Agnostic.com

12 4

No longer an anti thiest

I must admit when I first heard the phrase, and so eloquently argued by the great Christopher Hitchens, that I was reeled in. There are different intrepretations, but the way I understand it, Anti thiesm is the idea that religion is positively bad for society. I agreed with this, and went from athiest to anti thiest straight away. However. I must admit that I like to challenge my own ideas, and have changed my mind about this subject. The research shows that the happier, healthier, more equal and educated society we have, the less likely we are to believe in a god, and vice versa. This suggests that religion can act as a coping mechanism for when times get very tough.

Also, when you consider that our species has existed for anything up to and beyond 300 000 years, just imagine how difficult life must have been without the advances in modern medical science and dentistry. For 99.9% of our existence as a species, our lives have been rather brutal. I can easily imagine (whilst obviously not true) a belief in the afterlife, and of something better for us and our loved ones once we have passed away, not only could have helped drive our species forwards, but may also have been one of the major contributions.

Thoughts please. Any opinion welcome

RobH86 7 Mar 20
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

12 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Magical Thinking is not a good coping mechanism for an adult.

1

I live in the states and when I look at the current trends of how religions are used to advocate ignoring science (climate change, evolution etc) and consider the inevitable outcomes of denying the obvious for the empowerment of the few in power; how the Republican party seems to be actively promoting the subassembly of opportunities for higher education, I can not help but wonder how anyone who has broken free of the dark tethers of religions and is condenser about the future for our children, is not an anti-theist.

I just see the difference between
1 A religious person (or group) using their religion to prevent science improving our lives
and
2 Someone who has an irrational belief that does not force on anyone else

1 is bad, and should be scrutinised, but 2 whilst they are wrong, I would not want to upset if they really are keeping that belief to themselves

@RobH86 I fully agree with you. The problem is, through voting etc. the policies of intellectual destruction are propagated via the religious.

@NoMagicCookie but I only see evidence that improving on the fallacies of society will dilute religion, a strident stance against it will just make them all the more determined

2

In my opinion only as a way to distance yourself from attempting to better your and your family's life. It's a sop, a crutch to your conscience. "Why should I try to change anything? I'm too weak, a nobody but later I'll be skipping from one fluffy cloud to another and looking down at everyone else in the fiery pit."

"But putting extremes aside, are atheists incapable of morality? Not at all. As sociologist Phil Zuckerman has shown, “highly secularized countries… tend to fare the best in terms of crime rates, prosperity, equality, freedom, democracy, women’s rights, human rights, educational attainment and life expectancy.” Religious countries rarely do as well."

[patheos.com]

3

That religion may have aided man in the past does not negate that it may now be the greatest hindrance to our future progress and survival. Any good it's done has been married to much harm as well. We can do better, and must, before it's too late.

Religion can be harmful but it can also be beneficial at least in some slight pragmatic sense.

@Nothing Perhaps. But I think paticularly about certain groups in the Middle East getting nuclear weapons and also of certain factions in the US attempting through legislation to move us backward and ponder that some other religion or no religion at all would serve us better. And I feel a certain urgency about it.

@Rossy92 The only argument I make is that religion does not (although it sometimes can) equal extreme behaviour. Evidence shows that when you have a fair, equal, healthy, educated society with a low crime rate, that you are most likely going to be non religious anyway. I would argue we are better off fixing societies fallacies than blaming religion, but I do agree that religion has a lot to answer to

@RobH86 Fair enough. I agree we should work on societal ills as well, and can imagine it virtually impossible to free from superstition the poorly educated. However, I would be remiss not to mention the large numbers of the supposedly well-educated, politicians among them (blocking stem cell research, I might add, amongst other progress), who still cling to these archaic beliefs.

@Rossy92 It is very frustrating to see things like stem cell research being resisted because of people with religious beliefs. They should be challenged, but by criticising their religion (although it genuinely is the problem) will only strengthen resistance against this idea, not only that but you run the risk of making this a athiest v religious battle, where many religious people will just automatically choose the side of religion (unfortunately there is strength in numbers). I say, hate the extremities of religion, not the benevolent religious

@RobH86 Just as it's said that the strength of a species lies in its ability to adapt, which is dependent on biological diversity, I think it is good we have different approaches in order work the different 'angles' of a problem. This diversity in tactic may yet be the best hope of coming to a solution? As the saying goes, it takes all kinds.

