Agnostic.com

16 4

Religions: More harm then good?

The depth of intellectual damage religions impose on their followers never ceases to surprise me.

I was chatting with an old friend last night and she recalled the bad old days when she was a Catholic (I helped her recover from religion and she is now a rational atheist.) She told me when she was a theist she thought there would be time after she dies to figure out trivial things like understanding herself, evaluating the the reasons people did what they did (in the context of relationships), what and why people believed in what they believed etc. I realize faith (belief without evidence) as a process to find truth (things that can be demonstrated with evidence) is dishonest but the realization that religions have such power to distort the peripheral concepts of life and self continues to deepen my feelings of pity for the religious. Not just diminishing the importance of facts over fiction but the subsequent results of fantastical assertions on a persons life.

This reminds me of a talk Matt Dillahunty made where he noted one of his greatest objection to religions is the way belief in an afterlife lessons the value of the one life we know we actually have. - - - how as a theist, we can treat people like trash and believe we can make it all better after we die - - as a terrible waste.

The history of bad outcomes of the religious based on faith is evident in us history: [britannica.com]
and current events like the suicide note found beneath her hanging body from a lovely person I once knew, It read, “I have killed myself so I can live forever with Jesus and my dead father in heaven” such examples continue to demonstrate bad outcomes, all in the name of faith.

I define religion as belief structure founded in faith. (belief without evidence) If you don’t need faith, (can demonstrate with facts), you don’t have religion, you have the foundation for reality.

My question is:

How do you interpret the effect of religions asserting faith as facts: Does this position degrade the beauty of reality?

  • 63 votes
  • 5 votes
  • 1 vote
NoMagicCookie 8 Sep 2
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

16 comments

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

2

I have never had a religion never wanted one I respect anyobdy who does want one as long as htey don't try to convert me - I leave them and their god alone and expect the same respect in return - If anyone does ocme up against me about my unbelief I have no squeamishness about walking away - Life is too short to have to patronise people by pretending .

"I do not believe in God because I do not see from religions except violence." with other meaning, we do not know God only through religions. ...
Of people who was an atheist - for example he believe in god Perhaps from a small scientific issue .. Then he look for religion that supports it ..
The first problem I have is not in religion .. I look for existence or ..non existence .. but Not from , bias or emotions

1

Having finally rid myself of my religious upbringing, and felt for the first time, utterly liberated and able to breathe deeply, my answer of 'more harm than good' is hardly unbiased. But I would be willing to compromise with the religions of the world and perhaps give them a pass, if they all would do just one thing: wait until children are of voting age, or at least the age of consent, to introduce the concept of religious faith.

0

Religions do equal harm and equal good. Most of the time.

1

The interchanging of the words “faith” and “religion” does not seem right to me because not all religious groups require faith or belief. Besides, there are large numbers of people who are not associated with any religious group but who practice their own private forms of religion. It is entirely possible to have deep religious sentiments without making unfounded claims.

So far as living in a fantasy world, anyone who believes in a materialist/reductionist model of reality and who thinks that science has answers to the profound enigmas of reality is living in a fantasy world IMO.

Please provide an example of a religion that does not use faith (belief without evidence).

@NoMagicCookie So far as organized religions, Generally New Thought churches do not require belief, although they do set forth a God concept. I believe that the Quakers require no belief. Also, there is the Unitarian Church which requires no belief, and which is attended by many atheists. Buddhism is not about belief in God. I don’t know that they require anything except meditation.

In the way of personal, private religious sentiment, there are many people who describe themselves as “spiritual” and who do not view their spirituality as a belief or faith. Einstein, for example, sometimes said that he was an atheist, yet we have this:

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

Finally. You say that faith is belief without evidence, and I don’t agree with that. In almost every case there is at least some evidence. It might not be the testable evidence that you require, but it is evidence nevertheless. We all make decisions daily based on evidence that is not air-tight.

What I am saying is that there are a lot of people who are critical thinkers, courageous and intelligent who follow a religious path.

@WilliamFleming New though churches 1st core belief is "God or Infinite Intelligence is "supreme, universal, and everlasting"; FAITH

Quakers believe "sense of Christ's direct working in the soul" FAITH

Buddism core belief "There is an afterlife.' FAITH

Strike three you're out! You do realize it only takes a few seconds to fact check incorrect assertions? Right?

so Einstein Metaphorically re-defines religion to suite himself and does not include faith. His honest relationship with reality is not by accepted standards, a religion.

