Atheists, do you wish you could afford to ignore religion completely?

[Htom Sirveaux]

If religion existed, but wasn't looking down on you or threatening you with discrimination or trying to force people to obey beliefs they don't hold, would you give it even a single thought?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Well sure, but that's a privilege not available to atheists.

Even in the most secular countries, there are always still theocratically-minded politicians working to worm their way into power so they can insert religious beliefs into public policy.

[cantbeserious]

2. Yes - Very Tired Of Organized Religions

eom

[edhopper]

3. Do you really think

That is what bothers atheists most about religion? That their fee-fees are hurt?
Not that they are troubled by the range it does to the people around them and the world they liven9n.
Really?

[immoderate]

6. If you can believe religion, you can believe anything!

--imm

[hrmjustin]

7. Not true.

[immoderate]

8. With some exceptions, which would be self-evident, can you cite some beliefs that NO religious...

...person would ascribe to?

--imm

[hrmjustin]

10. Well we don't believe that Lizards really rule the Earth.

[cleanhippie]

13. You can't prove they don't.

[hrmjustin]

18. No but the fact we believe in religion does not mean we will believe anything.

[cleanhippie]

19. Says you.

[hrmjustin]

21. yes! says me.

[cleanhippie]

22. Which really means very little.

[cleanhippie]

25. That wasn't an insult.

It was an objective observation. Just because "you say so" means nothing when it comes to finding an answer to the question.

[hrmjustin]

29. my bad! Common sense says you can't get a religious person just to believe anything.

[cleanhippie]

31. When people believe a dead person came back to life...

Their "common sense" may be called into question.

[hrmjustin]

32. Some would agree with you but there are plenty of things you can not get me to believe.

[cleanhippie]

36. Not through this medium, at least.

So we will never really know the answer to that.

[hrmjustin]

37. The fact is some people are gullible but being religious does not mean you are automatically

gullible.

[cleanhippie]

38. Says who? You?

Are we back to that again?

Besides, we're not talking about being gullible.

[hrmjustin]

39. lol! It is my opinion. you asked my opinion.

[cleanhippie]

40. We're not talking about being gullible.

We're talking about being able to believe in absurdities.

Do you think believing in absurdities is the same as being gullible?

[hrmjustin]

41. Not always no but sometimes.

[cleanhippie]

42. Then you've just negated your entire hypothesis.

Your contradicting yourself again.

[hrmjustin]

44. It is late so if I did I am sorry.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

81. The original question was

"With some exceptions, which would be self-evident, can you cite some beliefs that NO religious person would ascribe to?"

hrmjustin gave a specific example of David Icke's lizardmen ruling the earth. He answered the question.

[rug]

46. Obviously you can.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. I suppose if you put everyone through a big enough juicer, you could tell.

[rug]

67. There's no time for that, what with all these giant lizards walking around.

[immoderate]

33. Not ALL religious people believe that, but you can be pretty sure some do.

And admittedly, it was a broad challenge, but the implications of adopting one sort of non-rational thinking, surely allows that one can adopt others.

--imm

[hrmjustin]

34. Well I like to think I am very rational.

[immoderate]

43. Funny thing though, EVERYBODY thinks they're rational.

It's like a function of protoplasm. People justify their actions and beliefs in a way that accords with their world view and personality. It's how we go on.

And when our beliefs come up against a contradiction, the "mind" has ways of smoothing the inconsistency, but up to a point, which depends on how much cognitive dissonance the person could tolerate. And then ...

--imm

[Warren Stupidity]

62. One can be "very rational" and believe in ridiculous stuff for which there is no evidence.

[rug]

47. Name the religion that does.

[Brettongarcia]

48. The 1) current article in Cognitive Science says that Christians tend to accept fantasy as real

Many religions try to militate against this. But it happens. Irish Catholics for example, might have believed in God ... but also fairies, or "wee people."

It is especially important to note though that the real damage done, is at a more subtle level. Though religions might try to stop fantasy bleed-over, and catch obvious cases (of "syncretism" and so forth), they seem to have missed the more subtle effect noted by Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, in its July 2014 issue.

2) But then too? Even if there was not much bleed-thru, still the main content of religion is mostly fantastic, unrealistic, and destructive; just in itself. The belief among some (not all) Catholics, that you can just sprinkle on some Holy Water, and be cured of every fault or disease, that you don't need medical science, for example, is a destructive fantasy.

[rug]

70. I see. You can't, your allusion to Irish Catholics notwithstanding.

[Brettongarcia]

69. Though the "lizard brain" might seem to some, to motivate many.

[hrmjustin]

71. explain please?

[Brettongarcia]

73. Psychology posits that deep in the human brain, is a residual brain like a lizard. Close to the stem

A leftover from evolution. This part of the brain is connected to lizard traits, like "territoriality" and "ritualistic" behavior. Or you might say, Religion and its "promised land."

