Religion: A Poison For Which There May Be No Antidote

[MathGeek]

Before I joined this site, I had attempted to leave Christianity but it led me into an emotional downturn, which then led me back into the fold for a short period of time. During that period of what should have been joy and rapture, I had downloaded copies of works by Dawkins, Harrins and Hitchens through the use of illegal file-sharing. I had listened to speeches by Julia Sweeney and Eddie Tabash thanks to YouTube. I had also perused sites like Digital Freethought among others. In all honesty, this should probably be placed in the creative section, but I think it deserves to sit in this thread. Please leave your comments and critiques below. I welcome them all.

____________________________________________________________________

 

Religion: A Poison for Which There May Be No Antidote

 

Lately, I have come to see that atheism may be the ultimate end in the search for wisdom and enlightenment in today’s world. Unfortunately, many people have found that religion is the only path that one must follow to achieve that ultimate intellectual and spiritual high. It only takes a perusal through any history book or encyclopedia to find the stigma, the set stain, the open sore that religious thinking and action have left behind. It may just take an optical scan of the landscape to see how religion has blighted it in the form of houses of worship and unnecessary graveyards. Just ask a Native American storyteller or a survivor of a terrorist attack to show you how religion has negatively affected their lives and their cultures.

 

The evidence is crystal clear to anybody who has had their vision wiped over with the metaphorical cloth or squeegee.

 

But, another thought is also clear beyond crystal. The toxin that is religion, that is faith, that is belief will likely never be exorcised from the human consciousness.

 

The atheist case is correct in it’s assertion that whenever religion has thrived, human progress and knowledge has been stunted. A litany of historical evidence is at one’s disposal if one willingly decides to fire up the browser and travel down the information superhighway. Even though we live in progressive and enlightened times, that does not mean religion will cease existing. It seems that mankind isn’t intelligent enough to disregard such fairy tale drivel. It could also be from simple recalcitrance or indolence. It could even be from immaturity stemming from a dual-sourced fear, one from the religious side itself and one from the human side that is ambivalent toward the unknown.

 

If the freethinking contingent has its way ideally, they would see religion eradicated from this earthen plane. That begs the question, how could religion be erased?

 

Would it be through force? The only way to eradicate religion in the human being but to keep the being alive is to lobotomize the person. If you lobotomize a human, their personality completely changes, as does the rest of their body. They become listless, almost unable to have any coherent thoughts let alone the mentality to make a scientific inquiry that would reject religion forever. Now, all of the atheists that I’ve read about and heard of were and are moral beings and not advocates of human experimentation, so that assumption must be rejected.

 

Would it be through subtle persuasion or outright confrontation? This only works when every singular case of attempted or confirmed conversion is studied individually. That also begs the question about the individual in line for conversion itself. Is the person open-minded or close-minded? Recalcitrant or accepting? Die-hard or ambivalent? According to a statistic cited at Digital FreeThought (www.digitalfreethought.com), the American population itself is only 15% atheistic, compared to 5% from a University of Minnesota study cited by Morgan Spurlock on his television show, 30 Days. That means between 85% and 95% of all Americans are believers in something spiritual. For any atheist (evangelical or otherwise), that is a colossal obstacle to overcome, and with many more spirit-believing evangelists out there to battle them at every turn, it seems hopeless to realize the dream that all people can be converted over to disbelief.

 

So, where does religion stand right now in the current scheme of things?

 

Fat and happy on every piece of real estate it owns physically and in the hearts of minds of those willing enough to practice it. Religion will not exit the mainstream of life in the short term, and it will not likely exit the mainstream of life in the long term. Homo sapiens have existed on this planet for over 100,000 years and it’s taken that long for us to become the mentally accelerated creatures that we are now. It may take another 100,000 years for us to discard the tenets of superstition and belief unless we become so advanced in terms of evolution that this current incarnation of humanity will become godlike creatures themselves. Strangely enough, religion may just evolve into something more sinister down the line from now like it has gone from localized pagan worship into a worldwide phenomenon from times past until now. Of course, I am no seer so I have no foreknowledge of what our future will likely become. With our luck, we may blast ourselves into microns with our stockpiles of nuclear weapons or an asteroid from the far reaches of space may do that instead.

