Jordan Peterson presents a radical and new idea

[dr froyd]

what if all religions just became friends? like care bears?

 

[Puffy]

What if Jordan Peterson just became friends with woke people? :P

 

[Rook]

Jihad

Man I was once in a bubble where I believed this guy.... 2016? This reedy voice wow feels like im sitting in church again. The devil is within me damn straight mr peterson .... like im just listening to this but scrolling up his eyes look like biden's xD. Im sure the kids being droned in yemen really appreciate this message.

Jihad

 

[BurnedOut]

It's like being a gay sexist man. You are outright sexist but you are excused as nobody expects you to be sexist.

Muzzlim world stop fighting with themselves - Shites and Sunnis

 

[BurnedOut]

This reedy voice wow feels like im sitting in church again. The devil is within me damn straight mr peterson ..

Holy Shi'ite rook

 

[onesteptwostep]

Peterson is basically a secular preacher. His god is basically the secular good.

 

[Rook]

i mean im wary of all preachers unless they preach un-doctrine. un-doctrine is the only ideology that can lead similar beings into a state of jubilant acceptance.

 

[Daddy]

I think he just realized he doesn't have to try anymore.

 

[Cognisant]

How to say religion is inherently harmful without saying "religion is inherently harmful".

Why can't they all just get along and practice that love and kindness they preach? Don't they share the goal of making the world a better place for all humanity?

 

[Rook]

humans dont care as much about humanity as they care about humans

 

[Rook]

and i mean sum of my ancestors fled the catholics out of france, the massacres there, so it isnt as if all of this is new or anything. just another day on this beautiful planet.

 

[Daddy]

How to say religion is inherently harmful without saying "religion is inherently harmful".

Why can't they all just get along and practice that love and kindness they preach? Don't they share the goal of making the world a better place for all humanity?

I mean, you are right.

But the problem seems to be that religious people are religious not because they doubt, question, inquire, reflect, and constantly transform their beliefs and understanding to better reflect current knowledge and experience (like some kind of philosopher or thinker or mediator), but because they don't want to do all that. They want answers and to be told what is and isn't, without doing the work themselves. It's basically what religion is, without all the pretense of believing in a higher power and trying to live a "moral" life. But I might be too cynical; it would be nice to be wrong.

edit: Oh, I just realized you were probably being sarcastic and probably already think all this. I'll just leave the post anyway.

 

[Grayman]

Nice woodpile he has there. Looks cozy. What's he talking about?

 

[Grayman]

How to say religion is inherently harmful without saying "religion is inherently harmful".

Why can't they all just get along and practice that love and kindness they preach? Don't they share the goal of making the world a better place for all humanity?

The religion of peace, through subjugation? I guess, they are a religion of peace. Rome wanted peace through subjugation and that led to a lot of war.

Religion of the love of Jesus Christ would have more success, old testiment God no so much.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

the antichrist will come soon

 

[Rook]

i wonder how the anti-christ tastes

 

[Puffy]

That would be funny if after all this time the anti-Christ emerged just to be eaten by rook

 

[BurnedOut]

The analysis of religion from a historical perspective has strikingly Marxist patterns - opium of the masses. Show me one religion that did not have greed as it's backbone. Even Buddha's philosophy was similar to Gandhi's in the way that it sought to normalise the dominance of the king over his subjects by all sorts of circumlocution in the name of virtuousness and morals and whatnot. The same reason why Stoicism was tolerated in the society as it sought to ignore subject of politics altogether. When any mode of behaviour of human alienates her politically, the cleft between the two is exploited naturally. One man's ignorance is another's man knowledgeableness. The asymmetry of information contributes to misery. Our knowledge's usefulness is determined by someone else's denial of the same. Religion sought to fill the void that never existed. There have been atheists since the dawn of mankind and there are atheists and possibly when humans go extinct, atheism will be just as useless as theism as people will venerate people. It is a cycle of suppression and wilful perpetuation of information asymmetry. JP is still as big as a cunt after the release of his new cartoon film mentioned in OP. White supremacy is suddenly in vogue after our dearly loved arsehole named Donald. It is the same as the comedy film named Nuclear Disarmament. You should watch that film. After the states have stockpiled thousands of armaments, they propagate the nullification of the same

Tldr, come to India. I'll give you a tour of religion here.

