Is religion harmful to society?

[Boerseun]

I want to tell you guys a story of what happened in my town the last week.

 

I'm self-employed, and I spend two days a week at one of my clients, a newspaper where I do their graphic design and layout for them.

 

There was this lady, who came in to the newspaper at least once a week; she and the advertising manager are close friends. So, every Monday over lunch hour she would pop in, and we would talk about everything in general. A very nice lady, and over the last two years I have also become friends with her.

 

No religious talk whatsoever. She was just the ad manager's friend, and we would shoot the breeze for an hour or so every Monday.

 

She died last week of breast cancer.

 

And then all the skeletons came tumbling out the closet.

 

Seems that more than ten years ago, she was converted to one of these charismatic churches that seem to spring up like mushrooms in cowdung. And the darkness in which the mushrooms grow, would be a fitting analogy to the business practices of this particular flavour of church.

 

Not her husband, family or closest friends had the faintest idea.

 

The church representatives came into the newspaper offices with a memorial thing they wanted published. It turns out that her "church name" was Zebediah something-or-another, a kooky name the church bestowed on her when she "baptised" herself years ago, part and parcel of the process of being a good and loyal member of "Miracle Ministries". In church, they refer to themselves by these names. Also in private, out of church, it seems. Because all of a sudden, people that I've known for years in this tiny little burg came to the newspaper to express their heartfelt condolences on the passing of sister "Zebediah". Scary ****. Like something out of a Stephen King book. Before last week, she was just plain Sarah. But now, all of a sudden, peolpe with a glazed look over their eyes talk about sister "Zebediah". I've known these people for years.

 

But in any case, like I said, her husband had no idea. She had her church thing on Saturdays, the day that her "church" told her is the real Sabbath. And Sundays she would go with her hubby to his main-stream church. He always thought that her Saturday thing was a kind of a "girls afternoon", which she spent with her girlfriends.

 

And when she started getting sick a few months ago, hubby insisted that she consult with specialists in the medical field - which she did. She got put on chemotherapy, which she simply never took. Because her "church" told her not to - God will fix it. Hubby thought everything was going swimmingly.

 

And then she keeled over last week.

 

And, it turns out, her entire estate was made out to this "church". Not a penny towards her kids or husband, because it's not "God's will". The house they owned was in her name, and they have to now pay rent towards the church for the few months it'll take for registration at the Deeds Office and the church then selling the house to have more cash for the "needy". Strange how the money always disappear to the "needy" before the self-ordained pastor turns up with a new Mercedes.

 

Her husband is a broken man, and did not even go to her memorial service on Monday. He has shunned the whole community, because it turns out that even close friends of his was part of this underground "church", knowing his wife has been a member for years and not telling him a word. I fail to see how perfectly intelligent grown-ups can fall for such undisguised bullshit such as this.

 

But here's my point:

 

This "church" is obviously harmful. Because of them, this woman is dead, and her estate has been forfeited by the family. Obviously, they probably can appeal the testament, but that will take years and lots of money.

 

But you can't tell me that a normal, every-day "mainstream" church is any less harmful. Because they bat from exactly the same pitch. They sell hope. And they sell hope based on the very same flawed premise.

 

The difference between this bullshit church and any mainstream Christian church you'd care to mention, is purely in degree.

[Buffy]

Your tale is unfortunately quite common, and a sorrowful one that--except for the "leader" with the Mercedes--leaves everyone poorer.

 

But be careful that you don't fall into--and worse *promote*--the very same trap that this so-called "religion" thrives on:

 

But you can't tell me that a normal, every-day "mainstream" church is any less harmful. Because they bat from exactly the same pitch.

 

The difference between this bullshit church and any mainstream Christian church you'd care to mention, is purely in degree.

 

This issue of "degree" is exactly what this religion argued to the poor woman: "Asprin is no different than crack cocaine: all drugs are bad for you, they just differ in degree."

 

The "God's will" part is only the kicker, the real argument is drugs are evil.

 

So if you're going to promote this sort of thinking--that if any particular example of a class of things is bad, all members of the class are bad--you actually validate their main argument.

 

Life is not simple, but religion and politics attempt to make them so. Calling all religions or all political parties similarly evil because there is one David Koresh or one Dick Cheney is a horrible oversimplification of the way the world really is, and blinds people to the truth.

 

We've got a war on drugs that throws tens of thousands of pot smokers in jail because a few folks are stupid enough to smoke crack, and as a result we've got an easy step to outlawing stem cell research as well as justifications for the Christian Scientists who just extrapolate the "drugs are evil" argument that starts there.