(For a fast and dirty intro, see "Triune Brain" in Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain Then check the serious scholarship of course.)

[hrmjustin]

74. Thanks for the link and explaination.

[Htom Sirveaux]

9. No, the list was in no particular order.

I do think there are some atheists who are very annoyed and offended (understandably so) when some Christian tells them they are bad enough to deserve hell, or that atheists just can't be moral without God.

[edhopper]

11. Why wouldn't someone find that insulting

I know believers who are told the same thing because their beliefs are different.
But that is far from the main problem I have with religion.
As long as religion has a negative influence on what happens to us all, I can't ignore it.

[Htom Sirveaux]

12. Indeed, and my question assumed that

you couldn't afford to.

[edhopper]

16. It sounded to me like you thought the biggest problem we have

Are personal insults and attacks. Without those, we could just ignore it.
Did you mean something else?

[Htom Sirveaux]

20. I was just trying to illustrate a state of religion

that had no negative impact on the world. I wasn't trying to rank atheist priorities. As I said, that list was in no particular order.

[edhopper]

24. I guess if no one acted primarily on their

Religious beliefs. If those beliefs didn't get special priveledge, or that whole countries didn't base their law and government on those beliefs. I could ignore it.

[cleanhippie]

28. A state of religion that has no negative impact?

Does such a thing exist?

[Htom Sirveaux]

35. I was imagining a world where all religions were harmless.

So no, not currently it doesn't, taken as a totality. If you take certain parts of various religions in isolation (and depending on whether you consider Unitarian Universalism a religion), then yes, it does. I don't think anyone is making the case that the UUs or Liberal Quakers are hurting anyone.

[Brettongarcia]

49. Richard Nixon was a Quaker; UU's lend more credibility to the rest of religion than it deserves

It is nice to think that there is some nice - say "spiritual" - religion out there. One that does no harm. But there are arguments that even spirituality itself denigrates and destroys material life, say (James 2.14-26). Even the most apparently harmless spiritual or ascetic monk, by teaching that we don't need material "possessions" or actual physical food, can lead others to starvation.

So even the most apparently "harmless" religions, turn out to be far more destructive and intrusive than many would think.

[Htom Sirveaux]

55. That escalated quickly.

From Richard Nixon (an evangelical, not Liberal, Quaker according to this article) and "lending more credibility...than it deserves" (which implies that we agree about the merits of UU taken by itself) to "leading others to starvation" (!?) all because of a word ("spiritual&quot that I never mentioned.

[Brettongarcia]

66. You might think we'd be free from religious coercion, 1) if religions were more pacifistic.

Or 2) if they were say, more interested in spiritual things, in heaven, rather than worldly activity. But? As it turns out, even our apparently more other-worldly or pacifistic religions, can have destructive effects in this world.

First 1) even apparently pacifistic Quakerism has an annoying "evangelical" trick up its sleeve.

And if you are looking for MORE examples of non-interfering religions, you overlooked a second candidate. Which ALSO has problems with it. Elsewhere, Dr. Woodbridge Goodman notes that likewise, 2) even ascetic, meditative, "spiritual" religions - which often seems to eschew physical action in this material world - are "over-spiritual." To the point of attacking materially functional things, needs. Like the need for physical food.

So your hint that some religion might be non-interfering enough, does not seem right. Not even in the case of Quakerism. Not even in the case of meditative spiritual monks. Who seem totally withdrawn from the "world," and interference with it.

[Htom Sirveaux]

72. It would be better if you asked me what I think, instead of

attributing your particular understanding of "spiritual v. worldly" to me, since I have not claimed it.

[rug]

14. Is insulting a bad thing?

[Brettongarcia]

50. Rational discourse is much better

[rug]

68. I agree but he didn't answer the question.

[Leontius]

76. They have no right to be offended.

[SheilaT]

4. I actually consider myself more of an agnostic

than an atheist, but I pay almost no attention at all to religion, other than to be annoyed at various times about it.

Organized religion has absolutely no impact in my life in any meaningful way. I do connect through friends with a Presbyterian church to do my feed the homeless thing, but that's a matter of convenience.

[Curmudgeoness]

5. As I have said before,

if believers would keep their religious beliefs in their homes and churches, and totally out of the public---airwaves, politics, laws, knocking on doors, etc.---I wouldn't have any problems. And yes, I would completely ignore it.

But we all know that isn't going to happen.

[skepticscott]

15. That would be significant, though vanishingly unlikely

But it would still mean that another generation of children in those homes, churches and religious schools was being indoctrinated into the same ignorance and bigotry as their parents. Do their parents have that right? I suppose. But it's nothing to be happy about.