4

Religion still provides "utility" for most of mankind at the moment, so the naysayers should keep that in mind. Anti-theism is cool in the right environment (say - a university logistics or religious course). But in the open field, attacking such a huge strong force results in strengthening it. Think the middle east. No way in hell will they be argued out of their beliefs with strident arguments. They must be wooed. That'll take generations.

0

So your point here is what exactly? Is it that we should more tolerant of religions and religious practices, and less critical of them, and not be anti theists? I respectfully disagree. Just because things got us through the past doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose them now if we believe they are wrong. If you feel you personally are less anti religion now than previously, well that's a personal position and I respect that. Personally, I believe we should be more strident in dealing with religions, anti theists if you like, and I hope more people will start to think this way, especially younger people who are the future. Past generations using imaginary gods and afterlives to cope with tough times doesn't dissuade from that view.

I guess my point is that whilst an extreme religious belief is bad for society, a benvolent belief is not so bad (I know it isnt good either). But if a religious person says 'I am religious, but I let my children make up their own minds on what to believe', then I wouldn't really be strident with these people (but you could convince me I am wrong). For me the focus should be on improving the society we live in (education, health, equality, crime etc) then we are well on our way to living in a world with far less religion in our day to day lives

5

Its time to do even more research. The more religious a culture is the higher the crime rates, divorce, unwanted pregnacy etc. It is true that religion can be and is used as a coping mechanism. My question is if a coping mechanism is based on fantasy that is actually believed to be real is that really healthy? Is it not wiser to use coping mechanisms that are based in reality so that we can deal with what is real?

I certainly do understand your position and did share it. I have wrestled with it myself for quite some time. I have not completely resolved internal conflict on the subject. I have found that when one expects prayers to be answered by an imaginary God as a coping mechanism for serious problems such as cancer, It often leaves the person prematurely dead, when the nonexistant god fails to answer said prayers. They should have gone to the doctor and sought counseling.

Education is indeed a key factor. The more educated people are the better descisions they make and in general are happier. Religion actively chides people that delve into any education that challenges their religious beliefs. This can include the field of medicine. People actually watch their chidren die because they reject modern medicine due to their religious beliefs. If they do have any solice and comfort from their imaginary god that let their child die, is that good?

I am against religious practices as they are harmful to people even when they appear harmless. The term "get real" comes to mind. Having an imaginary friend as a child is one thing. Obeying an imaginary friend as an adult is dangerous.

Well said

Thanks, enjoyed it, and I agree woth alot of what you have said. Where I am at the minute is that anyone who has what most of us here would call an 'extreme' religious belief is not good for society, however, the is a larger majority in the western world where religious beliefs are quite benevolent. My attitude towards this issue can change, and yes I am always happy to continue to educate myself on this subject and am happy to have my mind changed. as of right now, I would say as long as someone says 'yes I am religious, but I let my children make up their own minds on this matter' which some religious people do say, then I have no problem with this. I would focus more on making sure we improve the society we live in (education, health, crime, equality etc) as if we can do this people are then less likely to turn towards religion in the first place.

@RobH86 I agree completely, I do continually educate myself. If someone can and does prove my thoughts to be wrong I am ecstatic as I have learned something! If they can back up their claims I will at once reconsider and adjust my thoughts.

1

I wonder if most other animals and/or insects think there is a God or not. They live brutal lives. More brutal than humans for sure.

You mean, like this?

@Meep70 Yep lol

Can't give a satisfactory answer to this question, however, there is evidence out there. The first that I am aware of is the behaviour of another member of the 'Homo' species, 'Homo Naledi' The way they buried their dead shows signs of superstition (religion). Also, I am clutching at straws with this next one, but their was a BBC documentary about a gorilla called 'Koko'. Koko was able to communicate via sign lanuage. When Koko's pet cat had passed away he asked the question 'what happens when we die'? Now this is clearly not the same as religion, however, I would say that if other species are capable of asking this question, a belief in the supernatural is surely not far away

@RobH86 Interesting. I mention insects and other animals because a lot of people like to think of these beings as mostly non-thinking (philosophical) non-emotional entities. Some people I've talked to don't believe dogs have "feelings". I disagree. Whether that's on par with thinking deeper about the topics that we think about is unknown because we might just not be able to communicate with them on a level that would allow us to know. All I ever had to do was just be near a dog and spend time with a dog to see that they do have feelings of depression and happiness etc. Even though I can see that, it's kind of hard for me to evaluate if something like an ant thinks about the stuff that we do. I should probably research and see if there is anything out there with insects being "thinking beings" in the sense of them having thoughts about God or something like that.

