101. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43601 by newatheist on May 22, 2007 at 5:07 am

To Wee Flea -

David,
Two words - "what the?"

Personal revelation (for religious people) is essential. But then so it is for the atheist as well.

The Virgin Dawkins, perhaps? A ghostly choir of heavenly secularists, maybe. At the risk of exposing myself to some confounding banality, what atheist revelation are you talking about?


The following is absolutely true, and is largely for the benefit of other readers here, not you David. I'm posting it though, because you've previously alluded to the Argument from Personal Experience as part of your "evidence" of God. I know this analysis will have no bearing on your personal beliefs, so please don't respond as if I'm trying to bring that about.

It might surprise you to know my wife is religious, and she hears God's voice. Like I said, this is absolutely true. One day after contemplating (and praying about) the explanation of the holy trinity for a couple of weeks, she was walking down the street and she heard a voice say "we are one". The voice was stern and unfamiliar, and not the voice of her own thoughts.

David, it's no coincidence that you need to believe or strongly hope God exists BEFORE you can have these experiences. (God doesn't talk to me, only my wife, and this despite her prayers for my salvation.) And what is she going to think? The voice was God. There's no other explanation.

My wife can't watch scary movies without having nightmares. Cultivated by the movie, her subconscious mind manufactures dreams with all manner of beasts, faces and I daresay voices that weren't in the film, all acting out new stories and scenarios.
We've both at times over our years together looked up and asked "Did you say something?" when either of us has been sure we've heard the other's voice.

So what was the voice in the street? There are two possibilities, each one requiring consideration on the balance of probability.

(1.) The voice was a product of my wife's subconscious, which was cultivated by her existing belief, and her extended contemplation of the question, and her hoping for an answer from "God".

(2.) The creator of the universe was telepathically talking to my wife. Rather than telling her anything straight away, he'd left it a couple of weeks before he answered her questions from earlier prayers.


When I put suggestion number one to my wife, her eyes dropped in thought for a second. Then she answered (less emphatically), "No. It was God answering my question."

I know, David. I'm an agent of Satan. You'd think God would get my wife the hell away from me.

102. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42944 by newatheist on May 20, 2007 at 6:04 am

Maybe you guys can help me out. I just don't go with the whole 'religion as survival tool' idea. I think religion originated and persists for one main reason and all others are distant "also rans".

For me, survival instinct + self awareness = religion.

As a child (6 years old) I remember trying to come to grips with the concept of death. Needless to say I was terrified at the idea, and I lay awake nights thinking about how death lay ahead for me. I even wished I hadn't been born so I wouldn't have to face it.

Death was terrifying. The thought that I wouldn't even breathe any more and that my heart would stop, made me avoid feeling my pulse or hearing my heartbeat in the quiet of night for fear I would feel or hear it stop.

I was keenly aware of my innate sense of self preservation, in particular a fear of heights. I became aware of the fragile nature of my life, and also that my wanting to live was an impulse beyond my control.

Dead things were terrifying. They were hideous beyond all comprehension. The sight of a decomposing animal would burn itself on my mind for vivid involuntary recall, and the smell they produced made me want to vomit. This is what it meant, what it was like to be dead.

But I was so alive, and I liked it. A lot. Why did we all have to die, and why couldn't I just live forever? Death was simply unacceptable and ultimately obscene.

How comforting the thought of an afterlife was. Naturally at the same age (maybe earlier), I was told about God, and I was sent to Sunday school and the rest. Here then was the answer, right? Life everlasting. And all I have to do is believe this stuff, and follow its rules. Got it. My fear of death should have overwhelmed my reason, but... why was it all such a load of nonsense? The problem in the end was I simply didn't believe it, no matter how much I wanted to or even tried to.

In any case I didn't believe the Jesus and the Bible stuff. How far-fetched can you get? But clinging to the thought of eternal life, I still had a 'residual' belief though, and when my brother told me he didn't believe in God I was scared for him. I loved him and I wanted to restore his belief so he wouldn't go to hell. It became apparent to me years later this is why parents pass their beliefs on: for the 'welfare' of their children, so their children will live forever and not be "tortured forever by Satan".

