Thoughts
Why arguing about religion is futile
Over the past few months the number of arguments, debates and discussions I've had on religion has been exponential - since I decided to fully reject the idea of a god, it seems like the opportunities arrive daily. And, god (no pun intended) it ain't easy.
Hitler was a Christian … Stalin was an atheist
I'm sick of hearing those two names. The first thing people have to realise is that in their purest forms, neither religion nor atheism promotes immoral behaviour. As someone who has spent a large part of their life as a Christian, I'd define the fundamental nature of each as follows:
Religion
The belief that there is a greater force in the universe than can meet the human eye, now or ever. In many cases this force is the reason for the universe's existence, in others it is the embodiment of the universe itself. For some people, god is a personal entity, able to directly communicate with us; for others, he is a passive force, setting things into motion but not interfering afterwards. Importantly, there is an element of mysticism, which renders religion incompatible with science, but not necessarily a bad thing; whether it is right or wrong, unless it is misinterpreted it should not cause problems or harm.
Atheism
This is not necessarily a rejection of god, more a recognition that god, which by definition is unquantifiable, is unlikely as a result. Atheism is more a 'lack of belief' than a 'belief in a lack of'. The point of this distinction is that Atheists hope to get away from the idea of belief in general: the word implies faith in something which can not be proven, thanks to its continued use by the religious. Atheists prefer to have their 'beliefs' defined as a rational reaction to available evidence - that is, if there is evidence for something then it is probably true, if there is no evidence for it then it is probably not true. Again, this should spawn no tendency towards immoral behaviour - hatred of the type of religion described in the previous sectional is irrational, and should not be associated with a lack of belief in god.
—
Hitler and Stalin are examples of individuals, and the reason they are remembered is not because they were typical of atheists or religious, but because they were so different in their ideas about morality and rationality. The Holocaust, the witch hunts, the Inquisition - they are all examples of religion being perverted beyond what it should be, and even if they do give it a bad name, they should not be used to depict the people that have the right idea about religion. Similarly, if someone performs immeasurable evil in the name of atheism, which is less common, it is nothing to do with the ideology of most atheists.
Morality is innate … The Bible is necessary for Human Values
If a person is immoral, a person is immoral - and they are likely to be so more based on their upbringing, their peers and their situation. I like to have some faith in humanity where it comes to morals, and I certainly know that when I considered myself a Christian, I certainly wasn't against homosexuality, sex before marriage, religions other than my own … if that is true of me, I am fairly certain religious people are able to make moral decisions based on other factors than their holy book.
The crucial distinction that needs to be made is that atheists shoud consider religious morality unnecessary rather than dangerous. Those who are willing to literally believe what is written in the Bible are in a minority; and their tendency to do this is probably caused by indoctrination as children - if children are brought up as open minded Christians, they are less likely to follow religious principles by the book.
Can't prove he exists … Can't prove he doesn't
So why try? If someone is going to make the change either way, I would hope it would be down to an understanding of probabilty, rather than a deluded idea that it is certain than god either exists or doesn't.
I would go so far as to say that if people were less likely to pervert the idea of religion to justify war, crime and discrimination, it would be entirely tolerable. The atheist reaction to religion should be towards this alone, rather than the existence of god or the extreme actions done in its name.
Popularity: 3%
4 votes, average: 3.75 out of 5
Loading ...Discussion
2 comments for “Why arguing about religion is futile”
Post a comment
"Why arguing about religion is futile"
I'm glad you realised! *wink*
I was under the impression that agnosticism was a lack of belief in God, no? Atheism is the belief in a lack of God, meaning that you've come to the conclusion through puny human logic that He does not exist. From what I've read you seem to be almost in between, but you've probably got a better handle on what you believe.
Some very good points about religion and the definition of an Atheist. However it is necessary to promote Atheism only because Religions promote themselves, gain memberships, increase their wealth, which in turn increases their power to shape policy and lives. The non religious should also have this power. Join the Revolution: http://www.atheistrevolution.com