 

We've got a war on gays because there are a few that do molest children, therefore we spend lots of time outlawing being gay.

 

We've got a war on Muslims because a few of them like to kill Americans and Jews, and thus we have the Rush Limbaughs and Dick Cheneys who think we should torture them all until they confess that their whole village supports terrorism so we can destroy it in order to save it.

 

Don't oversimplify things, you may be doing yourself and everyone else a disservice.

 

Just as with drugs, the correct approach is education: telling/showing people the result of crystal meth is the best way to keep people from even trying it. So publicizing horrible acts of fraud like you have above is the best way to keep people from falling into the trap of cults.

 

But just like calling all drugs evil makes kids skeptical when they see their parents drink or when their friends smoke a joint to no apparent ill-effect, saying all religions are evil does nothing to dissuade anyone from following them, and may even *encourage* them to try it because it's so at odds with "experience."

 

There are lots of cults, and they do great evil, and there are some that have even gotten to "mainstream" status, like the Christian Scientists and many extreme Baptists. But taring every single hint of any spiritual belief as "evil" does nothing but accomplish the opposite of the very goal you seek: fewer people thinking and doing stupid things because they've found it easier to abdicate all thought to some "religious authority."

 

There are actually lots of religious folk that would agree with that goal, and help you get there, if only they weren't dismissed from the very start as "mindless ululating fanatics."

 

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts, :phones:

Buffy

[Boerseun]

Well, now... thanks for the elaborate response, Buffy.

 

But I fear you're building a bit of a strawman around my argument. I did not say that "All Religions are Evil" because this particular church is.

 

I merely said that all religions (let's keep it to different flavours of Christianity here, for simplification) are batting from the same pitch; whatever flows from that, be it good or bad (giving alms to the poor vs. ripping them off for a flashy new Merc) has the same premise as a starting point.

 

And if that premise is fallacious, then everything flowing from that, must be, too.

 

By all means, help the poor. But do it because it's the right thing to do. Your motive for helping the poor on that basis will then be ethically and morally sound. Don't do it because some wild-haired fella told you that if you don't, you'll burn in hell for all eternity. If you do it on that basis, then your motive for helping other people is fear and selfishness, and you can very well keep your alms, thank you very much.

 

If the poor are helped on this basis, it does not open any doors for abuse of an institution, like these kinda churches do. Because there won't be an institution to corrupt. Currently there is one, and its entire foundation, its entire premise, its entire reason for existence, is just plain and simply wrong.

 

I fail to see how any good can come from that.

[Buffy]

But I fear you're building a bit of a strawman around my argument. I did not say that "All Religions are Evil" because this particular church is.

No, but you did say "you can't tell me that a normal, every-day "mainstream" church is any less harmful," which is thisclose to saying "evil"...

 

Please do elaborate on what "pitch" they're batting from (a colloquialism that means something different in Cricket than it does in Baseball!) though, as it does seem critical to your argument.

 

I fail to see how any good can come from that.

 

I'm not going to argue that religion is a superior mechanism for organizing groups to do good--something that is unquestionably more effective than every individual doing it separately--but its what has evolved, and does fill other psychological purposes (again, not necessarily the best or most logical) that seem to benefit some humans right now.

 

Another analogy may be appropriate to understanding this different aspect: the brain is incredibly complex, yet its arguably a very poor and inefficient design. Fiddling with it directly--electroshock, lobotomy, gene therapy, etc--might seem a logical way to "improve" the brain, but it has unintended consequences, because quite frankly we don't understand it as well as we might think we do, because the models we use are gross oversimplifications.

 

I only argue that one should consider this issue in figuring out how to approach the "problem" of religion, and question what the negative short term consequences might be to a rather simplistic and absolutist interpretation that "all religions are the same" and should be treated as if they are equivalent in their effect upon society.

 

While it might be simpler to consider only Christian religions, considering others can be quite enlightening on this topic: Many fundamentalist sects in the US have openly advocated not a "war on terrorism" but a "war on Islam" because as far as they're concerned, all Muslims support Palestine, therefore they all support terrorism, therefore we should treat them all as enemies of America. Would you argue that's a good approach? I mean, you've basically argued that all religions are harmful, so tarring them as terrorists is probably justifiable, even if you moderate it by saying the Americans are being paranoid, and its just that the Muslims support terror against *all* of humanity.

 

In the short term, will this attitude/approach have a positive or negative effect on bringing peace to the Middle East?