 

[Daddy]

That would be funny if after all this time the anti-Christ emerged just to be eaten by rook

Define "eat".

 

[Puffy]

Define "eat".

Giggity-goo

 

[Old Things]

@Rook you are a pretty funny person. I was laughing at a few of your comments.

 

[Rook]

@Old Things >.< Glad im making someone's life brighter : P

 

[ZenRaiden]

The way I understand it, Muslim world has been at war for good 1000 years, and recent history of this world is filled with war with western world, most of which was caused by west.

Muslims themselves are not very unified bunch.
They tend to have differences there too, but the idea that some how extending a hand to the Muslims with preachy tone of enlightenment seems an odd idea given the history recent and imperial, colonial.

Lets not forget about the whole Jerusalem thing with holy wars etc.
Which might have been spurred by Turkish invasion, but since I never studied it, I could guess Turkish invasion of Europe might have been direct result of holy wars too.
Not sure there, but I often wonder if historians can build causal relations in history that aren't completely biased when it comes to these things.

Either way most of terrorism "magically" happens in countries that have this weird history of "helping" Muslims.

Its always France, Britain, US, Israel. Somehow I don't see many angry Muslims blowing up things in countries that literally did nothing to these nations.

I guess I am simple guy. Who knew that all it takes to have good relationship with Muslims is not waging bloody wars with them.
I guess once Christians get this biblical lesson right they might start preaching it to other religions.

 

[dr froyd]

the solution is wiping religion off the face of the planet, and replacing religious values with secular ones. No amount of heartfelt kumbaya speeches from JP is gonna solve the problem that religious belief can make you do heinous shit while believing you are serving the creator of the universe.

 

[Old Things]

the solution is wiping religion off the face of the planet, and replacing religious values with secular ones. No amount of heartfelt kumbaya speeches from JP is gonna solve the problem that religious belief can make you do heinous shit while believing you are serving the creator of the universe.

I can assure you, atheism is much worse.

 

[dr froyd]

the solution is wiping religion off the face of the planet, and replacing religious values with secular ones. No amount of heartfelt kumbaya speeches from JP is gonna solve the problem that religious belief can make you do heinous shit while believing you are serving the creator of the universe.

I can assure you, atheism is much worse.

atheism forces you to think, religion does the opposite

 

[Old Things]

the solution is wiping religion off the face of the planet, and replacing religious values with secular ones. No amount of heartfelt kumbaya speeches from JP is gonna solve the problem that religious belief can make you do heinous shit while believing you are serving the creator of the universe.

I can assure you, atheism is much worse.

atheism forces you to think, religion does the opposite

False. Besides, if you think Christian nations are more dangerous than Atheist regimes, then you don't know much about the history of these things. Joseph Stalin alone has done more harm with his atheism than any known figure in Christendom.

 

[ummidk]

^^
"If you don't like the religious right, wait until you meet the post religious right"

 

[Hadoblado]

Religion is a limiter but also a mover. Atheism is the absence of these limits and movers (but nature abhors a vacuum).

Religious programming can move people towards systematically heinous acts, and religious thinking can facilitate perverse incentives. At the same time, it can protect against non-religious programming and non-religious incentives. Religion is simultaneously a protective factor and a vulnerability.

Arguing over whether religion or atheism will lead to the worst result seems pointless to me because so much depends on the nature of the programming and the environment that will otherwise fill the void that religion currently inhabits.

Wiping out religion is highly unlikely, and it won't easily solve the problems you think it will. At the same time, atheism is not going to cause people to turn into Stalin, but it might give people the opportunity to be horrific in ways they wouldn't otherwise have.