 

As I watch the news everyday, I just have this ominous feeling that humanity will never learn from their mistakes. Despite the optimistic assertions of atheists that reason and morality thrive without religion, the flip side of that is also true. Humans, despite the contradictions in every religious system ever conceived, still use those systems as their moral guideposts, even as their cultural guideposts. Many folks still find themselves spiritually satisfied in the belief that they are watched and cared for by an invisible parent figure, and when pressured by the discomfort that is disbelief, they may react violently and/or sadistically. Considering how barbaric humans can be with one another even in this day and age, I’ve come to the conclusion that humanity as a whole is not evolved enough to give up religion entirely. It likely takes a few epochs for such a drastic change to occur. Look at how long it’s taken us from our evolutionary inception to develop ideas and practices like agriculture, writing systems, abstract thinking ability and the like, so it’s not unlikely to figure that we are still too stunted, emotionally at least, to surrender to the idea that we may be spiritually alone out there. Granted that atheists existed before the common era, we’ve only been removed from that time by about 4000 to 6000 years, which is only 4% to 6% of our evolutionary lifespan on this rolling rock. That means 90% or more of our evolution has been a dark spell where we’ve only relied on superstition to explain the unexplained to us, and that can be only considered if it’s believed those early humans had more skill sets than those needed for survival.

 

With the thoughts I’ve raised, I think the total abandonment of religion may take many, many millennia to reach fruition. Now, I can wholeheartedly say that the atheist stance is plausible to me, but I cannot say that for humanity at large. Most humans cannot be expected to give up religion when they are prone to react violently to contrarian ideas and the evidence that allows for such thinking. The only way the atheist case will take hold is if humanity can deny the divisive aspects of their nature and that’s not likely to happen in the here and now. Like a patient that’s suffered a severe trauma of some kind, it may take more evolution and loads more time to see the case completely realized.

 

There’s no doubt that religion is a poison, but even in this millennium of illumination, humanity is still refusing to imbibe the antidote.

 

All the non-believers can do for now is express their beliefs publicly, stubbornly hold their own against the undeserved onslaught, and believe that the all other humans can be led toward the real light.

 

As for me, they have my eternal respect and I hope they triumph in the end.

[R. S. Martin]

Before I joined this site, I had attempted to leave Christianity but it led me into an emotional downturn, which then led me back into the fold for a short period of time. During that period of what should have been joy and rapture, I had downloaded copies of works by Dawkins, Harrins and Hitchens through the use of illegal file-sharing.

 

I haven't read the essay part of the OP yet but want to comment on this illegal file-sharing bit. I take it you were a Christian at the time so the other file-sharers must have been christians, too. I don't know what the system is like but it must be a system and somebody must have set it up. That "somebody" probably figured illegal is okay so long as it's done for Jesus, same as lying for Jesus. And since it was the great atheists they probably felt doubly justified in doing it.

 

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

 

All of those commandments appear in the NT. Which of them do these righteous geniuses think they are not breaking?

[MathGeek]

Before I joined this site, I had attempted to leave Christianity but it led me into an emotional downturn, which then led me back into the fold for a short period of time. During that period of what should have been joy and rapture, I had downloaded copies of works by Dawkins, Harrins and Hitchens through the use of illegal file-sharing.

 

I haven't read the essay part of the OP yet but want to comment on this illegal file-sharing bit. I take it you were a Christian at the time so the other file-sharers must have been christians, too. I don't know what the system is like but it must be a system and somebody must have set it up. That "somebody" probably figured illegal is okay so long as it's done for Jesus, same as lying for Jesus. And since it was the great atheists they probably felt doubly justified in doing it.

 

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

 

All of those commandments appear in the NT. Which of them do these righteous geniuses think they are not breaking?

 

I still use file-sharing sites from time to time, mostly because of the fact that I have to drive 70 miles to get to the nearest bookstore or music shop with any kind of decent selection. I think most people understand the ethical contexts of theivery within a modern framework and they ignore it because getting caught in the act is very difficult for law enforcement to do. Breaking the commandments is immediate self-gratification. Within a disbelief context, I only have human law to keep myself in line and that is done through self-policing. To be honest, I have copies of work by Hitchens and Harris in print, so I don't feel so bad.

[R. S. Martin]

Before I joined this site, I had attempted to leave Christianity but it led me into an emotional downturn, which then led me back into the fold for a short period of time. During that period of what should have been joy and rapture, I had downloaded copies of works by Dawkins, Harrins and Hitchens through the use of illegal file-sharing.

