David G,

>> the best I could come up was successfully voiding bodily wastes<<

This sounds like a concise summary of your philosophy, whether or not intended as such. I am not sure if it enhances the intellectual level of these discussions but I am sure that most atheists are more sophisticated than this in expressing their views.

Foxy,

As usual, a good post. I don't want to add anything, only refer to a discussion about Durkheim that we already had here on http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4898&page=0#130797 and the sequel, for those interested.

George,

I guess we'll just have to write this one off as a bizarre co-incidence then.

<<Plese note that the post was addressed to Danielle, not to you; you were not mentioned or meant in that post.>>

But you could understand my confusion given that Danielle had just posted a comment suggesting that some here are intolerant (with a focus on me evident in her ‘conversion’ comment), just before you posted your comment.

<<It certainly was not meant to restart many of our arguments that always end with my assurance that I did not want to convert you.>>

Ah, yes!

And then I would remind you that that's not a concern of mine, and of the absurdity in suggesting that an atheist could actually be afraid of adopting a different position in the complete absence of any dogma.

Fun times!

Don't forget how productive our discussions were too, though. We’ve established so much! Last time it was the dishonesty of obscurantism, and I think the time before that, we confirmed that The Binding of Isaac is indeed an immoral story. This silliness of using quantum physics to shoehorn God into science came in there somewhere too.

<<Whether or not she sees the post as a smear is up to Dannielle.>>

Indeed. Though, I never presumed to know how Danielle perceived your comments, so I'm not sure what your point is here. Whether or not your comments actually were a smear, however, is more the point.

Danielle,

Thanks for the reply. Some very common arguments there.

I can’t possibly respond to all of that adequately in one hit. So, for starters, I’ll refer you to some articles that I found that regarding your points about charity that clear up some common myths and put what you’ve said into perspective:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2010/05/26/religious-charity-no-difference-in-blood-donations.htm
http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/03/24/comment-of-the-week-atheism-charity.htm
http://atheism.about.com/b/2013/12/12/religion-vs-social-ties-what-causes-more-charitable-giving.htm (This one addresses your point about health as well)

<<You have stated that beliefs no matter how benign affect people and wider society.>>

That’s only one part of the problem. What about the fact that most religions are immoral belief systems?

Continued…

…Continued

Take Christianity, for example: its notion of original sin is deeply immoral, and its solution to it (the absolving of wrong-doings through the sacrifice of another) is even worse. I don’t think we should ever turn a blind eye to immoral belief systems.

Have you considered, too, whether or not the benefits of no religion would far outweigh the absence of religious charities? Or if the need for charity would decline without religion? The Catholic Church does a lot in Africa, but had they promoted the liberation of women there instead of trying to control their reproductive organs through poisonous doctrines, then they’d alleviate poverty. The alleviation of poverty begins with the liberation of women so that they’re not chained by their husbands or by village custom to animal-like treatment of continuous pregnancies, early death and disease. The Catholic Church’s presence in Africa potentially exacerbates the problem.

Rather than listing a gazillion negatives that wouldn’t exist in the absence of religion (many of which most don’t even think of or realise), I’ll leave you here with statistics showing the strong correlation between religiosity and societal health:

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf
http://www.skepticmoney.com/tabular-relationship-of-religion-and-iq-poverty-murder-theft-divorce-giving-and-health/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA

<<I had a catholic upbringing and a constant was "god helps those who help themselves; "do everything you can, and then trust in god".>>

The faith healing problem aside, I had a protestant upbringing and I cannot stress how tempted many are to skip to that last redundant bit.

<<...any fundamentalist belief system is ... whether it be religion, ideology , philosophy, and the other myriad areas of dottiness…>>

I already addressed this somewhat in my first post to you. To add to that, I’d point out that not many other beliefs systems have a doctrine that encourages so many of their adherents to bring about the end of the world, and destroy the planet in the belief that a messiah will return before that could happen.

<<…many people who get some joy from their religion, are quite inured from the ills of society and indeed have fulfilled lives, but their religious belief gives their lives an added dimension.>>

Continued…

…Continued

Yes, but that doesn’t really negate what I said.

What I’d also add, too, is that if people need to turn to false hope for comfort, then it is an indication that they are not being equipped with the tools to cope adequately, and having religion there as a crutch saps our motivation to do something about this and makes it easier to shelve the problems.

<<...at least here in Australia, there is very little fundamentalism or extremism.>>

Maybe, but cumulatively, they all still help to legitimise the extremists all over the world.