"In almost every case there is at least some evidence. It might not be the testable evidence that you require," Evidence is defined as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." We are back to "Truth" defined as things that can be demonstrated. You failed attempt to redefine evidence does not add Merit to your argument.

"What I am saying is that there are a lot of people who are critical thinkers, courageous and intelligent who follow a religious path."

I agree. They exist. I often wonder how much better off those for the most part critical thinkers would be if they didn't have to deal with the cognitive dissidence many religious impose?

@NoMagicCookie Maybe you are the one who has struck out. [google.com]

You can advocate for certain concepts without requiring belief. Scientists do that all the time.

I don’t have to redefine evidence, and I have not done so. In a court of law you have all sorts of evidence. There’s eyewitness testimony, expert opinion, circumstantial evidence, material evidence, etc. All those are evidence. In a laboratory most of those types could not be used, but they are still evidence. We are not in a laboratory.

@WilliamFleming

Where did you find the non-theistic Quakers (a modern subset of Quakers) defined as a religion? I have found them sited as a "movement", and "organization" but despite much time reading, have yet to find a single reference recognizing this "Group" as a religion.

I did find some questions about non-theistic Quakers being a religion . . ."Can an atheist claim with integrity to be a “birthright Friend” if one has abandoned faith in the God, when the historic heart and soul of the Quaker movement has diminished all else in service to a dynamic relationship with the Living God?"

I once had a good relationship with a woman (she left the state) her parents were Quakers. She asserted Quakers were not a religion as they did not require faith (belief without evidence).

"You can advocate for certain concepts without requiring belief. Scientists do that all the time." So science demonstrates with evidence patterns that support concepts (theory) and do not require you to believe the facts that support the patterns.

Yea, so what? Science does not dictate belief. Just as you are free to believe nonsensical things that can not be demonstrated, You are free to not believe things that can be demonstrated to be true.

Are you actually asserting facts necessarily dictate belief? I wish. If that were the case, we would have no religion as faith (belief without evidence) would not be evident.

"I don’t have to redefine evidence, "
You really are missing the point.
Credible, testable, falsifiable evidence has merit, to assert "In almost every case there is at least some evidence." Some evidence includes such nonsense as "I just felt the spirit" Face-Palm.

Science most certainly lacks the answers, and freely admits this. But consider the alternative. Can we rationally expect religion to offer answers for which science remains ignorant? Must we resort to a gap-filling faith rather than simply say, we don't know, and neither does religion?

But a 'private religion?' A religion of one? By all means! But we all know that this is not what most people associate when asked. But then, most people are not like my avatar, who said,
"My own mind is my own church," and "The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." I long for a world where such values were supreme.

@pnfullifidian Great quote from your avatar. I like that very much.

“Can we rationally expect religion to offer answers for which science remains ignorant? Must we resort to a gap-filling faith rather than simply say, we don't know, and neither does religion?”

Of course not. Religion is not a set of beliefs or faith about nature, or ought not be. There are some very deep and profound mysteries about reality that are not even addressed by science, and are perhaps unknowable by the human mind. The role of religion IMO is to foster awareness, appreciation, and gratitude. To say that God did it is no answer at all.

IMO it is perfectly legitimate to discuss and speculate about the possibility of a higher intelligence beyond our human realm. Discussion of the unknown is an integral part of science. How would science ever learn anything new if scientists only studied things that were already accepted and proven?

Granted that some religious organizations have put forth a lot of false information, but that in no way invalidates the concept of a higher intelligence. That question is still open.

@WilliamFleming “There are some very deep and profound mysteries about reality that are not even addressed by science, and are perhaps unknowable by the human mind.”

Each “deep and profound” mystery--a word that raises red flags with me, due to its overuse by religion--should be examined on a case-by-case basis. I would ask you to name several ‘mysteries’ that science does not address, and further ask that, if they truly are unknowable, of what use is it to make any claim or assertion regarding them?

“The role of religion IMO is to foster awareness, appreciation, and gratitude.”

Really?! According to whom? As a secular humanist, I see religion as having, on the whole, disqualified themselves for holding a monopoly on such positive behaviors.

“…it is perfectly legitimate to discuss and speculate about the possibility of a higher intelligence beyond our human realm.”

It stands to reason that, in a universe of billions of galaxies and trillions of star systems, there would be a vast number of intelligences higher than our own. Such speculations and discussions are most certainly within the realm of science.

“How would science ever learn anything new if scientists only studied things that were already accepted and proven?”