 

I haven't read the essay part of the OP yet but want to comment on this illegal file-sharing bit. I take it you were a Christian at the time so the other file-sharers must have been christians, too. I don't know what the system is like but it must be a system and somebody must have set it up. That "somebody" probably figured illegal is okay so long as it's done for Jesus, same as lying for Jesus. And since it was the great atheists they probably felt doubly justified in doing it.

 

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

 

All of those commandments appear in the NT. Which of them do these righteous geniuses think they are not breaking?

 

I still use file-sharing sites from time to time, mostly because of the fact that I have to drive 70 miles to get to the nearest bookstore or music shop with any kind of decent selection. I think most people understand the ethical contexts of theivery within a modern framework and they ignore it because getting caught in the act is very difficult for law enforcement to do. Breaking the commandments is immediate self-gratification. Within a disbelief context, I only have human law to keep myself in line and that is done through self-policing. To be honest, I have copies of work by Hitchens and Harris in print, so I don't feel so bad.

 

Sounds decent. I wasn't sure what you're talking about. With your special reference to "illegal file-sharing" when you could have just said you read those books, I thought perhaps you were making a point. No problem. We do it all the time with photocopiers at school. The machines sit on every floor of the library and library personel will help students if there are problems with the machines. But they are extremely hesitant to suggest a student photocopy something. I finally clued in that it's probably illegal for them to recommend photocopying. Talk about the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law.

 

The profs will recommend it when needed, though one or two have said it's technically illegal but do it anyway. I personally don't know what the law is. Inside every single book it says reproduction of the whole or parts is strictly forbidden by law, yet the only way I can read a textbook is by scanning it onto my computer--unless the publisher provides an electronic copy. Some nineteenth century theology texts are online by now, but the regular late-20th century university text still under copyright is not available in electronic form. I understand I can get authorization from the school if there is a problem.

[R. S. Martin]

MathGeek, I don't see the situation as you do. I went through your essay and picked out statements and phrases that stood out for me. I will list them below as bulleted points:

 

• Religion will not exit the mainstream of life in the short term, and it will not likely exit the mainstream of life in the long term.
  
• Strangely enough, religion may just evolve into something more sinister down the line from now like it has gone from localized pagan worship into a worldwide phenomenon from times past until now.
  
• Humans, despite the contradictions in every religious system ever conceived, still use those systems as their moral guideposts, even as their cultural guideposts.
  
• total abandonment of religion
  
• Most humans cannot be expected to give up religion when they are prone to react violently to contrarian ideas and the evidence that allows for such thinking.

I don't think we need to aim for the total abandoment of religion in the immediate future. An idea that has occurred to me as using my training in theology is to develop a theology that is acceptable in place of the harmful fundamentalist theology. However, I think it already exists among the more liberal congregations, and the remaining job is to convince fundies to accept a less hardliner position.

 

You seem to see religion as the source of most people moral guidelines. I see it the opposite way; religions evolve around what humans are convinced is moral. I think we see this in the changes in liberal Christianity over the past two centuries. Even many conservative congregations have made drastic changes in the past forty to fifty years. In 1960, divorce was practically unheard of. Today many (most?) fundamentalist churches accept it as a matter of course. I remember the sixties very well. I remember the horror with which divorce was discussed, the terror people felt that it would usher in the total chaos and downfall of society.

 

Family shapes and sizes have changed dramatically but I don't think we are any closer to social chaos than we were back then. To me, this is evidence that humans can and do change.

 

I do not think religion will turn into something more sinister. Humans have built-in morals, and they will not tolerate certain levels of evil. I think religion is at the moment a sinister presence among some of us. I don't think it will get worse.

[MathGeek]

Great points raised. This critical response helps me think and develop my beliefs about religion in general. I am not well-versed in theology or the philosophy of religious development. I know some history about the development of Christianity and my impression is that it has changed with the times, which is contrary to what the Bible teaches about how it remains the same and has always remained. With your ideas, I now understand why Plato believed that morals were seperate from the pantheon.

[Deva]

I will preface my remarks by saying I am not an atheist and I found this essay disturbing, especially the speculation about lobotomy. I know you aren't seriously advocating it and are just speculating, but why did you even feel the need to list that option?

 

Homo sapiens have existed on this planet for over 100,000 years and it’s taken that long for us to become the mentally accelerated creatures that we are now.

I would say technological acceleration, not mental. I don't see the evidence where human beings have become further evolved in any way mentally from what they were 10,000 years ago and probably 100,000 years ago.

Considering how barbaric humans can be with one another even in this day and age, I’ve come to the conclusion that humanity as a whole is not evolved enough to give up religion entirely.