 

[Old Things]

programming

No Christian thinks their religion is programming.

This is what happens when you remove the feelings, thoughts, and beliefs from Christianity.. You end up with a shell of a system that does not resemble Christianity at all.

So respectfully, this is not any way to talk about Christianity and it completely removes the experience of being a Christian.

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't care what Christians think, I was talking broadly about religion, and "programming" is just a framing for belief structures, not a position on individual religions. If you think the framing is poor, feel free to point out why, but the specifics of any particular belief system aren't relevant to the point.

Just FYI, this framing extends beyond religion. Atheism is only an absence of religious programming, the whole point of what I was saying is that this void is filled by something else (other types of programs, some good and some bad).

 

[Old Things]

I don't care what Christians think, I was talking broadly about religion, and "programming" is just a framing for belief structures, not a position on individual religions. If you think the framing is poor, feel free to point out why, but the specifics of any particular belief system aren't relevant to the point.

Just FYI, this framing extends beyond religion. Atheism is only an absence of religious programming, the whole point of what I was saying is that this void is filled by something else (other types of programs, some good and some bad).

That's fine if you think atheism isn't sheltered from programming and you are including everyone in this, that would be fair. But that wasn't the impression I got when you said,

Religion is a limiter but also a mover. Atheism is the absence of these limits and movers (but nature abhors a vacuum).

In fact, atheism does have a worldview it adheres to. Of course, the movements within may differ (Jesus mythicism vs Bart Ehrman etc.), but the most basic fundamental thing that atheism shares (beyond not believing in God) are methodological naturalism. This is why when people go to university they think science conflicts with Christianity. Christianity in no way conflicts with science. I could make a long post to show this, but I won't. So it's not like you have to pick between science and Christianity. The rest of the world outside of people who label themselves as atheists (which is about 7% of the population worldwide) does not agree with naturalism.

And some people have even said that atheism itself functions like a religion because there are basic assumptions that atheists make about the universe that cannot be proven (like scientism as well as a cult-like adherence to their favorite atheist thinkers). It doesn't really matter what your worldview is, you are going to have to put faith in something. Some people's faith in naturalism is so strong that no amount of evidence will convince them against it (and they have more or less gone on record saying this).

Overall, it's fine if you want to say all people are susceptible to programming. I wouldn't have a problem with that. It would be the way you see the world and everyone included. But to separate these ones over here from those ones over there is sort of to separate into higher and lower humans.

 

[Hadoblado]

That's fine if you think atheism isn't sheltered from programming and you are including everyone in this, that would be fair. But that wasn't the impression I got when you said,

Religion is a limiter but also a mover. Atheism is the absence of these limits and movers (but nature abhors a vacuum).

I'm guessing it's the blue that left too much to your imagination. I'll be more specific. Atheists are just people with a blank cheque. This does not mean they make sound investments in their epistemic infrastructure.

I think what your overall response is saying is in alignment with what I intended even if I take issue with a lot of what you said. Beliefs are software and I'm not treating any belief of mine as if it were somehow different or special.
There are characteristics of my beliefs that make me prefer them over yours, but within the scope of this conversation, I consider the only meaningful difference between religious and non-religious beliefs to be the nature of their reproduction. Religious beliefs require religious institutions to uphold them. That's it.

 

[Puffy]

Christopher Columbus was Christian. 55 million dead indigenous Americans.

One can just as easily associate atheism with Stalin as they can Columbus with Christianity. It’s a non-sequitur really, history demonstrates that monsters are created independent of their faith or beliefs.

 

[dr froyd]

the solution is wiping religion off the face of the planet, and replacing religious values with secular ones. No amount of heartfelt kumbaya speeches from JP is gonna solve the problem that religious belief can make you do heinous shit while believing you are serving the creator of the universe.

