David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > David Silberstein <davids at kithrup.com> writes: > >> On 27 Nov 2002, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: >> >>> >>> I object strenuously to the whole concept of religion, spirituality, >>> etc. It's superstitious nonsense, and hurts people, and destroys >>> great civilizations. >>> >> >> Eh. I sometimes think this, but I am less certain than you are. >> >> The way I would re-phrase your statement is that cruelty and wilfull >> stupidity hurt people, and that all too often religion is used as an >> excuse to commit cruel and stupid acts. >> >> But religion or spirituality is just a way of thinking and/or feeling >> about the universe. It may not the "best" way to think or feel about >> the universe, but it can just as easily be neutral or positive as >> negative in its effects. > > Religion introduces the infinite into the discussion. It takes the > discussion outside of human scale. This leads to all sorts of > unavoidable human mistakes -- we can't think meaningfully at that > scale. > >> If religion is harmful, does it necessarily follow that the absence >> of religion is beneficial? > > Relatively, yes. > > For me the real bottom-line argument is that religion, any religion, > is *false*. Basing your life on a falsehood is bad. > Err... Hmm I can't differentiate that statement from someone saying: For me the real bottom-line argument is that atheism, or any other religion than the one I believe in, is *false*. Basing your life on a falsehood is bad. I agree and disagree on falsehoods, if believing something false helps you do something good or it has a good outcome it's falseness becomes only relevant if you care about being right. If you believe something false and it hurts you then it is bad. Like: You trip and fall and you try to catch yourself on a pole which you believe to be firmly planted and capable of supporting you, you are wrong and still fall flat on your face along with the pole. Or You trip and fall believing you are going to fall flat on your face and someone catches you, you were wrong and didn't expect it yet is doesn't matter that your judgment was in error because the only relevance is in being right. Just to remind the point I don't follow any religion, and haven't found one I believe in however every religion I've been subject to has had pieces of beliefs I do follow (all are undisputable positive ideals, not anything based in I can't prove it land), when you so reverently say religion is bad I simply know that's not true because it has vast potential to anyone who isn't a moron, just like anything else. I think there is error in your thinking that just because most or all religions (I don't know for sure so I'm unwilling to fully generalize) have at least one or more falsehoods in them that people following them automatically believe. Religion is subject to the brain the same way any other idea is we have the right and the ability to refuse ideas we find falseness in. And we have the right to renounce the religion for the falsehood at any point we distinguish it as harming us or existing. I did when it happened to me, born into a religion saw inconsistencies, even what I considered proof of the fallacy. But I've walked away with every positive piece of the teaching. I'd still follow if my ethics system based outside of religion didn't collide with the idea of representing something (the religion) by being a follower and not fully believing. For me the real bottom-line argument is that ideas, any idea is subject to being false. It's ok to believe in ideas even if some turn out to be false. Saying all religons are false is like to me saying all ideas are false. It seems so generalistic.