Given that the concepts of death and god are simultaneously introduced to children, it's no wonder the implantation of religion is so successful. I can understand it on fear of death alone. By the way I'm okay now, thanks for asking. :)

So maybe the scientists and philosophers shouldn't be asking why people are religious. Who wants to die?

Given that atheists are such a minority, can we instead answer how it is that any of us aren't religious?

103. God . . . in other words

Comment #39145 by newatheist on May 10, 2007 at 4:55 am

Does Ruth Gledhill really think the Golden Rule "came from christianity..." Give me a break.

"(Dawkins) even agrees that religion might have helped "a bit" in this civilising process, and that something is needed to stop humanity slipping back into the extremes of Darwinian natural selection."

IMHO society is generally well developed enough to resist the call of the wild. I'm not sure what RD is suggesting here about "something being needed", and some actual quoting from the interview would have been good at this point.

Ironically it seems the only human trait that seems to widely cancel empathy (reverting us to a "wilder" state) is religion.

104. Hamas 'Mickey Mouse' calls for Muslim domination on kids' show

Comment #39131 by newatheist on May 10, 2007 at 4:15 am

Child abuse on an epic scale.

But like most child abuse, it's only most likely because their parents were abused before them. The same parents, btw, who now give their kids the phone and get the kids to "call in to the show,...singing Hamas anthems about fighting Israel."

Screwed up or what? Humanity help them all.

105. Atheist offers to send letters post-Rapture

Comment #39126 by newatheist on May 10, 2007 at 4:01 am

This is the funniest thing I've seen since the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Comment #1 said -

Maybe the people sending hate mail feel he is exploiting the fools who believe in this rapture stuff, but $4.99 isn't exactly going to force a gullible grandma into giving up her meds.

The hate mail comes from christians who know that this stuff is making fun of christianity.

And am I wrong or is there a misconception among the posters here that the guy is getting rich fleecing the faithful? He's sold 11 letters at 5 bucks each (probably bought as gags), and he's breaking even on his merchandise.

Still, hilarious stuff.
RAmen

106. Better God-fearing than sneering

Comment #38776 by newatheist on May 9, 2007 at 7:02 am

@ _J_ (comment 38759)

DEFINITELY one of the best posts I've read here.

And the atheistic church - what a utopia!

Sadly it seems no-one wants any church without the ultimate payoff. The long walk with the big guy in the sky. While the fear of death persists, the bag of sand for the plinth will never have the weight of "eternal life", even if said bag contains all the moral messages of centuries of hard learned human and scientific endeavour.

By the time we're all gathering weekly to be guided by the wisdom of scientific, philosophical, artistic and (cringe) religious history, I dare say we'll have solved most of the problems that such a church would seek to answer.

One of the main questions I've scanned this site for answers to, is "what will replace religion?" Sadly I don't think we'll ever have to worry about that, but in my search for references I haven't seen anything except some mentions of the much maligned Ayn Rand. And no-one's leaving the church for that, least of all.

In closing though, I think Stephanie Merrit should think about what people would do to comfort others if there was no church before she asserts -
"...too often, it is only the churches which bother to comfort the lonely and the dying..."

I think there's plenty of evidence we'd do just fine.

107. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38456 by newatheist on May 8, 2007 at 6:59 am

Well I may be a new atheist (as opposed to a New Atheist), but I didn't know a thing about atheism until the New Atheists put some d-cells in their megaphones.

Since I found out I'm not alone, a weight has lifted and I feel freer and more empowered than ever before.

But I won't wax lyrical any more than that. I love the thought provoking comments in this thread, but I thought I'd relax some cerebellums with my own unworthy observations about this article.

It's crap.

As a dog lover, I especially liked this bit though -

"...research has thrown up some remarkable benefits (of religion) - the faithful live longer, recover from surgery quicker, are happier..."

Seems to me I remember similar research about pet ownership.
So people... go down the street, PAST your bloody church, and on to the local animal shelter. Do us all a favour, and GET A DOG! Then go back up the street, past your church again, and on to the local park. Breath the fresh air, pat your dog, and enjoy your life. The only side effect is doggy doo, not suicide bombings.

Sorry but I really do love my dogs.

On a more serious note, I just wanted to comment on this part from the article -

"...The God Delusion is not a book of persuasion, but of provocation - it may have sold in the thousands but has it won any souls?"