 

Sure its a great example of how religion's muck things up, but its also a great example of how if you barge in and say "you're all stupid idiots" that you just get them agreeing on one thing: that *you're* the problem, and their common enemy.

 

That's my point: what are the *practical* solutions of getting what you want, which is to minimize over time the deleterious side effects of religion on society.

 

If you're trying to take a roomful of people by surprise, it's a lot easier to hit your targets if you don't yell going through the door, :(

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Buffy - You're one of the moderate voices giving cover to the extremists. Your intentions are good. Your motivations kind. However, your attempt to make excuses for the moderates is exactly what allows the more extreme viewpoints to persist.

 

I know you think I'm extreme. You've said so much in post after post in reply to me. I know you think I'm some hateful ideologue, and that's your prerogative.

 

However, I'm also correct in the positions for which I argue. Religion is a cancer, and we need to remove it. There will be people who need to adjust, and some who have a difficult time with fear after losing their previous worldview.

 

However, their short term trouble is hardly a good enough reason to argue against our collective long-term benefit of excising religion from our culture.

 

 

In the meantime:

 

 

BBC NEWS | Europe | Scientology on trial in France

The Church of Scientology has gone on trial in the French capital, Paris, accused of organised fraud.

 

The case centres on a complaint by a woman who says she was pressured into paying large sums of money after being offered a free personality test.

 

The church, which is fighting the charges, denies that any mental manipulation took place.

 

France regards Scientology as a sect, not a religion, and the organisation could be banned if it loses the case.

 

It is the first time the church has appeared as a defendant in a fraud case in France. Previous court cases have involved individual Scientologists.

 

 

 

Religion hijacks our neocortical mechanisms.

http://hypography.com/forums/psychology/19481-how-religion-hijacks-neurocortical-mechanisms-why.html

[Boerseun]

No, but you did say "you can't tell me that a normal, every-day "mainstream" church is any less harmful," which is thisclose to saying "evil"...

Granted, that might have been a little confusing in the light of the cricket term "batting from the same pitch", which is explained as follows...

Please do elaborate on what "pitch" they're batting from (a colloquialism that means something different in Cricket than it does in Baseball!) though, as it does seem critical to your argument.

In cricket, there are two sets of wickets - three upright poles which has to stay upright in order for the batsman (or men - depending whether they've got a partnership going) to stay in the game. Between the wickets is a piece of flattened, compacted and as close to possible as uniform piece of turf which serves as the surface off which spin-balls are thrown. The act of throwing a ball in cricket is called "bowling". This particular surface between the wickets is called a "pitch". It's a cricket pitch. And team A will bowl off this pitch against team B, and when it's team B's turn to bowl, the ideal is for the pitch to be in the same condition as when team A bowled, so that both teams have the same odds with spinner balls. Great care is taken through the game to keep the pitch in mint condition - when it drizzles even a little, the game is stopped and a great big canvas is drawn over the pitch in order to ensure this.

 

But to make a long story short, "batting from the same pitch" means that both teams/arguments/opinions/whatever shares the same point of origin.

 

It's like saying that if you are critical about fraudsters and like to see them go to jail, but you cheat a little on your taxes, you're no better than the fraudsters - because you are batting from the same pitch. The difference is merely in degree.

 

I do apologize for any confusion caused by my cricket-colloquialism.

 

That being said, I guess that the point I raised in my prior post about this so-called church screwing these people over to the point of them forfeiting their house and the deceased wife/mother's estate should be clear.

 

They are doing what they're doing because of the following:

 

a) Jesus died on the cross for your sins. Live your life in thanks of that.

 

That, at least, is the Reformist view. The Catholic view is much more depressing, and involves hellfire and brimstone. The Reformist view is much more liberating, but implies being saved from the very same hellfire and brimstone the Catholics still keep alive.

 

Now, taking that point as the "pitch", you can do with it as you please. You can use that very same point of departure to incite your flock to do the following:

 

a) Help the poor

:( Help the needy

c) Donate to charity

d) Buy the pastor a Mercedes Benz.

 

Obviously, there is nothing wrong with points a, b and c. Point d is very obviously wrong, but it is perfectly justified by considering the premise. The pastor is, after all, a Man of God, and out of thanks for the Big Guy to have died for your sins, surely his representatives on Earth deserves some form of luxury?