I disagree with the idea that if religion is eradicated, that would end human barbarity. I don't know if you really mean to say that or actually believe it but it is at least implied here.

I don't see religion ever ending aside from some evolutionary change in the brain that hasn't happened yet. Human beings are not entirely logical and rational. People will always want comfort, security and a sense of community. Religion provides this. Besides that, critical thinking is a learned skill and the schools aren't doing it very well. I see religion changing, of course, and it may never have the cohesiveness it had in the past, but it will survive in some form.

There’s no doubt that religion is a poison, but even in this millennium of illumination, humanity is still refusing to imbibe the antidote.

I disagree that all religion is poison without exception and atheism is the solution for all human problems as you imply in your essay. I believe that to be extreme and simplistic.

I will also add that atheists have every right to express their views and I do not see them as immoral or inferior in any way. They just have a different way of viewing the world.

 

[Knitterman]

Nicotine is a known poison (included in various pesticides, for example). Smokers know the use of tobacco is poisonous and leads to poor health. Smoking drives others (non-smokers) away. Smoking costs waayyy too much in proportion to any derived benefit. Yet, smokers will continue to hack and cough and stink up the air, spending their last dollar on a cigarette rather than a 99-cent burger at Wendy's, and will willingly walk away from friends and loved ones to go outside to have a smoke. It makes no rational sense, but nicotine is an addictive drug, and smokers who know better intellectually will continue to seek out whatever perceived pleasure/benefit from the drug. Drug addiction (whether nicotine, crack, coffee, whatever) sidesteps or circumvents rational thought: no rational person would consciously ingest known poisons. If smokers don't get the nicotine kick from smoking, if the tobacco was just another burning weed (no pun intended) or tasted like burning toilet paper, smokers would quit in a moment. Smokers get something from it, or they wouldn't follow such a stupid habit. (I'm a smoker, I know what I'm talking about; I also worked for 13 years in cancer control in Louisiana! I am proof it is nearly impossible to simply "educate" a smoker away from an addiction!)

 

Religion is like that. It sucks money out of your pocket. It makes friends and loved one stay away. But there is some benefit (either perceived or real to the individual), else the religious would walk away without a second thought. And it definitely sidesteps around rational thought: no rational person would knowingly fall for the ludicrous nonsensical tales and claims of religion.

 

Sometimes, like an abused spouse or child, who knows they're in a bad situation, they're convinced that if they try to leave they'll end up in a worse situation ("if you walk away from god and die in your sin you'll spend eternity in hell").

 

Religion is a poison, for sure.

[MathGeek]

I will preface my remarks by saying I am not an atheist and I found this essay disturbing, especially the speculation about lobotomy. I know you aren't seriously advocating it and are just speculating, but why did you even feel the need to list that option?

 

I really can't say without wholehearted totality but that likely my emotions then and now are still hard at work in how I think. I was heavily influenced strictly by emotional antagonism and the polemic writings of Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins. I am not an advocate for human experimentation or anything regarding torture, but I am also heavily pessemistic by nature. Even though the essay seems decently thought out and penned off-handedly, many of my feeling about the nature of humankind at large seeped in. I still feel new to this entire idea of deconversion and I still have this want to excoriate anybody who purports any iota of Christian thought, which I still find myself referring to anyway. In a way, it was a therapy exercise that succeeded for me. As for my temperament, I have been trying to become less entwined in the anger over the little things. I am trying to retain my former positive temperament and that may take some time. Since I am very emotional, I think that may explain why I am this way all across the ex-c boards.

 

Sorry to have disturbed you.

[R. S. Martin]

MathGeek, I see that essay as a piece of creative cathartic writing. It is very well-written. This is the Rants and Replies section. Deva, I can see that a person might have found the vivid description disturbing but if one keeps reading to the end of that part, it is evident that MathGeek does NOT approve of lobotomies. He was simply experimenting with thoughts. In philosophy, that is called a "thought experiment." It is very well done. I've often heard of the idea but never actually seen a description. Too often lobotomies are thrown out as suggestions (in jest) as solutions to the problem of religion. Seeing it dealt with seriously can be a jolt of reality.

[R. S. Martin]

Sometimes, like an abused spouse or child, who knows they're in a bad situation, they're convinced that if they try to leave they'll end up in a worse situation ("if you walk away from god and die in your sin you'll spend eternity in hell").

 

Religion is a poison, for sure.