[Curmudgeoness]

17. The question wasn't whether I would be happy about it.

If it wasn't religion, it would be something that I would think parents were doing/teaching that was screwing up their kids. But then again, I don't suppose I want the world to be just like me...that would be boring.

[Htom Sirveaux]

27. No airwaves?

You're against religious tv and radio stations/shows?

[Brettongarcia]

51. The point is that people won't keep their destructive religious views to themselves;

They will try to spread them.

[Curmudgeoness]

78. Yes. nt

[okasha]

79. Well, just screw that nasty old First Amendment.

How about books? Are books okay?

[cbayer]

61. If GLBT people would just keep their sexuality in their homes and clubs

and totally out of the public - airwaves, politics, laws, knocking on doors, et. - I wouldn't have any problems. And yes, I would completely ignore it.

But we all know that isn't going to happen (uppity GLBT people and all).

[trotsky]

64. cbayer, this is really dishonest.

GLBT activism has always been about RIGHTS, not just having sex. So your attempt at a witty analogy fails miserably.

I, and I'm sure most atheists here, fully support the RIGHT of a religious person to believe what they want. Spread your hatred elsewhere, please.

[Curmudgeoness]

77. Wow.

Comparing people who are born with a certain sexual preference to a belief system that is taught and reinforced by society is a real stretch.

Frankly, I do not understand why people who are believers feel it is so important to impose those beliefs on others. "We need prayer back in school." "Corporate religious beliefs trump the law." "Having a manger in the public square isn't against the separation of church and state." "The country is falling apart because religion has been taken out of our culture." "You need to be saved or you will burn in hell." I really don't understand.

[cbayer]

80. Well, I think that assuming that all people choose whether to believe or not is probably a mistake.

Could you choose to be a believer? I doubt it.

I'm not saying they are the same thing, but I think that prejudice is prejudice, whether it is towards an inborn trait or a chosen one.

I am with you about people imposing their religious beliefs on others and a strong secularist, but your post went too far and it was just too easy to shine it back at you in that way.

You are really a nice person, curmudgeoness, and I doubt you are really like that irl, but I could be wrong. Frankly, I think you ought to get out more on DU, if you know what I mean. Do you like cooking? We have a great group here.

[Curmudgeoness]

82. You misunderstand.

It is not a prejudice against religious people. I am just tired of religion having too much power over this country. My friends are all believers, and I have no problem with them having their beliefs. They do not impose them on me, as it should be, and I do not try to impose my lack of belief on them. It just isn't discussed.

Is it too much to ask that religion is kept out of government? It seems to be.

As to getting out more here on DU, I read a lot of other groups and forums. I post regularly in some of them, but mostly I post where I feel either there is a need for a comment (and I usually live to regret that) or where I feel comfortable. I rarely post in Religion, for obvious reasons.

Cooking---not for me. I cook just enough so that I don't starve and am a very boring cook....mostly because I find so many spices distasteful. I have visited the cooking group a few times when I was in a bind. Like when I was given a large bag of red rice that had all the writing in Chinese so I had no idea how to cook it. There are times when the people here in the specific groups are great.

[cbayer]

83. Again, I agree with you about the power that the religious right has taken

over the past 30 years and we stand together in wanting to push back against that. I think it is important, though, to make distinctions when talking about religious people and what I objected to was your broad brush statements about how you really wanted religious people to just stay in the closet.

I know you post in Frugal living sometimes, but that is a very slow moving group. OTOH, it's a positive group with no need to attack others in order to feel validated. There are lots of groups like that on DU and only a few that are not.

We have a lot of marginal cooks in C & B, including quite a few that cook primarily just for themselves. But if that is not your thing, you probably wouldn't enjoy it much. What do you like to do?

[safeinOhio]

26. Religion is just interesting to study.

I feel removed from the dogma and only find interest studying those that practice or accept it. I try to not judge it other than to compare various dogmas and try to understand what, who and why it is practiced. Which one is chosen over another and how each one changes over time.

[djean111]

30. What theists feel or say about my atheism is totally irrelevant and unimportant.

I certainly don't care enough to feel insulted - why should I, the person saying stuff is not worth the bother.
What is relevant and important to me is the evil done in the name of religion. There's a lot of well-funded and organized religious folk who would do me harm, directly or indirectly, if they could (Dominionists, for example). And those people feel quite smugly justified in dealing out harm to others who do not believe as they do.
Look what Bush wanted to do in the names of Gog and Magog. Totally deranged and dangerous, and people like these have high positions in government. That's fucking frightening, not who-the-hell-cares-about-their-opinions insulting.
That's why I will never be able to just not give religion a thought - best to be aware of the really bad stuff.