 

Another analogy deserving consideration here is what NASA said after the Apollo missions to the public, to somehow ease their minds about the billions of dollars' worth of tax money spent with only a few pounds of moon rocks and dust to show for it. They tried to sell the concept of commercial "spin-offs" that would ultimately redeem NASA for blowing tax money like there's no tomorrow: Look! We spent $100 billion dollars, and now we've got Teflon Pans!

Surely, if Teflon Pans was what you've wanted to begin with, you can research the technology for non-stick pans and it would cost you a heck of a lot less than what NASA billed for the moon program. That plugs in to all the good the church does. Points a to c above are all good things, things to be done to help our fellow man. But surely, we can do it a lot better and a lot cheaper if doing that was our premise, the "pitch" we bat from. From a church point of view, they are all incidentals. They just happen along the way to make everybody in church feel that they have lived up to the premise of being in church in the first place.

 

Let me ask you something:

 

You see a poor man in the street. You give him money because:

 

a) The Bible tells you to do so, and you're doing it out of thanks for Jesus having died for your sins, or

:) You pity the man, and do it because, well, it's the right thng to do.

 

The man doesn't give a hoot about your motives. All he sees is another dollar in his begging bowl. It's all the same to him. But your reason for doing it is critically important - it determines the "pitch you're batting from".

 

It doesn't matter to which excesses churches go. Whether they do good or not is immaterial. Because those that have devolved into money-grabbing bullshit organizations like the one I described that killed this lady I know, they are all batting from the same pitch. The difference is merely in degree.

 

Let me ask you another question:

 

If somebody you knew were to go on a crime spree, and generated money through fraudulent means, and gave you a stack of that money so that you can buy food, very well knowing where that money came from, would you accept it? In accepting it, and spending it on stuff to ease your burden in life, does it make you any better than those fraudsters? How, then, is it a good thing for the church to donate money to charity, if that money was generated wrongfully in the first place?

 

There is a legal principle (at least in my neck of the woods) that the proceeds of crime are to be forfeited to the State. If I run a racket where I get people to sign their entire estates over to me, using fear and fairytales as a tool, I will get arrested and spend many, many years in jail. Yet it's perfectly legal for a church to do this, with no foundation in fact or evidence.

 

The church is a scam, and governments looking the other way when people are harassed, scammed, bribed (eternal life for your house), etc., makes for an unconstitutional act, violating the separation between Church and State (at least in the South African and US constitutions)

 

It doesn't matter that the language in which the above harassment, scamming and bribing is all flowery and rosey. A crime is still being committed.

[Buffy]

Buffy - You're one of the moderate voices giving cover to the extremists. Your intentions are good. Your motivations kind. However, your attempt to make excuses for the moderates is exactly what allows the more extreme viewpoints to persist.

My, you sound like Dubya! "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists!"

 

I know that if you're espousing an extremist position that it's necessary to demonize the folks who dare to realize the practical limits of change in society.

 

It would be nice if you would be a bit more honest what practical steps your Revolution will require to achieve this "removal of a cancer:"

There will be people who need to adjust, and some who have a difficult time with fear after losing their previous worldview.

That's actually a line right out of the paranoid rantings of Mark McCutcheon!

 

"Some?" Unfortunately we're still in a world where the vast majority of humans have this cancerous "belief in God," and the practical issue that remains unaddressed is how you mean to effect this change.

 

You're welcome to enunciate it some more, but so far I see nothing but name calling and making enemies out of the folks in the middle who might be convinced that religion isn't such a good idea.

 

I've challenged you before to site studies showing that from a psychological standpoint that a strategy of browbeating and belittling people's intelligence is a good way to change their minds.

 

If you want to call that "providing cover for the enemy" that's fine, but realize that's a very neo-con "I'm right, I know it, and those who disagree with me can go to hell for all I care."

 

Is religion something that we'd be better off without? In the long-term, I would indeed agree with that, but this dramatic over simplification of it's role in our society that's necessary to justify a simplistic "we just need to cut it out" "solution" is a complete denial of the reality that it is in fact an ingrown part of our society.

 

My point throughout all of my posts is that religion's profound integration in our society is what makes the key issue in this debate a question of Evolution versus Revolution. While either one of them can certainly be advocated, one needs to recognize the consequences of each.

 

To dismiss an Evolutionary approach--which I do believe is the only practical one--as appeasement is a Gingrichian debating tactic that I think we can do without on a science forum.

 

I know that it can be difficult to step up to addressing the practical issues of how to carry out a Revolution, but my argument for Evolution is basically that when you start doing so, you're just going to start sounding like Jerry Falwell or Pol Pot.

