David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > "Gametech" <voltronalpha at hotmail.com> writes: > >> David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > >>> 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. > > Thanks for walking into this one. > > It's simple. We can compare evidence between the various religions, > of course. > >> 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. > > This is on such a different scale that it doesn't compare. Yes, it's > less serious if you have a false belief about that pole, and the worst > outcome is falling on your face. That's *still* bad, just not too > serious. > > And if that pole is part of the foundation system of a building you're > designing, the consequences of being wrong go up considerably. > > So I think we've agreed that different things are of different levels > of importance. (I hope this doesn't surprise anybody!). It seems to > me that beliefs about the moral structure of the universe are > inherently of the *highest* importance. > >> 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. > > The trouble with religion as a source of ethical guidelines is that > it's based on *nothing*. It all comes down to "Because the great > sky-father said so", or "because it says so in the book" or whatever. > This is of no use whatsoever -- it's indistinguishable from "Because > Stalin said so" or "Because dd-b said so". Not a good basis for an > ethical system! > >> 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. > > Religion, by definition, asserts the existence of a non-material > world. There's no evidence for such a thing being real. Religions : 1 aBelief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. bA personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2 The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3 A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4 A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. I'd use example 4 to best describe the broad scope of religions, which IN *no* way asserts the existence of a non-material world and I'd do so because some religions do not assert the supernatural, for benefit below is zeal and conscientious. zeal n. Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance. See Synonyms at passion conscientious adj. 1. Guided by or in accordance with the dictates of conscience; principled: a conscientious decision to speak out about injustice. 2. Thorough and assiduous: a conscientious worker; a conscientious effort to comply with the regulations. I'd say that the Atheists whom are part of an atheist organization are by that very nature religious.