Why should we give up our beliefs?

[Rhiannon]

Beliefs, religion, or experiences/spirituality?

If we have a secular society, why should it be desirable for us all to be atheist? Why do people look forward to a utopian ideal of universal non-belief?

Bit of a straw man here, though, isn't it Rhi? To be fair. Here in England (specifically) we don't have a de jure secular society, though it largely is de facto.

I don't think you could find anyone, not even the most vociferous anti-theist, who thinks that a world without religion would be 'utopia.' Plenty of people however think that a world without it, or with vastly less of it, would be a better (note: better, not perfect) world, given that that would be the fastest and easiest way of eliminating the irrationality, cruelty, floundering ignorance and petty tribalism and divisiveness it creates so much of the time.

Your beliefs are very much of the privatised, individualistic sort - thank goodness. They give shape, meaning and colour to your life; they're meaningful to you and you don't come across as the sort of person who thinks that everybody else has to believe as you do. If more religion was of this kind there'd be far, far, far less conflict in the world - it's when religions become organised; when they become a cult with clout; when they achieve critical mass and know it; when they are able to start making demands on the lives of others, that's when the trouble starts. That's what we need less of in this world.

I don't know, Shaker. I see a lot of this kind of thing from the very lovely SusanDoris:


Not only will people of different faiths living in the UK with its mainly fair and open society realise its benefits, but also the real and provable excitement of usable technology, evidence of probes landing on comets and so on will surely make younger people understand that that is far, far more exciting than chasing the ever-elusive shadows of inexplicable, mystical stuff.

to which the equally lovely Len replied

That's true, and hopefully it will negate the nonsense they are taught to believe.

And I'm wondering why that is a good thing, to eradicate the mystical from the world.

Eta my opening sentence should read 'if we were to have a secular society...' I know we don't have one at the moment.

[BashfulAnthony]

Rhiannon,


"And I'm wondering why that is a good thing, to eradicate the mystical from the world."

Sorry to be flippant, but I think that was Leonard's template, number 6.     

[Shaker]

It's not desirable, but moreover not even possible to eradicate the mystical from the world. It's perennial and inexhaustible.

I'm one of those people too in love with reality to want to hand over the mystical to a bunch of people, usually middle-aged or elderly men or headed by them, who think that the mystical is their sole preserve and possession and can only be explored if you sign on the dotted line, give your credit card details and subscribe to their particular, wholly implausible version of the nature of reality. One of the various reasons that religion is so dislikable is that it betrays its man-madeness by being so damned parochial. The universe is bigger than we can comprehend, and bigger than that.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, well I fell out of love with organised religion a long time ago. It's probably why I've stayed solitary as a pagan - even a bunch of people in someone's front room is too organised for me.

I get why Brian Cox gets so excited about the stuff he does, it is mind-blowing. But in a small way, my stuff is too, even if it's just for me. We can't all be astrophysicists and I don't see why some think it would be desirable for the mystical to disappear.

[savillerow]

HOPE msg 3 "pol pot and stalin etc" trundled out again, its so bloody annoying. Almost as annoying as "if you dont believe in something, youll believe in anything" tosh.

[jakswan]

Beliefs, religion, or experiences/spirituality?

If we have a secular society, why should it be desirable for us all to be atheist? Why do people look forward to a utopian ideal of universal non-belief?

I don't accept the premise in the question, i.e. 'if we have a secular society, it should be desirable for us all to be atheist'.

A secular society favours freedom of religion rather than favours one.

I want a society where people are free and happy, religion brings happiness to a lot of people.

The issue comes when theists insist that everyone has to adhere to what they think their god wants, we saw this across many issues, gay marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, stem cell research, etc.

[Rhiannon]

Like I said, it should be 'if we were to have'.

Sorry. 

[jakswan]

Like I said, it should be 'if we were to have'.

Sorry. 

We have a secular society for the most part?

[Rhiannon]

We do, but we still have too much legislation framed around religion. Religious institutions should be free to choose to hold same sex marriages, for example. Sharia law should not be recognised at all. We still have an institutional church. So actually at the moment I do get the objection to religion.

If we ever do get a genuinely secular society though, I don't get why some atheists then have the desire for the 'mystical' to be replaced by 'reason'. Maybe some people like the mystical?

[Shaker]

Beliefs, religion, or experiences/spirituality?

If we have a secular society, why should it be desirable for us all to be atheist? Why do people look forward to a utopian ideal of universal non-belief?

I don't accept the premise in the question, i.e. 'if we have a secular society, it should be desirable for us all to be atheist'.

A secular society favours freedom of religion rather than favours one.

I want a society where people are free and happy, religion brings happiness to a lot of people.

The issue comes when theists insist that everyone has to adhere to what they think their god wants, we saw this across many issues, gay marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, stem cell research, etc.

That!