 

So, when you say:

However, their short term trouble is hardly a good enough reason to argue against our collective long-term benefit of excising religion from our culture.

 

I simply ask: if you really support the tone of this sentence--basically dismissing the adjustments necessary as a minor inconvenience for a few--you really need to start talking about what "simple" steps will get us to a religion-free society. And what is the reasonable expectation for how long we'd have to wait? And what are you going to do about all those meat heads who just refuse to see the light?

 

I understand your point of view that religion in the hands of humans does evil. I'm not arguing that it's necessary for society, making excuses for real extremist religions, or demanding that they be respected simply because they're religions.

 

You may find however that kicking people in the face is not a great way to convince them to change their minds.

 

You also may find that using the Republican Party's current tactic of demonizing everyone who does not hold the most extreme beliefs of the party is no way to win elections.

 

Similarly, using the same tactic in trying to move the world toward a religionless future is most assuredly the worst way to convince people of the need to abandon religion.

 

Making enemies out of the vast majority who would be happy to help stamp out the extremists who really do evil--because that would mean "accepting" that they want to cling to their moderate beliefs and thus appeasing them--is the sure fire way to ending up on the dust heap of history, as the Red Brigades did in the 70's and Rush is doing to the Republican's now.

 

The real reason I argue with you here is that I agree with the long term goal, and I strongly believe that the kinds of behavior you espouse on the topic move it further into the future by sowing hatred and distrust.

 

But then, all I have to go on is your endless posts filled with name calling. I'd *love* it if you were to prove me wrong by actually enunciating a practical and well thought out plan.

 

The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them, :(

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

You continue to misrepresent my stance and approach. It's not about kicking "people," but kicking "ideas."

 

It's about shining light on logical fallacies.

It's about pointing to better explanations.

It's about penetrating the armor which is an indoctrinated mind.

 

The plan is to continue attacking ideas which are based on wish thinking and faith alone. The plan is to let people choose for themselves which beliefs they wish to hold.

 

You give me all this negative feedback about my being "extremist" and about me being "more interested in name calling than change." This shows me that you have a very biased view of what I say and do.

 

The issue here is about waking people up. I honestly DO believe that it's okay to demonize racists. I really think it's okay to demonize people who abuse their children, or have sex with little girls.

 

Those acts are demonized for good reason. They are harmful and should be ostracized.

 

I simply apply that same approach to religion. People who believe in 2,000 year old fairy tales written by tribal peoples, and who think those stories are real, actually should be mocked and made to realize how silly they are.

 

I don't need a plan. I just need persistence, and for more people to see... like you do... where this is all going in the long run.

 

It's not my responsibility to find a way to "root out religion." It's my responsibility to be consistent and stand up for truth and reality. The rest will work itself out.

 

 

Either way... You painted me with a very biased brush in your post above. If I've not made my point with you already, I'm not too optimistic about doing so with more effort.

[InfiniteNow]

And now for another perspective...

 

 

 

YouTube - Harmful Religious Beliefs - The Atheist Experience #565 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93ubXUAxEHg

[riper]

I am reffering to the effects that religions, such as Christianity, have on societies ability to progress further in technology, politics, and ethics. Some would agree that religion has done nothing but hold back the potential of man and forced them to moral and good because of fear of damnation. Shouldn't people be good and decent because it's for the overall benefit of the whole society?

 

religion is against abortion. but when a 10 year old girl got raiped in brazil by her father, she got pregnant from him. so the religios leaders had no choice but to admit that abortion helped. othervice she will be having her father baby wich is worse. and may be even died during the birth.

[InfiniteNow]

Freethinker Sunday Sermonette: what I have against religion : Effect Measure

There is a misconception that because I am an atheist and poke fun at religion in this space every Sunday that I must have contempt for religion for its own sake. It's true I find many of the pious contemptible, but not because they are pious. You can be stupid in all sorts of ways and that's just one of them. Nor do I go after religion and the religious because they believe in one of the many gods people have made up. There are a lot of ways to be irrational. Look at Wall Street. No, I go after religion because it represents a particularly nasty form of tribalism, a set of beliefs that distinguish some human beings that are in any meaningful way indistinguishable on the basis of what superstition they hold. It's like discriminating against people who carry a lucky rabbit's foot but a hundred times more consequential. If religious views were just some kind of personal enthusiasm, like an interest in knitting, I wouldn't care. No one says that non-knitters are inferior or should be killed or denied membership in your country club. But alas, religion isn't so benign. It erects artificial barriers between people and then attacks those on the other side of the barrier. As a form of tribalism, religion is frequently deadly and can't be broken of its vicious habits.