I can assure you, atheism is much worse.

atheism forces you to think, religion does the opposite

False. Besides, if you think Christian nations are more dangerous than Atheist regimes, then you don't know much about the history of these things. Joseph Stalin alone has done more harm with his atheism than any known figure in Christendom.

lol here comes the "but, but, Stalin and Mao did terrible things too"

when it comes to genocidal communists, at least we can reason about the ends and means of their projects. That's a whole different category than someone having murderous hate towards people purely based on religious and metaphysical views. You can, in theory, do something about the former, not so much about the latter.

 

[dr froyd]

Wiping out religion is highly unlikely, and it won't easily solve the problems you think it will. At the same time, atheism is not going to cause people to turn into Stalin, but it might give people the opportunity to be horrific in ways they wouldn't otherwise have.

of course, but no one has ever committed heinous acts to serve the absence of religious belief. It is when people are under influence of blind faith (in metaphysical concepts or otherwise), primal instincts, and psychopathy that they do such things. If the ideal of humanity is a peaceful, harmonious, and productive existence, then one needs to apply some very rigorous thinking about what ethical principles to apply to achieve that. Religious texts contain both productive and counterproductive imperatives towards that end, and in the final analysis one needs to apply secular ideas to figure out what's what.

 

[Daddy]

All people are capable of doing horrible things for whatever reasons they want to justify, but the thing that generally sucks about religious people is they can use their beliefs or faith to justify things; and when they do, you can't show them how they are or might be wrong because those justifications are faith-based and not reason-based. At least with a non-religious person, if they try to justify their actions, you have a chance to show them how or why their actions might be wrong. They probably won't listen anyway because people tend to be assholes, regardless of their beliefs, but they also won't brush you off with their beliefs. With non-religious people, there's a general sense that you feel you've been heard, even if they don't heed what you said, but with religious people I usually just feel brushed off.

Classic case in point. Christians are often taught that homosexuality is wrong for some religious faith-based reason, saying God didn't make people that way or something. And they won't listen to gay people that say that's not true. With the religious, faith trumps reason. It's an extra mental block and it's super obnoxious.

 

[Old Things]

the solution is wiping religion off the face of the planet, and replacing religious values with secular ones. No amount of heartfelt kumbaya speeches from JP is gonna solve the problem that religious belief can make you do heinous shit while believing you are serving the creator of the universe.

I can assure you, atheism is much worse.

atheism forces you to think, religion does the opposite

False. Besides, if you think Christian nations are more dangerous than Atheist regimes, then you don't know much about the history of these things. Joseph Stalin alone has done more harm with his atheism than any known figure in Christendom.

lol here comes the "but, but, Stalin and Mao did terrible things too"

when it comes to genocidal communists, at least we can reason about the ends and means of their projects. That's a whole different category than someone having murderous hate towards people purely based on religious and metaphysical views. You can, in theory, do something about the former, not so much about the latter.

Maybe we should look at how/if they are living by the ethics put forward in the Bible?

I hear people say all the time, "You can't blame what atheists do on atheism" but they are very quick to say, "You can blame what Christians do on Christianity." It's a double standard.

The point is, what does the Bible and the NT say about how to treat people?

 

[Old Things]

and when they do, you can't show them how they are or might be wrong because those justifications are faith-based and not reason-based.

Why would this be any different than any other belief/person and their views?

 

[Old Things]

Christopher Columbus was Christian. 55 million dead indigenous Americans.

One can just as easily associate atheism with Stalin as they can Columbus with Christianity. It’s a non-sequitur really, history demonstrates that monsters are created independent of their faith or beliefs.

Well, that is one opinion, but in my mind, the jury is still out on how horrible of a person Columbus was (as opposed to the people under him).

Myth vs Facts – The Truth About Columbus

I'm not saying I take this article wholesale, but it paints a very different picture than what you are saying about him.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think on a micro level you can have a reasonable rationale for not having a belief, but it's hard to say whether society will function similarly if it were all atheistic. I think from a developmental standpoint an atheistic society is impossible to come to fruition. I think societies begets culture, and culture begets religion. In the end I think asking whether Christianity is right or wrong or whether there is god or not is not that fruitful nor does it advance our culture in any way. If you take away religion, let's say, from India or the Muslim world, you can bet social cohesion would erode and weaken that world's economy.