Agreed. And this is the polar opposite of religion and faith, which claims to already have answers.

@pnfullifidian

“I would ask you to name several ‘mysteries’ that science does not address, and further ask that, if they truly are unknowable, of what use is it to make any claim or assertion regarding them?”

In the introduction to his book titled “QED”, Richard Feynman discusses the limits of science. Feynman had worked out an elegant mathematical model that accurately predicts the probability of various paths followed by photons. It is a very intriguing and unexpected model, leading to questions about why things should be that way. Feynman warns against asking why. He says that no one knows why and will probably never know why. When students ask why, they are told to shut up and compute.

There are various profoundly deep questions not addressed by science. Why does anything exist at all? What is the nature of deep conscious awareness and how does it arise. The enigma of personal identity: Why am I me? How can we have free will if we are only material bodies? How did life get started? In the final analysis, IMO nothing at all is truly understood except superficially.

There are those who sit on their golden thrones of scientific knowledge, thinking that they understand just about everything there is to know and looking with condescension upon anyone who dares mention metaphysical ideas. Yet those people haven’t the slightest idea of who or what they are, or of the nature of their only vehicle for knowing, conscious awareness. They take for granted the very nature of existence itself: according to quantum gravity theory there are no “things”. Reality is not made out of matter. Time does not exist. Space is granular.

It’s not a matter of making claims and assertions. Some churches do make unfounded claims and assertions, and I join with you in criticizing them, But their doing so does not invalidate or impugn metaphysical speculation in general, intuitive ideas, or deep awareness, appreciation, and gratitude for reality.

@WilliamFleming your examples are examples science DOESN'T know, not examples it CAN'T know. in 1300 AD, when science as an actual discipline was forming, they didn't know about germs, and they couldn't, given the technology and available knowledge of the day. that did not make germs a think science "couldn't answer", it made them something science "hadn't answered".

"Why does anything exist at all" is the one question in your "examples" that might actually be beyond the limit of human science, and that is because to measure "reality" at it's core would require tools so small, so fast, and so precise that they themselves would be unusable for us.

the nature of conscious awareness IS being studied, and we are making leaps and bounds. the nature of "self" is being studied, and we are developing a greater and greater understanding of how "self" is constructed from the various feedback loops in our brain wiring. free will is being understood better and better on a daily basis, as are it's roots in subconscious process and probability driven heuristics. How did life get started? being studied, inroads into the processes of abiogenesis are being made regularly.

this is the fallacy of thinking everything we can know we already know. time and time again metaphysical claims have been debunked by scientific process and understanding, and time and time again the metaphysicists have had to retreat farther and farther into what's left not known YET.

@HereticSin perhaps you are right, and someday science will provide some of those answers. No one knows the future, so such musings fall into the category of speculation or faith.

Neuroscience can study nerve impulses until doomsday, but they’ll be no closer to understanding the nature of conscious awareness IMO. They might catalog some of the nuts and bolts, but as long as they are stuck in the materialist rut all their explanations will be superficial.

On the other hand, cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman has an intriguing theory. Perhaps there’s hope.

I don't know if science will ever provide those answers. but to claim that us not having the tools means religious woo is a viable alternative is kind of ridiculous. scientific speculation is based on what we've achieved, and what we know. metaphysical explanation is based on "wow, this is really deep, must be transcendent."

@HereticSin I have never thought of religion as an alternative to science. They are in different categories.

Science has come a long way, but at its core science is superficial. I don’t know what you mean by transcendent but if you mean supernatural you are not describing what I think, unless you say that all of nature is supernatural.

“Wow, this is really deep” does not even begin to describe what I experience in regard to the staggering implications of the mystery of existence.

@WilliamFleming okay

@WilliamFleming I have yet to meet an honest scientist or student of science who condescends from a golden throne as you’ve described. We know of no end to the process of learning, in greater and greater detail, about the universe and the phenomena by which we are surrounded. Any scientist worthy of the title realizes that all of our understanding is, more or less as you say, superficial. Science works on the edges, or frontiers of our knowledge, which appear almost boundless.

Some of the deep questions you pose are clearly in the realm of science, and will eventually be answered—perhaps in our lifetime. Through the advancement of neuroscience and the development of artificial intelligence, we will eventually understand the mechanisms which result in personal identity and self-awareness, and we are much closer today than we were during Darwin’s lifetime to understanding the chemical processes which resulted in abiogenesis.