I have my own issues - primarily linguistic more than anything else - with the concept of spirituality or spiritual matters and what have you, but there's little doubt that whatever you mean by that term, historically organised religions have regarded it as their exclusive property as of right, and like much else to do with religion they do not and will not give it up easily or nicely. They think it's theirs, that it belongs to them and that they and only they are allowed to define it and its parameters. Examples:

http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/21/viewpoint-the-problem-with-being-spiritual-but-not-religious/

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/959216

That attitude is changing, but not as fast as I'd like.

[jeremyp]

The way some of the rest of us do, I guess, using reason and common sense and compassion, concentrating not on subservience to nonexistent entities who have to be propitiated but the wellbeing of real creatures who really exist and who have real lives that can go better or worse.

In other words, Shaker, we base our actions on our beliefs.

So are you happy that the majority of people base their actions on a lie?

[jeremyp]

I believe in Jesus, and love, forgiveness and empathy with your fellow man.  Is that correct enough?

How about I believe in Jesus, and love, forgiveness and empathy with your fellow man.  Is that correct enough?

No need for the mythical god-man.

[BashfulAnthony]

I believe in Jesus, and love, forgiveness and empathy with your fellow man.  Is that correct enough?

How about I believe in Jesus, and love, forgiveness and empathy with your fellow man.  Is that correct enough?

No need for the mythical god-man.

I don't happen to believe He is mythical.  Neither do I happen to put any store by your assumptions.

[Shaker]

Jeremy will clarify if he feels like it but I took his comment to mean that a god-man is mythical, not the man bit.

Which I suspect is what most non-believers would (in fact probably do, when it comes up) say. The existence of a historical Jesus is on balance probably more likely than not (though not beyond all and any reasonable doubt); the existence of a miracle-working god-man born of a virgin and who can walk on water and reanimate corpses isn't.

[BashfulAnthony]

Jeremy will clarify if he feels like it but I took his comment to mean that a god-man is mythical, not the man bit.

Which I suspect is what most non-believers would (in fact probably do, when it comes up) say. The existence of a historical Jesus is on balance probably more likely than not (though not beyond all and any reasonable doubt); the existence of a miracle-working god-man born of a virgin and who can walk on water and reanimate corpses isn't.

Throughout history there have been beliefs that certain things are unlikely, or impossible.  But, so often it has turned out not to be the case.

[Shaker]

Like?

[BashfulAnthony]

Like?

www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Nothing-is-Impossible-329751.html‎


"Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."  Arthur C. Clarke.

[Sassy]

Can i jump in here, because it makes sense to drop all the silly stuff(religion) and concentrate in what is real/factual/testable/re-testable/honest/reliable and the yet to be discovered wonders for the sake of our planet. Faith answers nothing.

We do not have anything factual about how life first came into being or when...next!

[Shaker]

Can i jump in here, because it makes sense to drop all the silly stuff(religion) and concentrate in what is real/factual/testable/re-testable/honest/reliable and the yet to be discovered wonders for the sake of our planet. Faith answers nothing.

We do not have anything factual about how life first came into being or when...next!

Which is completely and utterly irrelevant to anything important about life here and now.

[Leonard James]

Which is completely and utterly irrelevant to anything important about life here and now.

Ah yes, but what about the life to come? 

[BashfulAnthony]

Which is completely and utterly irrelevant to anything important about life here and now.

Ah yes, but what about the life to come? 

All the posts by you sad atheists exhibit the lack of one thing in your lives; something which Paul emphasise:  hope.  What miserable and sterile lives you must lead, especially when you consider your own mortality.  There is no certainty of anything; but without hope life is a millstone round your neck.

[Shaker]

Speaking very much for yourself there Bashers. Certainly not for me or any other atheist I know, on here or otherwise.

[BashfulAnthony]

Speaking very much for yourself there Bashers. Certainly not for me or any other atheist I know, on here or otherwise.

You are afraid to admit it;  that's why you atheists bluster on so much:  it's a defence mechanism to hide you from, what for you, is a grim reality.   Know thyself!

[Rhiannon]

According to Buddhism, hope is a poisoned purse. To continually live in hope is to make inadequate the present, and given that the present is the only thing we can be certain of, that's a half life. By definition life cannot get any better than the present moment, because the present moment is the only life we have.

As a theist of kinds I've seen just enough for me to allow for the possibility of an afterlife. So I live in the hope of one, you could say. But I try to live as though there isn't, because otherwise I'm missing the miracle of me, now.

[Shaker]

Speaking very much for yourself there Bashers. Certainly not for me or any other atheist I know, on here or otherwise.

You are afraid to admit it;  that's why you atheists bluster on so much:  it's a defence mechanism to hide you from, what for you, is a grim reality.   Know thyself!

What's your methodology for being able to determine the difference between (a) someone with something that they don't want to admit to and (b) someone with no such thing to admit to? Because if you have no such means of being able to tell, alas you're merely contributing to  climate change by producing so much hot air