[Theistic] Religion is a Disease born of Fear

Snorrithor · Post by **Snorrithor** » 07-07-2002 08:46 PM

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Is There a God?" commissioned by, but never published in, Illustrated Magazine (1952: repr. The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Volume 11: Last Philosophical Testament, 1943-68, ed. John G. Slater and Peter Köllner (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 543-48, quoted from S. T. Joshi, Atheism: A Reader

My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?"

There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dares not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed.
-- Bertrand Russell, Human Society in Ethics and Politics (1954), quoted from James A. Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)

Snorrithor · Post by **Snorrithor** » 07-07-2002 08:49 PM

From another Group:

Hello all. I am new to the list. Not new to atheism though. My
husband and I have been strong atheists for at least thirty years.
We used to live in England where aethism ( despite the fact that
there is a state religion - Anglican ) was far more tolerated. Since
moving back here to my beloved homeland the intolerance of this
country - where separation of church and state and freedom from
religious persecution are supposed to be the LAW - has been shocking
to us. We have felt increasingly frustrated and isolated. We have
joined various organizations on the web but there is nothing
locally. We had NO idea it was this bad. The reaction by the media
and virtually ALL our elected representaives to the court decision
on the plegde was the most outrageous instance of what we are coming
to realize is a very serious problem. We just couldn't believe it.
Obviously religion has such a grip on the country that no politician
DARES to even refrain from loudly announcing his or her adherence
to ' one nation under god '. This virtually constitutes a religious
test for political office! ( also unconstitutional!). But the worst
of it to my mind was the speech by Senator Byrd in which he said
that he didn't want this country ruled by atheists and that atheists
should leave if they don't like something!!!! This is persecution of
a minority. And incidentally surely our senators should know that we
aren't RULED by ANYONE! We are governed by the people! We left
England partly to get away from a monarchy and state sanctioned
religion. We are outraged. We called Senator Byrd's office as well
as Senator Daschle's to complain. The recepetion was unfriendly to
put it mildly. Daschle's office hung up on us. I also wrote to my
Senators. One has not replied. The other sent back a form letter
pledging her committment to defend the words 'under God' in the
pledge and re-affirming her belief that we are one nation under God.
Is anyone else as outraged by all of this as we are? Has anyone else
called their representive in congress? What re-action was there?

Sorry to post such a long message for my first post and I hope I
have not offended any etiquette of the site but I am so glad to have
found a discussion forum and like minded people and I needed to let
off steam and find out what you all think about this aspect of the
recent decision of the ninth circuit court of appeals. Thanks for
listening.

LisaA · Post by **LisaA** » 07-07-2002 10:26 PM

Snorrithor-- thanks for posting your personal views. Sorry the popularity of certain ideas seems to be excluding you.

Snorrithor · Post by **Snorrithor** » 07-09-2002 02:43 AM

Popularity?

1933: FORTY MILLION GERMANS COULDN'T BE WRONG!

eliza_nightvoice · Post by **eliza_nightvoice** » 07-09-2002 06:27 AM

We live in a secular society. I am getting wearied of political hacks using a few well-beloved phrases to do their covert their intentions with smoke and mirrors, a diversion from letting us see the sleight of hand of political corruption as usual. Wasn't there a man, who a was called "Teacher", who saw the corruption of those who used feigned piety to fatten their purses and increase their prestige and who said, "You whitened tombstones."

Faith is strongest when it is in opposition to the society; not its' lap dog. The longevity of the current fads of enlightenment have not been tested by time and, at the least, by unpopularity. This even includes this "outing" of the belief system called atheism. So, let the curtain be drawn. For if a belief system needs a nativity creche or a menorah on a town square or the carved words of only one set of ancient laws which are the underpinnings of our current civilization, then, there is no faith. Only a self-delusionary, pompous show of pretense.

LisaA · Post by **LisaA** » 07-09-2002 08:54 AM

I didn't come across right. What I meant was only that your second post here is good for me to read because you expressed yourself in your own words. I just wanted to say thank you.

I'm a Unitarian Universalist and so neither do I ascribe to the popular notions about God being an American or anything like that. So I know what you're talking about.

But I'll tell you this: I don't think atheism is superior to theism. You'd have to tell me what's so great about thinking of this world without a God running it. I challenge you to explain it without denigrating religion. If you can do that, you might be able to show the world that atheism is not just a fad in the style of counterculturalism.