Imagine if Christianity were taken away from America.. You'd probably see crime rates spike. Mexcio would probably go under some warring states period without Catholicism.

Here, just imagine people in smaller cults like Mormonism or Scientology. Why are they in those groups anyway? If you take away people's cradle of belief you are going to bring in a lot of confusion and uncertainty. People tend to value that over any metaphysical truth, and would trade anything for comfort and acceptance.

You can be an atheist but that kind of belief is a privilege only those who had a broader upbringing. It doesn't make you right, but if you have that kind of insight it should be a way to understand people more, not to whine and complain why people aren't as like minded as you.

 

[Daddy]

and when they do, you can't show them how they are or might be wrong because those justifications are faith-based and not reason-based.

Why would this be any different than any other belief/person and their views?

No, it wouldn't, which is why I don't like politics very much.

Man, I was looking at https://www.politifact.com/ yesterday and it's surprising how many things politicians say that everyone talks about that are either false, mostly false, or half truths. Very little that is said ends up being true. But many people treat them as if they are true. Yeah, it's the same.

 

[Old Things]

and when they do, you can't show them how they are or might be wrong because those justifications are faith-based and not reason-based.

Why would this be any different than any other belief/person and their views?

No, it wouldn't, which is why I don't like politics very much.

Man, I was looking at https://www.politifact.com/ yesterday and it's surprising how many things politicians say that everyone talks about that are either false, mostly false, or half truths. Very little that is said ends up being true. But many people treat them as if they are true. Yeah, it's the same.

Well, I mean politicians basically make a career out of compromising on their values, so this doesn't really surprise me much. It's really the same on either side. Trump promises stuff (which he mostly fulfills) but are these policies Americans want? Conversely, Biden promises a lot and only does a little of it because he's in an ever-ending cycle of compromise. And I don't think this is just a matter of who is in control (of the house and the senate) as it seems as though the bills put forward are either extreme in nature (via the Democrats) or perhaps too conservative (the Republicans). I really wish we could strike a balance and get some grassroots movement going for third-party candidates, but it seems the war is a constant one and no one wants to really stick to their values (besides Trump, but that guy is a complete meathead).

 

[dr froyd]

If you take away religion, let's say, from India or the Muslim world, you can bet social cohesion would erode and weaken that world's economy.

1000 years ago baghdad was the commercial and scientific capital of the world, with all kinds of cultures and nationalities doing trade, scientific research, and peaceful co-existence in the middle east. Nowadays the muslim world is literally centuries behind the western world in terms of economic, social, and scientific development, thanks to al-ghazali in the 10th century who turned islam into a anti-scientific, revalation-first ideology. what would be good for 'world's economy' is if the muslim world continued along the path of the islamic golden age - when science and secular ideas took precedence over metaphysical dogmatism.

and if you call what's going in middle east nowadays 'social cohesion' then fuck me, we must be living on different planets.

 

[Hadoblado]

Maybe we should look at how/if they are living by the ethics put forward in the Bible?

I hear people say all the time, "You can't blame what atheists do on atheism" but they are very quick to say, "You can blame what Christians do on Christianity." It's a double standard.

The point is, what does the Bible and the NT say about how to treat people?

Atheism is not a set of beliefs, it is the absence of a set of beliefs. Atheists as a tribe is a framing I take issue with. It's like grouping the worlds into "fans of Elvis" and "not fans of Elvis". The fans of Elvis have a meaningful commonality, the notfansofElvis do not.

How many crimes are committed citing atheism as a driving factor? How many wars started? While I am skeptical of claims regarding the overall moral output of religious and non-religious actors, it makes a lot more sense to ascribe causality to a positive belief. If the absence of that belief is correlated with bad outcomes, then it makes more sense to frame this as a protective property of that belief rather than a harmful property of lack of belief.