But science seeks the answers to ‘how’ questions, not ‘why’ questions. Why questions imply agency or an unknown actor, the evidence for which has yet to be detected. To quote one of my favorite philosophers, Neil Peart,

Why are we here?
Because we're here
Roll the bones
Why does it happen?
Because it happens
Roll the bones

There is clearly some randomness in our being here, and repeatedly asking 'why' is, after all, rather childish. Best that we roll up our sleeves and do the heavy lifting of finding out 'how.'

1

Harms it. But it also depends on the level of faith in deeply religious people they are so wrapped its insane they can't even think for themselfs. And anyone that is outside of their small bubble is evil. Any action no matter how horrible is ok so long has its done by one of them. Reality revolves around them. They can not see reason and will bow to any insanely so long has it fits their ideas.

1

"This reminds me of a talk Matt Dillahunty made where he noted one of his greatest objection to religions is the way belief in an afterlife lessons the value of the one life we know we actually have. - - -"

I very much agree that belief in a literal afterlife devalues the life we do have. In a sense everything we believe that doesn't happen to be true has that effect to some degree.

"I define religion as belief structure founded in faith. (belief without evidence)"

Seems to me there are plenty of examples of belief-without-evidence that don't rise to the status of religion. I think you've come closer to defining superstition here. I think religion deserves a broader definition, tainted though it truly is by its long association with superstition. Still, it's authentically more than that. It easily meets the rule of thumb for detecting evolved traits, being found in all cultures and in all time periods inhabited by Homo sapiens. If it is indeed adaptive then by definition it has contributed more good than harm to our species... at least in the past.

But of course evolved traits that served us in the past could doom us in the future as changes in our environment easily outpace our ability to adapt. Until genetic manipulation technology gets a lot better than it currently is it's unrealistic to expect an adaptive trait to vanish from our DNA due to an aggressive propaganda campaign or even by force of law.

The tool that we have used successfully in the past to counter the effects of evolutionary mismatch is culture. Culture is the fast(er) evolving component of human nature. When environment changes beyond the capacities of our physiology to cope, our psychology has to fill the gap.

An evolved trait isn't going away. If it's pointless to beat a dead horse it's equally pointless to beat a horse that can't die. Better to get on that horse and try to train it. Culturally. Reframe the cultural understanding of this horse from literal to metaphorical. It's not a new idea; it just hasn't found popular acceptance yet. It might not ever, but it is a rational path to pursue. Reframing can't be arbitrary; it must in fact stick more faithfully to verifiable objectivity and sound reasoning. A reframing of the concept of religion that could rationally span the old and the new mindsets could be: "Whatever practice a person uses to maintain peace of mind." It appears to me that the reduction of suffering was always a core component of the ancient impulse to religious behavior, and certainly a need we haven't outgrown. There is useful commonality here.

We can't change the past. We can't erase our genetic inheritance yet. Dawkins' wet dream will never come true. It's not based in science. It's based in personal resentment and narrow thinking. The best way to kill superstition is not to keep trying to kill the horse it's riding; it's to displace superstition by riding its horse better than it does. Rationality and education have the capacity to be much better equestrians than does superstition... if they are indeed smart enough not to kill their only horse.

People who believe things that aren't true don't need the rug jerked from under their feet; they need education. Religion is not even just a belief though; it's a primary worldview. Attacking primary worldviews just causes entrenchment.

In the past, religion, and probably even superstition, did more good than harm or it wouldn't still be with us. Superstition has proven to be displaceable by education. Religion though is better ridden in a different direction than slaughtered. We probably don't need superstition any more but we still have plenty of need for relief of psychological suffering, and only personal practices can help, and a social institution that is willing and able to direct this training in all neighborhoods, say, weekly? Science doesn't want that job. Religion does. Science and religion need to kiss and make up. Superstition needs to be lovingly escorted off the property.

"If you don’t need faith, (can demonstrate with facts), you don’t have religion, you have the foundation for reality."

Faith and superstition, again, aren't the same thing. Mistaking fiction for fact is just ignorance. Faith is what you use when circumstances are pressing you to make a critical decision and adequate facts are simply not available. When life forces us to act in the absence of adequate knowledge the only choices available to us are faith or despair. Take your pick.

The goal certainly should be to construct our foundation with concrete facts to the extent possible but there's a lot we don't know in any given situation, and waiting for complete information isn't always possible. A society can't function without a high level of faith, or her twin sister, trust.

