully mine and so is unlawful by mutual man made consent rather than not reaching out to take it in fear that at present i may not suffer its repercussion but after I die I MAY end up being burnt by a fire for all eternity (a punishment that seems a bit too extreme) because God said so. to put it in simpler terms, when it comes to children are they far more likely to follow instructions when explained the rational reasons behind it and thus imbibe good behaviour or are they more likely to follow because YOU said so....
Pitar: I do agree with your assessment that there are some people that would hold back their violent tendencies because their religion demands it,
Yet i doubt that they form the majority of religious people. In my estimate religious people on the whole are more rational. They seem to compartmentalise their religion from reality and are no more prone to violence than the rest of us.
The few that do hold back i presume are more fundamentalistic in their thought and to some extent confuse their religion with reality. And I believe no amount of rational idea will change their thought.
However our debates and arguments are aimed at the more rational religious people in the hope of either swaying them or at the very least softening them to our disposition.
Personally I have not told my parents of my atheistic beliefs and I know it will be an issue. Yet by using the argument of vocal rationalists I can attempt to at the very least soften their opinion. I have shown them arguments and works of Indian rationalists who are a bit more tempered than their international counterparts.
I do also agree with you that Sam Harris et al, seem to project a more extreme atheism and it has been at times harder to justify their actions than not. Yet fervent atheism or anti - theism did help me in a sense move towards being more open about my beliefs as I know that I will have to face repercussions when I do finally vocalise my belief openly.
So even though I do not agree with everything they say nor do I approve of their method I must acknowledge that it is due to their loud spokenness that I have found some courage to move forward with my beliefs knowing my idea is not radical or evil nor am I alone.