I think you would benefit if instead of acting as an advocate for your religion, you tried to advocate for religion overall. This would more directly address the claims that others are making. After all, atheists don't only reject the Christian God.

 

[onesteptwostep]

If you take away religion, let's say, from India or the Muslim world, you can bet social cohesion would erode and weaken that world's economy.

1000 years ago baghdad was the commercial and scientific capital of the world, with all kinds of cultures and nationalities doing trade, scientific research, and peaceful co-existence in the middle east. Nowadays the muslim world is literally centuries behind the western world in terms of economic, social, and scientific development, thanks to al-ghazali in the 10th century who turned islam into a anti-scientific, revalation-first ideology. what would be good for 'world's economy' is if the muslim world continued along the path of the islamic golden age - when science and secular ideas took precedence over metaphysical dogmatism.

and if you call what's going in middle east nowadays 'social cohesion' then fuck me, we must be living on different planets.

I don't mean it that way. If you go to a normal Arab town you'll see the mosque being at the center of their lifestyle. It rings to let them know when to pray, let's them know the time, when to start working and when to stop. They go there to hear sermons from the imam and hear the news from there. If you take that away, you're basically taking away their rhythm of life.

 

[Old Things]

Maybe we should look at how/if they are living by the ethics put forward in the Bible?

I hear people say all the time, "You can't blame what atheists do on atheism" but they are very quick to say, "You can blame what Christians do on Christianity." It's a double standard.

The point is, what does the Bible and the NT say about how to treat people?

Atheism is not a set of beliefs, it is the absence of a set of beliefs. Atheists as a tribe is a framing I take issue with. It's like grouping the worlds into "fans of Elvis" and "not fans of Elvis". The fans of Elvis have a meaningful commonality, the notfansofElvis do not.

I know it is easy to say atheism is a "lack of belief." However, there does seem to be a uniting factor for atheists which is that they don't believe in God and especially don't want to believe in God. So it is not only that it is a "neutral" or "negative" belief, but an active belief against the belief in God. Words are very very cheap. I've seen so many atheists say nothing unites atheists and then they go on to quote their favorite atheists as some sort of proof against the existence of God. There are only so many minds within the scope of atheism. Just like any other movement (talking about the New Atheists here), there are actors which people actively follow. Not to mention that a lot of university professors are actively discouraging belief in God. Is it any wonder that the church is on the decline in the west when the "best and brightest" are actively working against the positive beliefs that Christianity purports? So even if you want to say that atheism is limited in what it defines as positive beliefs, the stance that atheism has is definitely against the belief in God. We can get into a big thing about the separation between atheism and anti-theists, but it's mainly the same thing: if atheists simply refrained from believing in God, then they really should not give any care for whether other people believe in God or not. But my experience shows even people like Bart Ehrman who goes on record saying he doesn't care what people believe actively work against people believing in God. If all things are equal, then don't believe in God. No problem with that. But when atheists actively work against believing in God (which I think is true the vast majority of the time) then it is no longer a "lack of belief" but, and even if I want to be charitable here, working to forward that other people also have a "lack of belief." Maybe that is not you or what you are about. That's fine. But just as you might not be all about evangelizing for the sake of atheism, there are plenty of people who are.

I was going to ask you where you heard for the first time this statement:

Religious beliefs require religious institutions to uphold them. That's it.

Anyone who studies religion with intellectual honesty will realize that the people within that religion (especially Christianity in the west) act as individuals. Their commonality is in what they believe. This has no bearing on them still being individuals with various gifts and talents (which are a manifestation of the grace God has given them for the upbuilding of other Christians). What this statement really is, as we see in what I said above, is an assault on the idea that there is a global catholic church and that Christians ought to be a part of a congregation for their own benefit. Maybe the idea of being in a community of like-minded individuals is not something atheists want to do. That's fine. But don't make a caricature of the global church by defaulting to, "ItS aN iNsTiTuTiOn."