 

I think there are two main kinds of religion. The religion that defines the believer and the believer that defines the religion. That's a crude way of putting it but you get the idea.

 

The kind you describe defines or rules the believer. But I've seen Christians and people of other religions who use their religious terms or stories to describe what life means. I feel like I'm not saying this very well, but they use the stories as opposed to letting the stories use them. When hell motives us to go to church, for example, the story is using us. That is the poison you're talking about.

[Knitterman]

The kind you describe defines or rules the believer. But I've seen Christians and people of other religions who use their religious terms or stories to describe what life means. I feel like I'm not saying this very well, but they use the stories as opposed to letting the stories use them. When hell motives us to go to church, for example, the story is using us. That is the poison you're talking about.

 

No, you said it just fine, and I understood (and agree).

[Deva]

Deva, I can see that a person might have found the vivid description disturbing but if one keeps reading to the end of that part, it is evident that MathGeek does NOT approve of lobotomies. He was simply experimenting with thoughts.

 

Ruby - please read my post carefully. I said to MathGeek "I know you aren't seriously advocating it and are just speculating.."

 

I stand by my remarks.

 

I can assure you that I understand that MathGeek is trying to come to terms with deconverting and it is no easy process. His apology to me is accepted. End of story as far as I am concerned.

[Eccles]

Mathgeek,

I have have a quick look at the article and some replies. I think your OP is excellent. I have had the same opinion for years now, especially after I escaped from the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church.

 

The problem with Christianity is that it is based on the false notion that there is a "god". Any person of any intelligence would know there is no "god". Christians reject all other religions because thy claim they believe in false gods. Well what is the difference between those false gods and the Christian "god". It's all bullshit and it has poisoned countless of millions of minds.

[R. S. Martin]

Well what is the difference between those false gods and the Christian "god". It's all bullshit and it has poisoned countless of millions of minds.

 

Exactly. I'm tired of not being allowed to rant freely even in Rants and Replies about religion or god for fear I will offend some nonChristian theist or religionist. I think if you (not you Eccles--theists who believe in some kind of god) can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen. There's a whole special section for you. I don't post there because I'll be sure to offend someone. Some of us have been hurt by gods and by religion and we can't be politically correct every second of every day here in our own home. I have a right to be atheist and I have a right to rant about it.

 

I've posted the scientific evidence many times and no one takes me up on it. As with Christians, I take that as evidence that theists can't gain-say it for whatever reason. If it (refusal to discuss it is evidence that they can't gain-say it) works as evidence with Christians, it works as evidence for anyone else. Principles are principles only if they work both ways. If it's not evidence for nonChristian theists it's not evidence for Christians.

 

And if nonChristian theists aren't of necessity stupid then neither are Christians. I know some truly intelligent Christians. But I'm not allowed to say that here if I want to fit in. All Christians are stupid is the "in" thing to say. I find that extremely offensive, but I have to see it posted all over exC. Yet I'm not allowed to rant my atheism??? How is that fair?

 

It's NOT fair. Given that the owner of these forums is atheist and supports all deconverts from christianity--whether atheist or not, I think I am allowed to flaunt my atheism and put my highly respected Christian mentors on whatever pedestal I want to. People are people first. Religion is somewhere down the line--unless said people push it out front and centre bigger than themselves. Then one has to deal with their religion first.

[Amethyst]

Ruby, everyone here has the right to rant in this section. You included. That's what it's for - to give people a safe place where they can vent without getting into trouble at home.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Quoth Ruby:

 

Exactly. I'm tired of not being allowed to rant freely even in Rants and Replies about religion or god for fear I will offend some nonChristian theist or religionist.

 

Who "censors by bitching" at you and prevents you from posting a "full steam ahead" post or ten?

 

This kinda shi, err, stuff, needs addressed if someone feels as tho in the Rant and Replies section they are not allowed in some way to say what is needed.

 

kFL

[R. S. Martin]

Quoth Ruby:

 

Exactly. I'm tired of not being allowed to rant freely even in Rants and Replies about religion or god for fear I will offend some nonChristian theist or religionist.

 

Who "censors by bitching" at you and prevents you from posting a "full steam ahead" post or ten?

 

This kinda shi, err, stuff, needs addressed if someone feels as tho in the Rant and Replies section they are not allowed in some way to say what is needed.

 

kFL

 

I sent you a pm.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Thread moved to Lion's Den. Folks, I can't yet please everyone involved in the messaging PM/IM back and forth with an Easy One Sized Fits All Answer.