<<Religions as practiced here are gentle and benign.>>

Relatively, yeah. But even a lot of the moderates can cause damage through their good intentions (e.g. the strict teaching of abstinence, creationism, objection to stem cell research, stigmatising of women who have/seek abortions, the list goes on and on...).

<<You mention condemnation of homosexuals, etc. etc.>>

Yes, but these people are still very much a minority, and the list I provided was really only scratching the surface. There are entire books written on this stuff.

<<...for every "negative" you see about religious beliefs, (ie about homosexuality) there are just as many atheist joe-blows who also condemn it…>>

Ah, but religion makes a virtue of it and has a doctrine supporting it.

<<The biggest problem with atheists is that they risk throwing the baby out with the bath water and thus leave society in certain ways diminished.>>

Given what I’ve just said, I think that risk is pretty damn small.

<<Very few sociologists would refute [Durkheim's]thesis.>>

As someone who is currently studying some sociology subjects, I can assure you many would. Structural functionalism (Durkheim’s baby) is but one of 15 or so sociological perspectives from which to view religions. Try asking a Conflict Theorist, Feminist or a Weberian what they think of religion’s role in society and you’ll get a very different answer.

Dear AJ Philips,

First, thanks for the link:

It tells that in Awra Amba people are:
1) without-organised-religion; and
2) more prosperous than Christians/Muslims.

The causative-connection is weak, only that they work 7-days/week. So can and should people work without rest or time-for-hobbies?
Isn't it more-likely that it's the vision of Zumra Nuru that's responsible for the prosperity?
He declared himself that: "Everyone here dreams of becoming more prosperous — that's a big reason why our economy has grown faster than others".

Even if there was a causative connection, what about the woman who claimed that her community is spiritual and moral (in other words, religious)?

While digging in the pile-of-old-posts, I identified certain concerns about how, you-presumably-believe, religion is detrimental to others. It's quite-possible that these were not your most pertinent and it's quite-possible that I haven't identified all your concerns: wouldn't it be better then if you simply list your concerns clearly rather than send me off to search for them?

I've identified 5 concerns:

1. Diversion of resources.

I acknowledged that religion diverts resources away from social projects, even away from prosperity.
It was however important, I believe, to note that "that is not specific to religion", that flying kites also has the same effect.

2. That religion denies "Live and let live".

I explained that religion doesn't do so, only people who distort religion.

3. That religion separates us.

I tried to explain with a-limited-number-of-words that while religion may separate the religious from your activities-and-projects, it does not separate them in essence from YOU. I tried to provide an adequate-metaphysical-explanation, but-had-no-space.

4. That mankind cannot live unless religion dies.

I explained that mankind will not live this-way-or-the-other, yet that religion is indestructible because the scope of religion goes way beyond human affairs.

5. That religion is tied to "bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and sheer ignorance".

I tried to explain (but failed bitterly due to word-count) that the social/political aspects of organised-religion have little to do with religion.

I see that you just addressed Danielle with further-points: Could you please let me know which are most pertinent?

Dear AJ Philips,

<<If you are going to make extraordinary claims, then it is only common sense that you support them with some evidence and/or reasoning. Why would you not want to dignify your opinions with justifications?>>

In the context, my original extraordinary claim was addressed to Grateful: I claimed that hell is better than heaven!
I provided reasoning, but had no reason to believe that Grateful would be interested in a proof.

Later, you asked me questions and I answered.
All I intended by answering was:

1) to be polite.
2) to prevent a false-impression that religion is harmful.
3) to prevent a false-impression that I have no answer or that my views are inconsistent.
4) to provide spiritual answers and assurance to those readers (including silent-readers and future-readers) of spiritual inclinations who read your claims and ask themselves: "indeed, isn't this a problem, how can this fit with what I learned so far?"
5) to provide alternatives to those religious people who as a result of atheist arguments can no longer continue with organised-religion.

For me and for modern religious people in general, objective proofs are of no value. The results we seek are subjective anyway, so we prefer to verify the truth of teachings and scripture by our own subjective experience.

While I don't like proofs, I use justifications occasionally - from scripture; from what I learned from others who are further ahead on the path to God than myself; and from my own direct experience.

Now suppose I was able to provide you with a proof: what could I possibly achieve by that?
Could I gain anything if you said to yourself: "Sh?t, the guy must be right, so I must now change my life into something I don't like"?
Would that truly make you love God, or would it achieve the opposite and make you feel trapped, then fear and hate Him instead?

As I wrote last week in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15825&page=0#274009 , Woe unto those who require evidence to support their belief.