...

The day that religion becomes just another interesting personal enthusiasm, like being a Yankees fan or having a hobby like knitting, that's the day I'll stop picking on it. Unfortunately that day is still far off. Until then, I'll keep posting stuff like this:

 

YouTube - Real Time Religion Montage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57F3hlU-4Og

[Glenn Lyvers]

"Shouldn't people be good and decent because it's for the overall benefit of the whole society?"

 

Assuming that mankind would or "should" do anything would seem to make a comparison to religion. After all, without religion, what is "good" or "decent" is only defined by what any group of people subjectively label as "good" - Hitler thought what he was doing was "good" and the rest of the world judged differently based on the ideas of "virtue" and "good and evil".

 

What is "good or evil" if not the invention of religion? One can define how people "aught" to live based on what is beneficial or desired by others, but when a set of actions is inherently "good" then it definitely muddies the waters of anyone who wants to argue there is no God and that anything is inherently good or evil.

[InfiniteNow]

Assuming that mankind would or "should" do anything would seem to make a comparison to religion. After all, without religion, what is "good" or "decent" is only defined by what any group of people subjectively label as "good" - Hitler thought what he was doing was "good" and the rest of the world judged differently based on the ideas of "virtue" and "good and evil".

 

What is "good or evil" if not the invention of religion? One can define how people "aught" to live based on what is beneficial or desired by others, but when a set of actions is inherently "good" then it definitely muddies the waters of anyone who wants to argue there is no God and that anything is inherently good or evil.

 

 

Humans, being troop/pack animals, define good based on what their group accepts, as those who go against the wishes of the group become ostracized and have less access to resources and potential mating partners. Via millenia of evolution, those humans which followed the "good" defined by the group out reproduced those who did not, and this cohesion became consistently stronger.

 

Religion and the teachings of religion have nothing to do with good and bad, as religion has simply co-opted an existing trait in human psychology and social tendencies to further its own localized and non-universal agenda. After all, if religion informed what was "good," we'd all be stoning to death homosexuals and o women whom are not virgins on their wedding night, as well as beating slaves to a bloody pulp and killing and raping people in neighboring villages who believed in different superstitions.

 

Btw - It was Hitler's use of religion which helped allow him to progress his agenda, and in his speeches he would thank Jesus. This was especially useful because it allowed him to cast Jews as "different" and members of an "out-group." It was not any lack of religion which led to his acts, so that's just a bald faced lie. Also, the word "ought" is spelled with the letter "O," not with the letter "A."

 

Finally, the onus is not on me to argue that "there is no god." All I have to do is point out the blaring lack of evidence you and others have for thinking there is.

[Southtown]

Humans, being troop/pack animals, define good based on what their group accepts, as those who go against the wishes of the group become ostracized and have less access to resources and potential mating partners. Via millenia of evolution, those humans which followed the "good" defined by the group out reproduced those who did not, and this cohesion became consistently stronger.

How then springeth forth the athiest? lol

[Galapagos]

How then springeth forth the athiest? lol

 

A cosmic parental figure that exists as a personality without a body had to Intelligently Design the potential for people to recognize contrived and parochial mythologies for what they are because I can't come up with a better explanation for it

[Pyrotex]

How then springeth forth the athiest? lol

Ahhh, the joy of rhetorical questions!

If you put enough question marks or lols after them, they can sound so cuttingly profound, and distract one from the fact that their proper answers are trivial.

Excellent technique.

Like sentence fragments.

 

Cultural enforcement at the tribal, city or community level, can indeed keep up attendance at the Temple and bring in needed levels of sacrifice. Cultural enforcement can even dissuade some of expressing their doubts.

 

But this doesn't work quite like biological evolution. The child of 12 generations of totally authentic believers can look in the mirror on her 15th birthday and suddenly think, "why do all the teachings from the priests sound like make-believe and play-pretend? Crimson fottacytes pulling the Sun-chariot across the sky each day? After death we become immortal ocean whales, but only if we obey the 144 Commandments? Ramos of the Starry Sky can read my mind, make me pregnant with a litter of rabbits, and control gravity? I really don't think so!"

 

The appearance of scepticism and unbelief can (and does) appear at any time in a culture, and does not require "genes". However, it helps if our young skeptics encounter other skeptics, and they compare notes. Agreement is a powerful validater of doubt.

[Southtown]

... trivial. ...

Ahhh, the joy of long-winded answers. (lol)