Brutal indeed when one animal MUST prey on other animals to survive. How preposterous the bullshit fairytale that paradise existed before mans fall and such was not the case. And I wonder if the lives of most other animals were really significantly worse than the humans of 100,000 plus years ago. At least they don't seem to have the same capacity to suffer mental anguish as us.

4

Our primitive ancestors probably did benefit from superstitions, but with new information, and advances in technology, modern humans should take advantage of the fact that WE don't have to live a fairy tale existence. Our ancestors had to do that to pave the way for more informed humans, who should actually experience life as an enlightened society.

Very well said.

I agree with everything you have said. However, for those with a benevolent belief in god, who don't force on to others (or their own children) I would find it hard to criticise these poeple to their face. If they wanted to have a debate about the existence of a god I would be more than willing to explain all the wonderful reasons why they are obviously wrong, but if they did not want to engage in this conversation, and wanted to keep their private delusions to themselves, I am not sure I would say that I would want to challenge this person (but maybe I am wrong)

5

"The research shows that the happier, healthier, more equal and educated society we have, the less likely we are to believe in a god" Sure, but for that reason, supporters of religion tend to fight those changes which would make our society happier, healthier, more equal and educated. That's why evangelical Christians fight things like universal health care, free college, and progressive taxation. If you want your society to improve, you're going to have to fight those religious people who don't want to see their influence reduced.

great point. However, my point was that the focus should be on improving our society rather than attacking religion. I think it is okay to attack extreme religious beliefs, as even other religious people will side with us on these issues,

I guess it is a debate between religion being the prevention of a better society, versus the idea that a poorer society is likely to tempt more peeple into religion. Maybe both ideas are true

6

I am not nearly so opposed to liberal Christians as to fundamentalist Christians (you could substitute "Muslims" or "Jews" for "Christians" too). In fact I have quite a bit of common cause with them.

I have even had a few of them admit to me that their beliefs are strictly personal preference, non-provable, non-binding on anyone other than themselves. I can completely deal with someone who is intellectually honest and humble like that.

Basically religion is of no relevance to me so long as someone isn't trying to impose it or its practices outside their private club.

I still think even that sort of religion is sub-optimal, but it's not my business what people get up to in their private lives.

However particularly here in the US, fundamentalism is massively harmful, and largely responsible for enabling and excusing and encouraging a lot of clear harms. Not least of which is Trumpism. And I am virulently opposed to that and will give it the contempt it deserves at every turn.

I cannot disagree with a word of this.

5

There is no justification for seeking solace in a lie.

How advanced would see new if science, education, and technology hadn't been impeded by religion?

The Arab world was far more advanced than the west until they embraced Islam over science, math, medicine, and astronomy.

JimG Level 8 Mar 20, 2018

A small distinction, if I may. The Arab (and Persian) world was indeed advanced in a number of areas, and were also responsible for retaining the ancient teachings of the Greeks, but this all occurred after they had adopted Islam. It was only centuries later that a more conservative stripe of the Islamic faith began to dampen their intellectual advancement, particularly when compared with the European Renaissance. A lesson that many Christians in this country have forgotten.

@pnullifidian You're correct. I should have made it more clear that for about four centuries, Islam and science seemed to be compatible.

I agree with what both of you are saying. But when you get religious person who is
1 not going to force their beliefs on to others
2 are prepared to accept scientific based evidence

Should we attack this more benevolent religious person?

@RobH86 There must be a distinction between attacking people and attacking religion. Ideas must be challenged; and if they can't be defended, left go.

@JimG I agree that there is a massive difference. However, whilst the religious do tend to willingly confuse the difference, someone who perhaps has a religious belief, but does not make judgements about others and keeps their veiws to themselves, I am not sure I would want to challenge their ideas. I would only do this if they showed they were willing to engage in this conversation.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:40474
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.