How many crimes are committed citing atheism as a driving factor? How many wars started? While I am skeptical of claims regarding the overall moral output of religious and non-religious actors, it makes a lot more sense to ascribe causality to a positive belief. If the absence of that belief is correlated with bad outcomes, then it makes more sense to frame this as a protective property of that belief rather than a harmful property of lack of belief.

Completely irrelevant. How many Christians killed in the name of Christ? Probably a LOT fewer than you assume.

Suppose that the only difference between an atheist claiming their immoral actions were due to their atheism and a Christian who claims their immoral actions were due to their Christianity was that the atheist is anti-religious and the Christian is pro-religious. So then the atheist is doing anti-religious things and the Christian is doing anti-religious things (because the Christian in this case is doing what is not the Christian ethic). Whether or not the person doing the immoral action is claiming it as a statement of belief doesn't really matter if both of these parties are doing what their worldview purports. Hitler was an ardent Darwinian. But atheists would sooner point out that Hitler was a Christian (which is debated to death, but no, Hitler was not strictly a Christian as he had a lot of mixed beliefs) rather than saying he did so under the guise of Darwinianism. Survival of the fittest, right? Do you see how this can be completely unfair to say you can't blame what atheists do on atheism? The only way your argument works is if 1) The Christian does some immoral thing in the name of Christianity and 2) The basis for them doing such is found in Christianity itself. Without that, then all you are saying is that the Christain is doing an immoral thing. But Christianity itself has the idea that Christians are sinful baked into the religion. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." So which is fairer? To say atheism is completely exempt from doing any wrong (because all it is is a lack of belief) or when someone does something immoral it is largely because of the worldview they purport? And I'd argue Christians are on average more moral people than atheists are (which is a separate conversation than which party breaks the law more).

(BTW about 93% of wars are for non-religious reasons.)

I think you would benefit if instead of acting as an advocate for your religion, you tried to advocate for religion overall. This would more directly address the claims that others are making. After all, atheists don't only reject the Christian God.

It's not my job to defend Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, or any other religion. I don't care about that. None of these other religions can hold a candle to the evidence for Christianity. So maybe at some point, we can get into Pascals Wager, but then it just defaults to which religion has more evidence for it and Christianity is leaps and bounds ahead of any other religion in existence.

 

[Hadoblado]

I know it is easy to say atheism is a "lack of belief." However, there does seem to be a uniting factor for atheists which is that they don't believe in God and especially don't want to believe in God. So it is not only that it is a "neutral" or "negative" belief, but an active belief against the belief in God. Words are very very cheap. I've seen so many atheists say nothing unites atheists and then they go on to quote their favorite atheists as some sort of proof against the existence of God. There are only so many minds within the scope of atheism. Just like any other movement (talking about the New Atheists here), there are actors which people actively follow. Not to mention that a lot of university professors are actively discouraging belief in God. Is it any wonder that the church is on the decline in the west when the "best and brightest" are actively working against the positive beliefs that Christianity purports? So even if you want to say that atheism is limited in what it defines as positive beliefs, the stance that atheism has is definitely against the belief in God. We can get into a big thing about the separation between atheism and anti-theists, but it's mainly the same thing: if atheists simply refrained from believing in God, then they really should not give any care for whether other people believe in God or not. But my experience shows even people like Bart Ehrman who goes on record saying he doesn't care what people believe actively work against people believing in God. If all things are equal, then don't believe in God. No problem with that. But when atheists actively work against believing in God (which I think is true the vast majority of the time) then it is no longer a "lack of belief" but, and even if I want to be charitable here, working to forward that other people also have a "lack of belief." Maybe that is not you or what you are about. That's fine. But just as you might not be all about evangelizing for the sake of atheism, there are plenty of people who are.

