Organized Religion and Atheism

Having fed myself a steady diet of Hitchens, Dawkins, and Myers for the past 4 years, I have to say I am logically against organized religion. But emotionally, I kind of yearn for it. Perhaps because I'm lazy and want something "higher" than myself telling me what is clear-cut good and bad, and how I should live my life. It's hard to deny organized religion is great helping people organize their lives, for the better or worse.

This video pretty much captures the benefits & problems with organized religion, and conversely, the benefits of atheism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV9vdUjuWxc

I LOVE nessrriinn, I highly advise checking her other stuff out, I am not a poetry person, but her stuff hits my core every time I listen to her. Lol, emotionally driven rage- the way religion manipulates its adherents into thinking inhumane actions are moral, but here I am indulging in it. But I'll excuse myself here and say it is justified- religion itself has proven itself to be a motivating factor in harming or discriminating against others, since when has homosexuality (for example) taken away the rights of others?

So, theme of the video- atheism doesn't do anything for people, and so doesn't harm other people. I wonder is atheism is currently too small and disorganized for it to be harmful. Were numbers of atheists to grow, and a common ideology to form around atheism, I think we could see many of the same problems we see with organized religion. I think that may be why so many atheists are against forming atheist groups- they've seen the dangers of forming groups around ideology, atheism could easily become attached to an ideology (proven reality should take precedence over all else, logic should always take precedence over feelings, etc) which could be dangerous. Even ideologies with originally humanistic aims can be corrupted.

I think that may be why I like the Temple so much- it is organized, but diverse, open, and perhaps small enough to immunize itself against the dangers that come when a religion/ideology gains too much power. Kind of a middle way

What are your thoughts on organized religion? Do you view it as primarily beneficial, or harmful?

In another vein, if a belief can be proven false, do you think it is better to "live and let live" and not try to convince the believer of the falsity of their beliefs, or to try to force the person to accept reality? Why?

Here's another, more positive, nessrriinn video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxAgF7HtmP0

I watched the first video and I don't see any benefits illustrated. Organized religion is mostly evil. The only organized religions I've ever seen built on love and equality is Jediism and Buddhism.

Atheism is only the singular belief that a God doesn't exist. Nothing more, nothing less. But you can be an atheist-agnostic, or atheist-jedi, even an atheist-Buddhist.

I agree with you that organized religion is great for organizing, be it for improving a neighborhood or stopping civil rights. I'm against it, being an atheist myself for some time, but I also feel it can stifle the spiritual side.

Atheism, in and of itself, is smaller than most people think. In reality, atheism only applies to higher beings (deities, mostly, though I suppose demons and such fall into this as well). Get five atheists together and you may very well get beliefs far more strange than gods. So, even if atheism grew to large size, it wouldn't matter much. It would be a bunch of people that didn't believe in gods and maybe a few other similar ideas, but not much else.

When it comes to beliefs being proven false, while I do think it's perfectly well and fine to point out why it's wrong, it would be wrong to force it. Discussion is far better. I actually just talked to someone about this and, instead of hammering them on being wrong, I helped her understand their beliefs (they learned all about deism and learned there were other people like her).

Kawda Dopor: I watched the first video and I don't see any benefits illustrated. Organized religion is mostly evil. The only organized religions I've ever seen built on love and equality is Jediism and Buddhism.

She lists the benefits of religion as the things atheism cannot do for her (wipe the tears from her eyes, gives her wise words of advice, show her what is bad and nice, etc.) As for her though, she doesn't need those things- she just wants reality. Buddhism isn't built on love- it is built on the idea that life is suffering and we must overcome it through practicing the 8 fold path. Were it built on love, the Garudhamma rules would never have been able to come about and remain in place up until today. What does it even mean for a religion to be built on love?

Great questions...I'll tackle a few of them right now, but I want to think about it a little bit more.

What are your thoughts on organized religion? Do you view it as primarily beneficial, or harmful?

I think organized religion CAN be beneficial, but I also think organized religion CAN be harmful, too. I think it's a false dichotomy to say that organized religions are either beneficial or harmful. But this can be delved into much deeper and I may do so later (running out of time at the moment...).

In another vein, if a belief can be proven false, do you think it is better to "live and let live" and not try to convince the believer of the falsity of their beliefs, or to try to force the person to accept reality? Why?

This question goes into the heart of why I left my former religion (Mormonism) behind. There are aspects of that religion that are proven falsities that I was told to just "put on a shelf" and have faith anyway. As that lawyer from the Miracle on 34th street said "Would you rather have a lie that draws a smile? Or a truth that draws a tear?" 100 out of 100 times, I choose the truth. The truth hurts, but we must face it and deal with it.

I've tried showing the truth I've found to family members, friends, etc. but I quickly discovered they didn't want to know what I knew; they were happy in their beliefs. I decided I wouldn't go on a crusade and so I let them be. If they ask me straight up about Mormon issues, I'll speak up and it's fair game, but I won't bring it up unless they have shown an interest in talking about it or they ask me first.

Great topic! I'd like to explore it a little deeper, but I've gotta go now.

MTFBWY,
LTK

Hypatia wrote: What are your thoughts on organized religion? Do you view it as primarily beneficial, or harmful?

I think organized religion was terribly harmful, but is becoming much more beneficial as time goes on. I'm not atheist but not really religious either, sort of personal spiritualist religiously.