[This message has been edited by LisaA (edited 09 July 2002).]

eliza_nightvoice · Post by **eliza_nightvoice** » 07-09-2002 06:00 PM

Originally posted by maryals:
OK Snorry...that "Joke" is SICK.....IMO Linnea should BAN you from the Forum for at least six months....take that SICKO "humor" somewhere else

Yes, that comment is sick AND sickening. It should remind all of us that evil can be in a huge majority. And that majority can do completely horrendous deeds in the name of defeating those who think, speak, look, act, or believe differently.

Mercury · Post by **Mercury** » 07-09-2002 09:44 PM

Maryals said: "IMO Linnea should BAN you from the Forum for at least
six months....take that SICKO "humor" somewhere else"

Maryals,
Please!! Enough! If I have to explain it to you, ok, I will: Snorri's simply using irony and sarcasm here to make a point about how 'popular opinion' is NO measure of virtue or correctness. You on the other hand sound like the Spanish Inquisition with all this "ban him!" nonsense (I thought we were all making progress towards "getting along," as Rodney King would say?). What if WE call for you to be banned instead?? Would that be good? Why not? Snor' compiles, references and presents lots of interesting material in his posts; when was the last time you even included a link in any of yours?!

So be careful. If you can't handle adult discourse from others or understand irony, it's not the author's problem. Many of us do 'get it' and have no desire to make the FF into some kind of simpy 'AOL-Kids#2' chatroom on behalf of those who don't. And finally, please remember that you do already have your own private thread after all...N'est-ce pas??

[This message has been edited by Mercury (edited 09 July 2002).]

Poptart8 · Post by **Poptart8** » 07-10-2002 12:03 AM

Here in Texas a Baptist church was just condemed in the news when two brothers who taught/ministered the children where arrested after beating a child for not remembering his bible verses. The child was so severely beaten that his kidneys shut down and he's in critical care.

This was done out of fear and not out of love.

LisaA · Post by **LisaA** » 07-10-2002 10:41 AM

Do you call that '40 million Germans' comment adult discourse? Come on now...

Regarding faith in God: I can agree that mass religion is just as bad as anything else when it takes on a political/idealogical agenda of force.

However, I will defend the notion that I am incomplete and I make mistakes and I screw up, and can take comfort in the notion that a higher consciousness does know the whole picture. I don't understand the higher consciousness so I put names on it. When I use that faith to change my momentary awareness to a larger focus, I'm doing the same thing that others do who choose meditation or exercise to do the same thing. And so others choose not to accept the notion of a higher consciousness. Now, what's wrong with either "thing?"

You who feel the need to blame religion for the world's problems are just the flip side of religious people blaming the 'ungodly' for the world's problems. When you do that, I see how equal both groups are.

When I left the Mormon church I tried to tear it down. It can't be torn down from the outside. Plus, it meant I was exchanging one trip for another. When I let go and chose to live an individual life, life didn't get better but it freed my mind up for a whole new world of thought. I guess we get our wonderful gifts of life one at a time. There's no cure for life.

turtle101 · Post by **turtle101** » 07-10-2002 04:05 PM

Its the old "IF YOUR" told the bench paint is wet ...you have to touch it!. But if your told that there are million of worlds out there with life on them you/we say 'OK'

QUESTION: If there are millions of worlds with life on them why not millions of GODS? WHY ONLY ONE, which BY THE WAY IS a new idead to MAN/WOMAN ,,,THIS IDEA OF ONE GOD (EVEN IN DOG YRS )HAS ONLY BEEN AROUND A VERY SHORT TIME. AS THE CHINEESE SAY: 'If god or the gods, if they are gods HAD LIMITS TO THERE POWER WOULD SHE TELL US?????????

LisaA · Post by **LisaA** » 07-10-2002 04:42 PM

Good point. I know that before the Hebrews came up with the 1 God idea they worshiped many. Also the Greeks, the Romans, the Scandinavians the Celts... So, since we think there's one, does that make our ancestors wrong? Hmmm. Makes me think. By extension, when all humankind agrees there's no such thing as God, will we be right then???

I read a funny thought in a magazine. This old guy in a story is discussing philosophy and it gets around to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" and the guy goes, "None. They're ten feet tall."

It's funny about atheists and thin people:

A thin person can tell a fat person they oughta get skinny, but a fat person is not allowed to tell a thin person to get fat.

