Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm fairly new to this forum so I don't know if this has been discussed before. Here are my atheistic thoughts on the different sides to religion.
Before I start let me say I use the terms "good" and "bad" subjectively using my subjective version of moral philosophy. In this post I make no claim on objective goodness or badness.
The Good
Religion gives some people happiness, fulfilment and mental strength. Religion can also provide a social group, which can be a positive. The local Church for example can be a positive experience for some. Finally religion can motivate people to do good - for example helping the homeless.
Note that religion is not a requirement for any of the above - You can get happiness, fulfilment and mental strength from other sources, you can have non-religious social groups and you can be motivated to do good by something other than religion. But religion does contribute positively in some instances in these aspects
Also Note that the accuracy, reliability and truthfulness of religion (or of the existence of God) is not a requirement for any of the good I listed above. If God truly exists, the above applies. If God truly doesn't exist, the above still applies.
The Bad
Religion can force negative effects on people. History is littered with religious persecutions and oppression. Even on the less murderous end of the scale, religions have at some times tried to impose their view on others outside the religion.
Note that religion is not a requirement for these negatives to happen - they can also happen outside religion. But some religions at different times have contributed to these negatives.
Also note that the accuracy, reliability and truthfulness of religion (or of the existence of God) is not a requirement for any of the bad I listed above. If God truly exists, the above applies. If God truly doesn't exist, the above still applies.
The Questionable
Both the good and the bad above are regarding the morality and utility of religion. This section is about the reliability, accuracy and truthfulness about religious claims. Anyone making a claim has the onus of giving a good, detailed reason for others to believe their claim. I have yet to see any convincing argument supporting religious claims - and in particular the claim that God exists.
Do people have anything else to add to my thoughts above? I wrote this after reading the "Religion 'ISN'T the secret to happiness'" thread and seeing some people argue for/against the reliability, accuracy and truthfulness of God existing, when that thread seemed to be about the utility of religion in fostering happiness.
What is the expectation here, to jump on religion, or cheerlead it? It's certainly ripe for going in one extreme or the other. Are we to fall in line; across battle lines accordingly?
I don't care for taking sides. I have freedom, and that's stronger than bickering and debating about matters that won't be solved here.
I'm neither entirely with those who love religion, nor those critical of it. This isn't black and white at all, as much as people try to force those two pegs in the three holes (of which the critical middle / grey plays its large role).
Last edited by Thoreau424; 07-07-2021 at 07:17 PM..
What is the expectation here, to jump on religion, or cheerlead it? It's certainly ripe for going in one extreme or the other. Are we to fall in line; across battle lines accordingly?
I don't care for taking sides. I have freedom, and that's stronger than bickering and debating about matters that won't be solved here.
I'm neither entirely with those who love religion, nor those critical of it. This isn't black and white at all, as much as people try to force those two pegs in the three holes (of which the critical middle / grey plays its large role).
I have no expectations. As per my post, I think religion has good and bad sides to it, so I'm neither a cheerleader nor a hater of religion. I am not saying it is either good or bad, I'm saying it is both. Perhaps a debate of that mixture would be nice?
The main reason I posted was that there is a difference between the good/bad of religion and the accuracy/reliability/truthfulness. And a number of posters seem to conflate the two.
Basically I'm saying the questions "Is religion a force for good/bad/mixture?" is a fundamentally different one to "Are religious claims truthful."
But you can pick any topic - politics, food, etc. - and you will find good/bad/middle or healthy/unhealthy/neutral aspects. So what's the point? As with anything, we strive to elevate the pluses and minimize the negatives. But even there we are unique and different, with different preferences and opinions (i.e. freedom), and will respond differently. In the end, it's all a crap shoot of personal differences. One person's preference equally ways against another's very different one.
But you can pick any topic - politics, food, etc. - and you will find good/bad/middle or healthy/unhealthy/neutral aspects. So what's the point? As with anything, we strive to elevate the pluses and minimize the negatives. But even there we are unique and different, with different preferences and opinions (i.e. freedom), and will respond differently. In the end, it's all a crap shoot of personal differences. One person's preference equally ways against another's very different one.
Yes you can find any topic and analyse that - that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be discussed. Indeed I think those issues should be discussed. If you would rather not discuss it that is fine.
If people are elevating the pluses and minimising the negatives of religion, I think that alone is problematic and a topic worth discussing. I think elevating the positives and downplaying negatives can in itself be dangerous.
Anyway, the main reason I opened this thread is to suggest that there is a difference between the good/bad of religion and the accuracy/reliability/truthfulness. A few posters seem to conflate the two, what is your opinion on that?
Donno. People will iff up any idea, no matter how noble and good it is. Just give them time. It all should start with changing humans, the rest will follow....
What is the expectation here, to jump on religion, or cheerlead it? It's certainly ripe for going in one extreme or the other. Are we to fall in line; across battle lines accordingly?
I don't care for taking sides. I have freedom, and that's stronger than bickering and debating about matters that won't be solved here.
I'm neither entirely with those who love religion, nor those critical of it. This isn't black and white at all, as much as people try to force those two pegs in the three holes (of which the critical middle / grey plays its large role).
Taking sides? He pointed out the good, the bad, and the questionable.
I have often pondered these very questions. I think that religion can be harmful when it imposes on others. Missionaries in Africa come to mind. Did the missionaries do more harm or good? They built hospitals where there were none for example but then they overwrote the religion's of the indigenous people.
Those same missionaries probably did a lot of harm to their own by being dogmatic and overbearing fanatics. I know of the harm done to my own father by these missionaries, he being a son of them. Would he have been any better off without them though? Well, he wouldn't have been oppressed for starters but in reality, I don't know. His oppression, as can be expected, spilled over onto me but again, did it make any actual difference? I don't know.
I have often pondered these very questions. I think that religion can be harmful when it imposes on others. Missionaries in Africa come to mind. Did the missionaries do more harm or good? They built hospitals where there were none for example but then they overwrote the religion's of the indigenous people.
Those same missionaries probably did a lot of harm to their own by being dogmatic and overbearing fanatics. I know of the harm done to my own father by these missionaries, he being a son of them. Would he have been any better off without them though? Well, he wouldn't have been oppressed for starters but in reality, I don't know. His oppression, as can be expected, spilled over onto me but again, did it make any actual difference? I don't know.
Your post reminded me the 1950s film "Return To Paradise".
A lot of atheists made up their mind that they don't know if God exist, so the only way they will have a witness of God is for God to visit them personally which could happen, but usually don't.... Still God is good, it is man that can be wicked ......
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
