Does atheism "cure" the supposed ills of religion?

[Paul of Tarsus]

We've all heard the horror stories preached by atheists (or at least I've heard them) regarding the presumed ill effects of religious belief. We are told that Christians and other theists tend to be intolerant, narrow-minded, fanatical, often immoral, and irrational. And atheism, if not the cure for these ills, is "the 911 call." It's a step in the right direction toward truth and logic and laying to rest all those religious beliefs that have led to so much injustice and cruelty.

Is it true that atheism cures the supposed ills of religion?

I must admit that at one time I thought it was. However, after many debates with atheists, I'm not so sure anymore. I've seen a LOT of muddled thinking among atheists in those discussions not to mention intolerance for opposing viewpoints. Fanaticism and irrationality apparently are not the unique traits of the religious.

[Tcg]

Is that actually the case, or have you just made up some hypothetical statistic?

It's just hypothetical.

Yes, in other words, irrelevant.

Statistics aren't meaningless and nobody has to be attacking a particular individual just because some horrid correlation happens to be true.

Statistics based on hypotheticals drawn from fantasy are indeed meaningless at least if one is concerned with determining reality.


Tcg

[Paul of Tarsus]

Yes, given that theists can't present verifiable evidence of god/gods...

Such an ill is not necessarily remedied by atheism. Many atheists believe in the "primordial soup," but its existence is yet to be verified.

...some will resort to tarnishing the reputations of those who disagree with their reliance on the god/gods they can't present verifiable evidence of.

I also see here that atheism is no sure cure for the persecution complex suffered by many Christians.

It's nothing more than an absurd universal Ad Hominem. I guess if that's all one has, that's what one will present.

If you think I posted any ad hominem arguments, then you don't know what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem argument is an argument that is often abusive and that attacks "the man" when that person attacked is not the issue of the debate. Of course, if a person(s) is the issue of the debate, then to critique that person is no fallacy and is relevant to the topic of the debate. For example, if we were to debate the mass suicide under Jim Jones, then to attack Jim Jones as a dangerous religious leader is germane to the topic and not a mistake in reasoning. If you contend that attacking people is fallacious, then every court of law would be fallacious!

And wouldn't doing so be really illogical?

[Paul of Tarsus]

Well, I've been trying to say all along that you probably cannot avoid the basic ills of religion by simply giving up religion.

I agree with this. People will just go to the next-most convenient excuse to fight, to exclude others, to hate, to hurt, to use others as a simultaneous punching bag and virtue signal.

Well, people can and often do give up religion only to adopt a secular view that is just as bad. For instance, I know a man who many years ago forsook Catholicism, and not long after that he got nabbed by the police for DUI and hit and run. He was very shaken by the experience, and to deal with it he got heavily into pop psychology. He started preaching the gospel of positive self-image and positive thinking. If you were guilty of the sin of bitterness, self-loathing or pessimism, then you had better get thee to the nearest psychologist to confess those sins and have the devils cast out of thee via therapy. It was all basically nonsense, but he had a powerful faith in the all-mighty psycho-profession.

Getting rid of religion is treating the symptom, not the disease.

Brnumb sees leaving religion as a way of getting over the ills of religion, but that's only an improvement assuming you don't adopt a secular alternative to religion that's as bad or worse. As my friend's experience as described above demonstrates, "escaping religion" is often just a leap from one frying pan into another if not into the fire itself.

The disease is people. People can't evolve. If any species on Earth has a unique reason to doubt evolution, it's humans, who remain a gaggle of hooting chimps, eager for the next thing to whoop at, still more eager to become the alpha. They think of nothing else but who to exclude to gain status, who to hurt to gain status, and who to please to gain status. If religion fits this model perfectly it's simply because humans create and administrate the religion.

That's a rather unique argument against the Theory of Evolution! And yes, we hooting chimps have created religion, but we often hoot with or without religion. So if we leave religion to stop hooting and whooping, then we shouldn't just assume that that's all we need to do to stop doing so. Atheists need to find ways to avoid anti-social behavior by adopting views that promote social responsibility and harmony, and simply lacking belief in gods probably won't cut it.

[Purple Knight]

Well, people can and often do give up religion only to adopt a secular view that is just as bad. For instance, I know a man who many years ago forsook Catholicism, and not long after that he got nabbed by the police for DUI and hit and run. He was very shaken by the experience, and to deal with it he got heavily into pop psychology. He started preaching the gospel of positive self-image and positive thinking. If you were guilty of the sin of bitterness, self-loathing or pessimism, then you had better get thee to the nearest psychologist to confess those sins and have the devils cast out of thee via therapy. It was all basically nonsense, but he had a powerful faith in the all-mighty psycho-profession.