It doesn't matter. TDG is doing what needs to be done. It's giving thousands a voice. As Logicel (comment 38399) said. Harlon57 (comment 38288) is also right, but the word is spreading and I'm proof. Hey wait - don't I have to email someone?

108. 4 Sermon for Matins: 'Dawkins and The God Delusion'

Comment #36743 by newatheist on May 2, 2007 at 6:11 am

point taken - thanks..
:)

109. 4 Sermon for Matins: 'Dawkins and The God Delusion'

Comment #36736 by newatheist on May 2, 2007 at 5:50 am

P.S>
Dr Sagovsky wrote -
"..supernatural is 'metaphysical' (..) and more clearly indicates the continuity between the physical world and that by which it is constituted".

The paragraph this was from sounds like agnosticism to me.

110. 4 Sermon for Matins: 'Dawkins and The God Delusion'

Comment #36734 by newatheist on May 2, 2007 at 5:44 am

It's late and I'm a little tired, so stated simply (my favourite way) -

Religion is FALLACY.
Fallacy is useless.
Religion is useless.

Science is truth.

What IS the use of something untrue?
What use, this untrue thing that has both peaceful and violent advocates.

If these people ALL know the TRUTH, the violence ends and nobody loses anything REAL. Not even the peaceful folk. They gain the truth.

The bible (John 8:32)said "the truth will set you free."
Naturally this is aimed at Christians. The following could be too.
Jack Nicholson (A Few Good Men) said "You can't handle the truth."

and Gloria Steinem, with a nod to James A Garfield, said "The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.

Accept the truth. You know you want to.

111. The God Delusion

Comment #36412 by newatheist on May 1, 2007 at 4:19 am

The article says TDG

"...doesn't answer the argument that, sans religion, humanity may fall prey to far worse moral codes, or into nihilistic relativism."

At the risk of annoying the more widely read here, can someone point me to material that does more directly address this question? I'd like to check it out.

112. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36396 by newatheist on May 1, 2007 at 3:31 am

Devolved -

You said - "the outworking of atheistic ideas of making the world better by eliminating the weaker."

a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist]
–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Hmmm. Not much in there about a person who has ideas of making the world better by eliminating the weaker. I believe what you're describing can most closely be described as eugenics.

eu·gen·ics [yoo-jen-iks]
–noun (used with a singular verb) the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Eugenics is not atheism.

113. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34754 by newatheist on April 25, 2007 at 5:44 am

Yorker -
Please don't discourage responding to the trolls. The beautiful logic that's been posted in responses when these guys stir the pot in many threads has expanded my largely uninformed mind, and there may be many other people like me who need these exchanges to broaden their understanding.

ps I tried to post a more florid comment earlier incorporating this thought but it didn't seem to come up. My apologies is this is duplicated.

114. Christians at Bible publishers have their throats cut

Comment #33077 by newatheist on April 19, 2007 at 5:20 am

Weefree you said -

"Of course he was 'nuts' and I guess if he had written about how his 'love of God' had lead him to kill people the article would have been up here pronto."

Mental illness is mental illness. From what I've seen of this site I imagine its publishers would recognise that fact, even if the killer's rant was religious. There's enough real religious crap in the world to take aim at without cheap shots like that. This guy was a real nutcase, not a real atheist.

Godless, I flicked to a newspaper site www.theage.com.au. They had video links but I didn't follow. I saw the guy's reference to Jesus on the nightly news. Down, weefree. I don't.

115. The Empty Wager

Comment #33045 by newatheist on April 19, 2007 at 4:04 am

As Sam Harris points out, Rick Warren is not only betting against atheists, but muslims, buddhists, and all other religions. That's got to reduce his odds. A quick google (sorry no more reliable source) put the worldwide christian population percentage as 33%. Is this what Rick Warren is betting on? A 1 in 3 shot? As for the cost (both individually and to humanity) of religious belief, I'm sure Mr Warren would tell you he's just fine with all that. As long as he gets to go to heaven, the world can go to hell.

116. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32435 by newatheist on April 17, 2007 at 4:05 am

to comment 32425 -

a quote I pulled from RD yesterday -
"Agnostic conciliation, (which) is the decent liberal bending over backward to concede as much as possible to anybody who shouts loud enough."

is indifference the enemy of atheism?