A believer is allowed to tell an atheist they ought to believe in God but an atheist isn't allowed to tell a believer to stop believing in God.

"You ought to stop praying. Just stop praying one time and you will get a feeling like there is no God and it will feel like a miracle." (An example of what you won't ever hear)

Snorrithor · Post by **Snorrithor** » 07-12-2002 12:51 PM

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ments.html

TONS of LINKS

Library: Modern Documents: Nontheism: Atheism: Arguments for Atheism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this section, "arguments for atheism" means "arguments for the nonexistence of God." In the jargon of the philosophy of religion, such arguments are known as "atheological arguments." The argument from evil (sometimes referred to as 'the problem of evil') is by far the most famous of such arguments, but it is by no means the only such argument. Indeed, in the 1990s atheist philosophers developed a flurry of atheological arguments; arguably the most famous of such arguments is the argument from divine hiddenness (and the related argument from nonbelief).

Many people wonder if it is even possible to make a sound argument for the nonexistence of God. The following essays address this very question:

"Is Atheism Logical?" (1996) by Mark I. Vuletic

Response to Hank Hanegraaff's claim that atheism is incoherent.

"Is a Proof of the Non-Existence of a God Even Possible?" (1998) by Jeffery Jay Lowder

A common objection to atheism--one stated by many scholars and laymen, theists and nontheists--is that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God. Yet there are actually two ways to prove the non-existence of something. One way is to prove that it cannot exist because its very concept is self-contradictory (e.g., square circles, married bachelors, etc.). The other way is by carefully looking and seeing. Both of these methods can and have been used to disprove various conceptions of God.

"The Atheist's Certainty" (1994) by Peter Wilson

Wilson argues that it is impossible to prove any nonexistence claim.

"Proving a Negative" (1999) by Richard Carrier

The myth of "you can't prove a negative" circulates throughout the nontheist community, and it is good to dispell myths whenever we can. The real issue is the problem of induction, which is faced by both positive and negative claims. But there can still be a reasonable belief or unbelief even in what we can never know for certain.

What, then, are the atheological arguments? The following is a partial list:

Arguments from Incoherence: also known as 'incompatible-properties arguments,' these arguments attempt to derive a contradiction in the concept of God.
Atheistic Cosmological Argument: according to this argument, Big Bang cosmology is evidence that God does not exist.
Argument from Physical Minds: the physical dependence of minds upon the brain is evidence for atheism
Argument from Evil: evil is evidence for the nonexistence of God
Arguments from Divine Hiddenness and Nonbelief: the reasonableness of nonbelief is evidence for atheism
Arguments from Confusion: confusion about morality and among religious believers is evidence for atheism
Atheistic Moral Arguments: according to this family of arguments, some claim about morality (the impossibility of a being worthy of worship, the nonexistence of objective moral values, etc.) is evidence for the nonexistence of God
Other atheological arguments (not yet discussed on the Secular Web) include the argument from evolution, the argument from pain and pleasure, and the argument from flourishing and languishing. (See our call for papers if you are interested in contributing a paper on one of these arguments.) To see how these and other arguments can be used to build a cumulative case for naturalism (the view that there are no supernatural beings), see The Lowder-Fernandes Debate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeffery Jay Lowder maintains this page.

Mercury · Post by **Mercury** » 07-12-2002 07:11 PM

Turtle101 said: "If there are millions of worlds with life on them why not millions of GODS?"

Yes! I like that Turtle!

"I wish there was one person in my life I could show. One instinctive, absolutely unbrisk person I could take to Greece, and stand in front of certain shrines and sacred streams and say, 'Look! Life is only comprehensive through a thousand local gods. And not just the old dead ones with names like Zeus - no, but living Geniuses of Place and Person! And not just Greece but modern England! Spirits of certain trees, certain curves of brick wall, certain chip shops, if you like, and slate roofs - just as of certain frowns in people and slouches' ...I'd say to them - 'Worship as many gods as you can see - and more will appear!"

-from Equus by Peter Shaffer, 1973 (Act 1:18)

[This message has been edited by Mercury (edited 12 July 2002).]

Poptart8 · Post by **Poptart8** » 07-12-2002 08:13 PM

Hmm ... concepts of a higher consciousness created by self. Heaven must be conjested with all those supreme beings we've created. I like the idea lets party with the galactic other dimension for all eternity.