There's a certain quality and character religious people tend to have (present company excluded since none of the people on this site have it) that drives me in the other direction. This fellow maintained that and made it worse. He essentially stayed religious, took all the negatives of religion with him, and abandoned the small positive that you're sort of reined in on your craziness by the rest of the community.

Brnumb sees leaving religion as a way of getting over the ills of religion, but that's only an improvement assuming you don't adopt a secular alternative to religion that's as bad or worse. As my friend's experience as described above demonstrates, "escaping religion" is often just a leap from one frying pan into another if not into the fire itself.

He was the one creating that heat. It's possible people have it backwards and it's people who have a need to think religiously create religion, rather than religion being some causeless institution that happens to spring up, or springs up out of historical anomalies, and then creates that ill.

I'm fortunate because I simply lack that need.

However, I will say that someone who has been conditioned that their need to think that way is good and right, has probably had their particular problem exacerbated, and such a person who then leaves the religion becomes the worst of all worlds, having to find another outlet for their religious compulsion, having a worse compulsion than he would have, had he never been religious, and on top of it all having no community to restrain him from terrifying overindulgence of that religious need. The perfect storm of religious behaviour, if you will. Your example is a good one.

The Problem with a capital P, as far as I see it, is thinking in terms of The One Solution. Did you lose the habanero pepper eating contest? It's because the guy who won prayed harder. Does your stomach hurt? Punishment from God because you used the f-word to describe your cat when she scratched you after smelling your breath. Does your cat hate you? Well, if you just exuded positive energy, no cat would ever scratch you again; your own negative thinking caused that problem.

Lazy thinking. In reality all these things are connected but for some people it's immensely easier (that, or it just feels good, which is probably more likely) to go to The One Solution. It's a form of thought that's like compulsion and masturbation in one, because when you think this way, you get to be best, you have The One Solution, and everyone else only has little, nearsighted solutions to little problems, and they don't see The Big Picture.

You'll also notice that The One Solution people never have any falsifiability to their beliefs. This is so they can demean others. This is also masturbation. The "your negative thinking caused that" people are the worst examples. Every time I meet one I want to choke the life out of them. Did something bad happen to me? Well I must have been thinking negatively then, because if I had just thought positively, then only positive things would happen! I swear I have the greatest detest imaginable for these positivity folks and then probably some more detest on top of that. The most religious people pale in comparison, and even though I ought to dislike Kosher Judaism and Santeria more (they are animal abusers), I can't bring myself to.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Is it true that atheism cures the supposed ills of religion?

"I would suspect that getting away from anything that generated ills, would be step toward getting better. And in as much as atheism isn't a religion, but merely a stance on a single issue: a lack of belief in the existence of god or gods, leaving religion would do this. I know that giving up drinking helps cure alcoholism.

The fallacy in your reasoning here is your failure to consider that leaving one ill in no way guarantees that one will adopt a lesser ill in its place.

I didn't say it would "guarantee" or even imply that some other ill couldn't come and take the place of another. What I said was "I would suspect that getting away from anything that generated ills, would be a step toward getting better."
.

Then your suspicion that forsaking religion to get better may well be wrong, and it's good that you concede that becoming an atheist to escape religion's ills may well end in failure. It often does fail.

And isn't this how our medical practice works, not that solving one ailment guarantees no other will come along and take its place, but that in solving an ailment at least IT will be taken care of?

No, that's not really how medical science works, or at least that's not how it should work. As any physician worth her salt knows, a cure can be worse than the illness. That's why, for instance, no good doctor will prescribe smoking to lose weight. Physical illness like social illness should never be seen in isolation, but all other factors related to health need to be considered when a cure is sought. So if a person decides to leave religion, she should not assume she will be better off but should actively think of ways to avoid what dragged her down as a religious person.

If you played tennis so much that you got tennis elbow (the inflammation or, in some cases, microtearing of the tendons that join the forearm muscles on the outside of the elbow.) that giving up tennis, at least for awhile, would likely cure it?

Yes, your elbow should heal assuming you don't injure your elbow with some other activity. A prudent person should avoid any activity that can injure the elbow, and tennis is not the only such activity.

As with tennis, so with religion.

[Paul of Tarsus]

The "your negative thinking caused that" people are the worst examples. Every time I meet one I want to choke the life out of them. Did something bad happen to me? Well I must have been thinking negatively then, because if I had just thought positively, then only positive things would happen! I swear I have the greatest detest imaginable for these positivity folks and then probably some more detest on top of that. The most religious people pale in comparison, and even though I ought to dislike Kosher Judaism and Santeria more (they are animal abusers), I can't bring myself to.