Please don't take my post with any anger etc, but I thought the videos were terribly one sided and ignored all the good things religions do, so much that I'd have to consider them Atheist propoganda, if I had to be critical of them. I recently did an analysis of a local religion's business functions and I was amazed at what they put into the community. It seems Atheist campaigns and arguments are very focused on the bad things and ignore completely everything else. I find most Atheism that crosses my bow to be just loud noises, and so when comparing one to the other - organized religion today smashes Atheism out of the park.

History is where religions seem to be vulnerable, but I find most of this has nothing to do with religion either, as it is usually the abuse of religion for power and wealth at fault. I'm not sure if looking backwards though has relevance to your question, and so I'd have to answer as organized religion being overall beneficial. Except perhaps Islam which appears not to be tight enough to stop manipulative abuse from existing within its core ideologies and thus is vulnerable and still suffering from it more then the others seem to be.

I would tend to disagree that Atheism is as vulnerable as religion to abuse, but human's do seem to be herd animals and as shown in Nazi Germany they can rally under non-religious precepts to evil ends. The human mind can think its way to the stars during a days work, but each morning everyone wakes up to find themselves standing on the surface again looking up. Most people are too busy to get off the ground and so when confronted with physical influences they tend to follow physical panaceas - both religions and atheism suffers this, but when this is coupled with controlling faith or the afterlife, then it can extend control into areas atheism cannot. In this regard organized religion has perhaps a potential to become terribly harmful again, or at least more then atheism, but I'd imagine a religions capacity to manipulate its people is proportionate to its followers access to information, as when religion was all powerful it controlled all information. I'm not sure atheism is particularly fair and honest in its representation of information either and if we look backwards in time information access was limited by limiting availability, whereas today access is limited by flooding a particular set of information at the expense of other information - either way its brainwashing and people should always seek balance and truth about topics.

I originally thought atheism was about the absence of God, but all this talk about organized religion reminds me that many atheist arguments do really seem to merge various issues. So for me organized religion is about spiritual growth and support, nothing else, and this is a great benefit to humanity. Indeed in my opinion, concerted spirituality is not easy, nor particularily even safe at some points. Unenlightened folk who are stuck in cyclic existence will always be vulnerable to manipulation along those cyclic pleasures that go along with it. The strength of many organized religious teachings is also their weakness as the material is easily open to misinterpretation and the more complex the path, the easier a target it is. People feel rooted to this body of awareness for the physical incarnation and do not need religion to live healthy, happy and productive lives in complex societies, but IMO religion though does still have a place if it is recognized for what it should really be - a system for spiritual growth and support, nothing more.

Hypatia wrote: In another vein, if a belief can be proven false, do you think it is better to "live and let live" and not try to convince the believer of the falsity of their beliefs, or to try to force the person to accept reality? Why?

Depends if its a tool of faith or a statement about reality. The later is obviously false, in your example and it wouldn't make any sense for them to believe a lie so I'd probably constantly remind them they were wrong if they bought it up. Is the world flat, no, but all our maps are - because the map is a tool, so I'd be cautious about understanding the context of where language is being used. The problem of course is ignorance can come from both sides of the argument and I'd bet most of the time religious people take things out of intended or useful context.

Adder wrote: Depends if its a tool of faith or a statement about reality. The later is obviously false, in your example and it wouldn't make any sense for them to believe a lie so I'd probably constantly remind them they were wrong if they bought it up. Is the world flat, no, but all our maps are - because the map is a tool, so I'd be cautious about understanding the context of where language is being used. The problem of course is ignorance can come from both sides of the argument and I'd bet most of the time religious people take things out of intended or useful context.

But this is simply your opinion. Just because you believe it to be a lie, doesn't mean it is. I'm about to be very blunt here, and I apologize if I ruffle any tail feathers. You all know my faith, but unlike most in my religion, I do not believe in shoving my religion down another's throat. This goes the same for the other side of the fence. I have lost complete respect for people I was fairly close to when they tried to tell me that what I believed was wrong. This may just be a personal thing for me, but I cannot stand when someone tells me what to believe and what not to believe. Just because you (and no, Adder, i'm not talking about YOU you, but just a general you, lol) think that what I believe is a lie, does not make it so.

My belief system is...fairly complex. Y'all already know that I don't follow "the church". I do not like "the church". I don't even have 100% faith in the Bible as we know that every couple of years, scholars find new texts that were mis-translated (I believe that latest was the one about how the number of the beast is actually 616 and not 666). This is just one of a few examples.

But i'm starting to drift away from the main topic at hand. Organized religion is not beneficial or harmful, it is beneficial AND harmful. We have seen what the Christian community is made of. The atrocities carried out in the name of God. The blockage of equal rights (just one of many reasons that I do not follow "the church"). But there is also so much good. At the church I occasionally visit, there are several missions that improve lives not only in our community, but also around the world. Organized religions have brought peace to so many people, whether it had been through their whole life, part of their life, or on their death bed.

So, in conclusion, don't ever tell someone they are wrong for what they believe. Have discussions. That's fine. Express your viewpoint and layout whatever "facts" you believe in. But NEVER tell someone that what they believe in is a lie. I find this very disrespectful and I do take it personally whether it is happening to me or not. Respect...both sides lack it. Got a problem with that? Grow up. It's the truth and you know it.

That felt good to get off my chest, lol.

Hadi Apollos wrote: Just because you (and no, Adder, i'm not talking about YOU you, but just a general you, lol) think that what I believe is a lie, does not make it so.

When I said 'statement about reality' I meant physical reality ie; stuff of science, things which can be measured. If it cannot be proven false then it cannot be claimed to be a lie, so a lot of religion is outside the initial question IMO because its non-physical by its nature.

10 Reasons Not To Have A Religion

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2008/05/10-reasons-you-should-never-have-a-religion/