 

MathGeek, your OP is not the cause of the move to the Free For All section, however commentary and strong opinions all around this set of ideas your wonderfully penned essay brought out have.

 

We need to be able to air and make what commentary within the few constraints Webmaster has here on the Boards.

 

That includes harsh words, hard contra-commentary, and even pure-d Grade A Bullshit.

 

Folks if it gets posted, expect to defend it, or have subject discussed until it runs out of steam.

 

 

kFL

Moved 02.24.2008 1145Pacfic

[Legion]

I am an atheist, but I don’t put any stock in it. When I am searching for understanding I don’t turn to atheists per se, rather I turn to people who might have demonstrable authority on a subject. They might also be atheists, but that is often beside the point.

[R. S. Martin]

Thread moved to Lion's Den. Folks, I can't yet please everyone involved in the messaging PM/IM back and forth with an Easy One Sized Fits All Answer.

 

MathGeek, your OP is not the cause of the move to the Free For All section, however commentary and strong opinions all around this set of ideas your wonderfully penned essay brought out have.

 

We need to be able to air and make what commentary within the few constraints Webmaster has here on the Boards.

 

That includes harsh words, hard contra-commentary, and even pure-d Grade A Bullshit.

 

Folks if it gets posted, expect to defend it, or have subject discussed until it runs out of steam.

 

 

kFL

Moved 02.24.2008 1145Pacfic

 

Thanks for addressing the issue--I never realized anything much would come out of posting that stuff. I take it this means we each have a right be who we are and rant what needs to be aired. For some this might mean ranting at what they perceive as atheist elitism while for others it may mean ranting at what they perceive as theist elitism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems fair. The elitism among some Christians is so strong that sometimes we forget--or haven't got the energy--to be politically correct at all times. But christianity and biblegod are probably the specific religion and god we're thinking about in our blind rages and rants. At least when it's me who's doing the rants that would be what I'm aiming at. I don't know enough about the others to rant about them.

 

I am an atheist, but I don’t put any stock in it. When I am searching for understanding I don’t turn to atheists per se, rather I turn to people who might have demonstrable authority on a subject. They might also be atheists, but that is often beside the point.

 

Same here.

[Antlerman]

Most humans cannot be expected to give up religion when they are prone to react violently to contrarian ideas and the evidence that allows for such thinking. The only way the atheist case will take hold is if humanity can deny the divisive aspects of their nature and that’s not likely to happen in the here and now.

Though I appreciate the sentiment about humanity’s tenacities to hang on to irrational notions that lead to violence, I don't see this is nearly as clear a dividing line to say it's an issue of theism versus atheism. These reactions of humanity are rooted, not in religion, but in their humanity. We are still evolving primates.

 

There are plenty of these sorts of displays of "poison" that come out of societies and cultures that are based on any number of identifications that one could call "religious", like being Serbian, or American, or Bloods, or Whites, or Blacks, or Arab, or Muslim, or Christian, or even Atheist. I really do believe that atheism can be as much religion to people, like any sort of identification that separates and divides, rather than includes and reconciles. For whatever weight it adds to this, I consider myself an atheist as well, but I see the problem is people, not religion. You have to change people first, and then religion becomes reflective of that new ideal.

 

Just to provoke some discussion, what does atheism per se offer as a philosophy for living? I’ve never been clear on that.

[Amethyst]

I personally don't think that ALL religions are poison, but I do think when one takes a fundamentalist viewpoint, in any ideology, that is poison to one's mind.

 

Some religions, eg. Buddhism and Paganism, are relatively harmless. Not all religions are like Christianity. But I have yet to see any evidence that any of these other religions' claims can be proven true either. Hence I don't subscribe to them.

 

I don't think atheism itself has a philosophy. Atheism just means not believing in a god or gods. You have to find a philosophy that fits you. That's why I lean toward humanism.

[R. S. Martin]

Buddhism may be harmless these days--I don't know enough about it to comment. But when I was learning about its history I was struck with how they warred and fought and splintered among their various groups just as ferosiously as any Mennonites. Okay, maybe more ferosiously on the physical level because they actually killed each other physically because they had shooting wars or whatever weapons they had at their disposal at the time and place. That was quite a jolt to me because I had thought only Mennonites could be so "evil-hearted" towards each other. I had thought Buddhism is so peaceful and calm. And maybe it is today. But apparently in the Far East when it was a dominant religion--or viable power--it wasn't.