"My question is:
How do you interpret the effect of religions asserting faith as facts: Does this position degrade the beauty of reality?"

Nothing humans do can degrade the beauty of reality. Faith, in my opinion is a fact. A fact of life. Religions that assert falsehoods as fact are clearly false religions. Practices that relieve personal suffering do not require false beliefs.

skado Level 9 Sep 3, 2018

"Faith and superstition, again, aren't the same thing." Please give me an example of the use of religious foundation of faith defined as "Belief without evidence" as NOT a product of superstition.

"When life forces us to act in the absence of adequate knowledge the only choices available to us are faith or despair. " FALSE DICHOTOMY!

I am perfectly comfortable recognizing there are things I (and current science) do not understand. I'm not sure if you understand what a lame excuse this falsehood appears to be - a sad attempt to legitimize faith (Belief without evidence) make-stuff up so we "don't feel "despair" I often teach "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer.

Faith, in my opinion is a fact. Fine. The existence of the brain state defined as faith exists. - - - what's your point?

"Nothing humans do can degrade the beauty of reality." I really wish this was true. There are so many examples that demonstrate the opposite of your assertion I could fill pages with examples. In keeping with the context of faith degrading the beauty of life, please explain how, during the Salem Witch Trials, the 19 that were found guilty and hanged did not have their beauty or reality degraded. If you wish to stick to non-lethal outcomes, It greatly saddens me when theists (once de-converted) tell me of how regretful they are when they look back- that they wasted so much of their lives living in fantasy land. . . How much more truth they are free to recognize and appreciate the beauty and diversity of reality. I can recall several once theists I helped see the light of truth over faith express this observation.

0

i think we have a winner 😛

2

I checked the "bad" answer in the poll but i am not sure about the degrading beauty part. as for the depth of the harm it inflicts on its followers, there is that harm, no denying that, but i think also that people who are already in some way intellectually and/or emotionally harmed are the people who gravitate to religion in a serious manner (as opposed to irreligious folks who might believe in a god in some vague way but don't let that belief control their lives).

g

2

Religion was started as a political ploy. At lest the christian religion was. There's untold damage caused by religion.

To explain the origins or religion, I am rather fond of this quote: “Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” ― Mark Twain.

@NoMagicCookie And that's politics as usual.

@freeofgod Well played.

0

I just think religion was a necessary step in human social development, but maybe we can outgrow the need for it. In a world set up as us versus them, it was a way to expand "us" to include more than just family. Same thing for nationalism. We won't outgrow them until we see "us" as all humanity, and although I feel the internet brings this vision closer, it's sadly apparent that many aren't there yet.

Lauxa Level 5 Sep 2, 2018
5

My brand of religion (Independent Fundamental Baptist) kept me chained for thirty-five years, years I cannot get back. I cannot think of one single positive outcome that wouldn't have been possible in a rational, evidence-based life. I could produce a rant, but I shall refrain for the sake of any potential friendships I herein may gain.

Those people are downright scary.

4

I believe that all fundamentalist religions are harmful to the ideal of peaceful coexistence and good citizenship in general. Their moderate and reform cousins seem to me to be mostly harmless, except when they provide a safe haven for their extremists.

All theistic "faith" leads to the same road, a suspension of critical thinking. The most egregious damage done by religion is to teach that "faith" is a virtue. Almost every, if not every, theist I have ever met is in that state because they have been convinced that "faith" is a virtue.

@intrepid65 There's all sorts of faith. I'd suggest we distinguish between unreasoning faith that drives religions, political movements, any other unfounded social activities vs. the faith we all have that we can trust people, ideas, and things that have been shown to be valid and useful..

@jerry99, I did that. I specified "theistic faith" which is different than confidence or trust one has from critical thinking coupled with experience.

3

Theistic faith is rooted in wishful thinking. In this way it is almost entirely subjective. This is one of the dynamics that lead Constantine to convene the council of Nicea. In order to attempt some sort of objectivity and therefore unity of belief. But such standards are really just a conglomerate of subjective views placed in a neat little package to appear objective. "Science replaces private prejudice with publicly verifiable evidence." - Richard Dawkins. Unfortunately people who do not have a good grasp of epistemology never figure out the mental trap they call theism.

4

I think most of us here feel that religious faith is a net negative for the world. Not uniformly -- liberal Christians and Muslims are far less problematic than fundamentalists, for example -- but even people who hold their religious beliefs loosely must by definition at least believe in unsubstantiatable supernatural beings and realms and this must effect their ability to deal in reality to an extent. And those effects can never be totally limited to themselves. They have spouses, children, employers and employees and their poor reasoning and bad decisions effect those people.