[customerserviceguy]

45. I would try not to

I have friends and relatives who are religionists, and I fully support their Constitutional rights to think and act as they believe, but sometimes the legislative actions of religious people cramps my style. I specifically remember having to wait until noon on "the Lord's day" to buy a couple of six-packs of South Carolina beer that I had no intention of consuming until I got back home, on a day that didn't belong to anyone's deity.

If people would just keep their religion to themselves, it would be a lot easier on all of us. I sure don't make any efforts to get in their face about being an atheist, and will even go as far to bow my head respectfully when someone calls for a moment of silent prayer, out of respect for those in my presence who think that such mumbling is effective.

[Tikki]

52. I live in a place where religion and atheism doesn't hold much sway....I really don't think about..

my atheism or someone's religiosity very often.


Tikki

[philip.chinery]

56. But with them constantly shoving it down our throats...

it's hard to ignore. I live in Seattle, and the monotheists here are pretty bad. Where do you live that they're not? They're more closed minded because they can't accept that there could be more than one god. Of course there aren't any, but the idea that there is only one attracts a certain type of person.

[Tikki]

65. A liberalish part of So.California...the only passive aggressive outspoken here that I've ever run

into are the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses' and they rarely come by and I've
never seen them preaching in the shopping centers.

Who we do have from time to time in town are the libertarians. I'm not sure but they might be
another branch of the Christians.


Tikki

[AtheistCrusader]

53. There are many examples of religions, some practiced in the US, that I never give a second thought

to. It is the politically dominant religions that concern me around here.

(Partially because of what they did in the past to some of the aforementioned practiced, yet non-dominant peoples.)

[gwheezie]

57. since you asked

I have to mention,unless someone asks me about religion, I offer no opinion, folks can babble on and on in my presence and I smile politely like I was taught. But since you ask....In my everyday personal life I do not feel the least bit bothered by religious folks, while there are many I like, when they talk about religion, I find something else to do unless they ask me and then I tell them I don't care if there is a god. I'm not sure what that makes me, is that an atheist? agnostic? I just don't care if god exists and rarely think about it and try to avoid pointless discussions about god.
I do resent attempts made by religions to impose their belief system on the rest of us by law. I understand that the majority of this country claims to be Christian so I expect them to decorate the place to reflect their beliefs and I don't care if they sing their songs on PA systems at certain times of the year or ring bells or throw eggs around the yard and sending kids out to find them, that is harmless. I don't think religious folks or non religious folks are persecuted in this country, I think some religious folks use their religion to deny the rights of others through their influence in our politics but I don't think there is any kind of war on atheists or Christians in this country, it's a bit dramatic to claim there is. I don't feel looked down on, threatened or discriminated against. Really since I don't believe in either damnation or prayer, why would it matter to me is someone prays for me or damns me to hell?

[Warpy]

58. Nope. If it would stay on the other side of the church-state barrier

I'd be perfectly happy to let it be as long as it wasn't the kind of cult where the cult leader was screwing children or obviously breaking laws and harming people and I'd let the cops take care of that.

But no, I honestly don't think the dictates of another conscience that leads that person toward religion is any of my business and I wish people would return the favor.

Religion belongs in the family and the churches with like minded people. It doesn't belong in government and dogma doesn't belong in civil law. That way lies madness. That way lies war.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

59. I'm sick of the Abrahamic religions.

And the pervasiveness of Christianity in a conservative area. No alternatives.

No UU churches nearby, where atheists and agnostics are welcomed.

I have studied Hinduism and Buddhism extensively, and find a lot of useful ways of looking at the world through their lens.
I consider the gods of Hinduism to be archetypes.

Gautama the Buddha basically took Hinduism, threw out the gods and kept dharma (the teaching), karma and reincarnation and added his own philosophy of how to understand the world.

Hinduism and Buddhism don't have grumpy old man mass murdering gods like the Abrahamic religions do, and non-contradictory scriptures which require a whole field of apologetics to explain away.

I get sick of the assumption among many in our society that because they are Christian, they assume everyone else is too.

[longship]

60. That is an awefully big If.

But your premise is arguably correct. If religion would remain in their homes and churches, I would not think much of them.

Unfortunately, they somehow have to poke their fingers into all sorts of domains where only they think they are welcome.

As Daniel Dennett has said, it's not like it would be realistic to think we could rid the world of religion -- it seems to be pervasive in human culture -- but it would be desirous for it to evolve into a less virulent form.

That is a desire devoutly to be wished -- so to speak.

[Warren Stupidity]

63. Sure because that would mean that religion was irrelevant.

But it isn't. Right now it is front and center on the world stage, one of the major driving forces in the "anti-enlightenment".

[gcomeau]

75. It would still kind of annoy me...

...the way people constantly declaring "2+2=blueberry pancake" would annoy me.


(But it would be a lot easier to ignore at least)