I remember how the "power of positive thinking" folks took over in the 1990s. I heard about the miracles of that religion all the time. Just think that the future's rosy, and it will be rosy! If anybody was unfortunate, then those people no doubt brought on their misery by thinking miserably. It's all their own fault, and if they'd just change their attitudes, then they would achieve salvation.

The parallels to religion should be obvious.

[Miles]

Is it true that atheism cures the supposed ills of religion?

"I would suspect that getting away from anything that generated ills, would be step toward getting better. And in as much as atheism isn't a religion, but merely a stance on a single issue: a lack of belief in the existence of god or gods, leaving religion would do this. I know that giving up drinking helps cure alcoholism.

The fallacy in your reasoning here is your failure to consider that leaving one ill in no way guarantees that one will adopt a lesser ill in its place.

I didn't say it would "guarantee" or even imply that some other ill couldn't come and take the place of another. What I said was "I would suspect that getting away from anything that generated ills, would be a step toward getting better."
.

Then your suspicion that forsaking religion to get better may well be wrong,

Except for death there are no guarantees in life.

and it's good that you concede that becoming an atheist to escape religion's ills may well end in failure. It often does fail.

Hardly. I know I never conceded that I became an atheist to escape religion's ills. So just whom are you thinking of?

And isn't this how our medical practice works, not that solving one ailment guarantees no other will come along and take its place, but that in solving an ailment at least IT will be taken care of?

No, that's not really how medical science works, or at least that's not how it should work.

So the medical field doesn't work to cure people and leave as few adverse effects as possible? Interesting.

As any physician worth her salt knows, a cure can be worse than the illness.

Gee, you really think so?




.

[brunumb]

Brnumb [brunumb] sees leaving religion as a way of getting over the ills of religion, but that's only an improvement assuming you don't adopt a secular alternative to religion that's as bad or worse.

That can be true of anything so you have made no point at all. Should one stay in an abusive relationship, for example, because leaving may only lead to something worse? It makes no sense.

As my friend's experience as described above demonstrates, "escaping religion" is often just a leap from one frying pan into another if not into the fire itself.

"One swallow doesn't make a summer". No doubt there are examples where escaping religion led to a happy, rich and rewarding life. Trying to generalise from one example is meaningless.

[Purple Knight]

"One swallow doesn't make a summer". No doubt there are examples where escaping religion led to a happy, rich and rewarding life. Trying to generalise from one example is meaningless.

I don't think he's generalising exactly. I think he's suggesting that the ills "of religion" are caused by the people, who at some point also caused the religion to be, because they needed an outlet for their religious behaviour. They don't murder and crusade because they're religious; perhaps they invent the religion so they can crusade.

Some people probably do quit religion and are happier for it - the ones who never had any need to behave like that in the first place. Those probably fall out of religion naturally.

Atheists (and I'm guilty of this myself, sometimes) often act like religion causes problems because there is a correlation. But correlation does not equal causation. It may be the same thing causing the religion and the problems.

People in general also behave as if there is more free will than there is. Oh, just get rid of religion and all the problems it causes will just go away. That's the underlying assumption. Oh, these horrid cockroaches infesting my house! Let me buy bug bomb after bug bomb and not bloody address the fact that I am always leaving food out. Treating the symptom, you see, not the disease.

[Paul of Tarsus]

and it's good that you concede that becoming an atheist to escape religion's ills may well end in failure. It often does fail.

Hardly. I know I never conceded that I became an atheist to escape religion's ills.

But you did make the concession that atheism can fail to free a person from religion's presumed ills. That's the point I was making. You are misrepresenting what I said.

So just whom are you thinking of?

I can offer another example of how atheism can lead to situations that are as bad or worse than religion. A man I know left evangelical Christianity to escape the hypocrisy and corruption he experienced in it. Soon after his "deconversion" he started smoking and using illegal drugs again. He felt free to do so without the strictures of religion!

And isn't this how our medical practice works, not that solving one ailment guarantees no other will come along and take its place, but that in solving an ailment at least IT will be taken care of?

No, that's not really how medical science works, or at least that's not how it should work.

So the medical field doesn't work to cure people and leave as few adverse effects as possible? Interesting.

I've noticed that you've omitted most of what I said about this issue back on post 35. Anybody can go back and read it to see that I already fully addressed the topic. They should be able to see how your question twists what I posted.

As any physician worth her salt knows, a cure can be worse than the illness.

Gee, you really think so?

Is that the best you can do to rebut my analogy? Post a rolling-eyed smiley?