Brilliantly stated. I could not agree with you more.

1

The thing is, my understand of Catholic doctrine doesn't even support your friend's prior beliefs. The actual stance of the Catholic church is that the afterlife is spent in pure bliss, as one with their deity. So, there isn't a lot of independent thought or room for soul searching in their actual dogma. (Although that is probably what purgatory is for)

Most of the rank and file has no idea of the reality of the Catholic belief system.

Ozman Level 7 Sep 2, 2018

Even under the Umbrella of "the reality of the Catholic belief system" there is a great deal of variation (different interpretation of the "truth" ). The young woman who killed herself to live forever with Jesus and her dead father was a Catholic. This was her faith based belief under her understanding of her Catholic based upbringing. Likewise, the "time to fix things after I die" is an understanding of heaven by more then one Catholic that I know.

@NoMagicCookie very true, but that just strengthens my point. Everyone picks and chooses the dogma that best fits what they want/desire. And just because the people in the pews believe it, doesn't make it official church doctrine. IF the "universal church" and the "infallible Pope" were truly as legitimate as they want people to believe, then that would be the truth/the way things are, and what Johnny Catholic "believes' hardly matters.

However, since it's all brilliant shenanigans (my replacement for bs, which I am determined to make happen 😉 ) anyway, it hardly matters.

Science doesn't care what you believe, the facts are the facts. In religion, everyone has their own personal beliefs, and none of them seem to match fully.

Wait - doesn't the Catholic religion teach that suicide is a mortal sin and a suicide will never get to heaven? Aren't they the ones that wouldn't even let suicides be buried in hallowed ground? So how the heck does a Catholic think suicide will let them be with Jesus?

@exilesky . . . and the Catholic church also teaches that good people who have not been exposed to the "Truth" of Jesus and god will not burn in hell forever because they did not have the opportunity to learn the "Truth" of their saviour. Now, take this information and look at the church's promotion of indoctrinating people into their faith. If they are 50 percent effect in "converting people into Catholics" by their definition, they have also condemned to burn in hell forever those that did not know about Catholicism . Does this not place Catholic missionaries in the revered position to damn people to hell? What a moral organization the Catholic church is. - - and yes, in the (insert expletive catholic dogma here) your body belongs to god not to you so if you kill yourself you have taken from god. But as noted earlier, even under the umbrella of Catholic church, not all believe the same (faith) (belief without evidence) based assertions.

@exilesky And don't forget the baby selling scam from the fifties and early sixties.

@NoMagicCookie , the 'no exposure theory' you just sited wasn't what the catholic college I went to was teaching in the early eighties. Then it was 'I/we don't know'.

1

I think religion overall has a negative affect, but I will admit there is a huge percentage of people that would be criminals if they didn't have religion.

But aren't there also a lot of people who do evil things in the name of religion (war, bigotry, conversion therapy, shunning, crazy people killing their kids, etc.)? And what about those who have no problem hurting people in this world thinking they will just ask for forgiveness from their sky daddy later (I'm looking at you, GOP)? Yes, religion keeps some people from a life of crime, but it also enables others. Maybe it's a wash.

@dkp93 Spot on!

As a side note, I'm not sure how you manage maintaining your non-theist sanity living there in the Greenville area!

@Coppersmith1965 It's not so bad. I think I must put out a non-religious vibe or something. No one ever asks me what church I go to. When someone does say something religious, like my sweet neighbor who says stuff like "I asked god to please tell me what to do", I just smile and nod. I can tolerate their crazy as long as they aren't trying to shove it down my throat, and no one is doing that for the most part. I have several good friends who are religious, but we all know not to discuss it. That said, not a day goes by that I don't get ticked off for a minute or so by some religious nonsense I witness, maybe a billboard or news story, etc. I guess I just learned to deal with it and not let it affect my life too much.

@dkp93 You are absolutely correct, most of the wars in this world have been religion related. I was referring to a specific group of people.

@dkp93 I wonder what it would be like if I were to go back and run into my former fundy friends. It would be awkward, I'm sure. It's ironic that my most recent neighbor up near Traveler's Rest was a liberal democrat who never spoke a word to me in the eight years I lived next door. Perhaps she would be less angry if she knew me now.

@Coppersmith1965 So you're from the Greenville area then?

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:169916
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.