There are antitheists like myself and Cog (and Froyd?), but that's an additional position on top of being atheist. I don't believe in God and I believe believing in God is a bad thing and these are two separate positions. I personally haven't heard anything about new atheism since... I dunno it's been like a decade? I don't know who Ehrman is.

Religious beliefs require religious institutions to uphold them. That's it.

It's not a quote. It's what I think the meaningful difference is between religion and non-religion, divorced from the unknowable truth value of any specific claim. The way you're responding to this implies that you feel it's valence-negative. I intended it in a valence-neutral way. What I mean is that the perpetuation of religious beliefs is near 1:1 with the institutions that uphold them. Think of it this way, if aliens exist, if sufficiently intelligent they'll figure out geology, but they won't write the bible. I don't really understand what you were responding to.

Mmmm... I intended on responding to your whole post but these posts are getting longer and longer and it feels like you're conflating what I say with other people's positions. These post formats where we simultaneously discuss lots of smaller points without focusing on root causes of divergence never go anywhere, so I'll leave it here. Good luck.

 

[Old Things]

There are antitheists like myself and Cog (and Froyd?), but that's an additional position on top of being atheist. I don't believe in God and I believe believing in God is a bad thing and these are two separate positions. I personally haven't heard anything about new atheism since... I dunno it's been like a decade? I don't know who Ehrman is.

There have been many many studies stating religion is correlated with beneficial things (like good mental health). Yet when a single study comes out saying religion causes negative effects, well, the atheists are quick to say, "See, religion is bad," without considering the meta-studies and overall conclusion that religion is actually good for people as opposed to bad for people.

Religious beliefs require religious institutions to uphold them. That's it.

It's not a quote. It's what I think the meaningful difference is between religion and non-religion, divorced from the unknowable truth value of any specific claim. The way you're responding to this implies that you feel it's valence-negative. I intended it in a valence-neutral way. What I mean is that the perpetuation of religious beliefs is near 1:1 with the institutions that uphold them. Think of it this way, if aliens exist, if sufficiently intelligent they'll figure out geology, but they won't write the bible. I don't really understand what you were responding to.

Just responding to the common belief that gets circulated within atheism - the belief that there is some sort of separation from Christians (as people) and Christianity as a whole (as an institution). It's an idea that came from somewhere. And since I've seen the same thing stated elsewhere, then it doesn't come from you. Hence why I ask you to think about why you believe this.

Mmmm... I intended on responding to your whole post but these posts are getting longer and longer and it feels like you're conflating what I say with other people's positions. These post formats where we simultaneously discuss lots of smaller points without focusing on root causes of divergence never go anywhere, so I'll leave it here. Good luck.

You said you were an anti-theist, so I'm not sure how you are drawing the conclusion that I'm not hitting the mark on my points. The common ideas I'm talking about can be found in the first two sentences usually as that is generally how I write - from a top-down approach.

 

[Hadoblado]

My views are antitheist, but I have not advocated at all for antitheist views here. You know my conclusion but I have not provided any premise for or tried to convince anyone of, that position in this thread. In fact, I have argued against it because I don't think the antitheist arguments in this thread are very good. My position coming into this thread was that you are all wrong to imagine you can know what will happen in the absence of religion. It's indeterminate:

Wiping out religion is highly unlikely, and it won't easily solve the problems you think it will. At the same time, atheism is not going to cause people to turn into Stalin, but it might give people the opportunity to be horrific in ways they wouldn't otherwise have.

You can comment on some third narrative all you want, just don't address that stuff at me because I literally don't know what you're talking about. I don't consume antitheistic content, I'm not part of any antitheistic communities, and I don't talk to any antitheists about antitheism. I read some books on philosophy 15 years ago but nothing in those books touched on institutions in religion. That's not to say I haven't somehow absorbed such a conclusion through osmosis, but it's not some party line I'm toting. If you think institutions aren't core to the reproduction of religious beliefs, show me a counter-example and stop deciding what I'm saying for me.