NationStates Jolt Archive

I am not anti-religion in the sense that I believe that people should be free to indulge their beliefs, provided they do not infringe the rights of others. So while I support freedom of religion, I recognize that, as with any freedom, there are inevitable limitations that must be applied in support of the public good. Where religious practitioners err, I contend, is in presuming that the supposed authenticity of their beliefs gives rise to a right to impose their beliefs on others.

Belief in religions requires faith, which necessarily entails a departure from rationality. It is widely presumed that this departure is either desirable or acceptable. I question this presumption. On the basis that the validity of any contention must in some way be tested on the basis of reason and observation, I assert that, due to their lack of supporting evidence, and due to their numerous contradictions with each other, within themselves, and with known facts, we must assume that all religions are false.

The fact that people willingly adhere to false beliefs is not necessarily harmful. Indeed, I concede that in providing psychological consolation and in inspiring charitable works, the practice of belief may be somewhat beneficial. I contend however, that only wilful blindness to the violence and destruction caused by religion, over centuries and to the present day, could obscure the fact that religions are on balance harmful to society. Whatever moral, charitable or consoling advantages religions may have had, in the 21st century these are best obtained by other means.

In a climate of tolerance and multiculturalism it has become taboo to question the authenticity of anyone's religious belief. In sympathy with the motivation behind this convention, we should also seek a harmonious and peaceful world. However I contend that is it wrong not to confront beliefs that are not only false but harmful. This confrontation must extend, not only to extremist beliefs, but to all false religious beliefs, since all carry the potential of causing harm. I thus advocate rational discourse as the antidote to delusion and unfounded bigotry.

While in an ideal world we might prefer that all religious practices and freedoms should be conducted in private between consenting adults, I am realistic enough to accept that this will not be achieved. However I certainly think curtailing government support, endorsement, subsidy and promotion of religion is possible. This we should all vigorously advocate.

On religion in particular, the time appears to me to have come, when it is a duty of all who, being qualified in point of knowledge, have, on mature consideration, satisfied themselves that the current opinions are not only false, but hurtful, to make their dissent known. John Stuart Mill

I am not anti-religion in the sense that I believe that people should be free to indulge their beliefs, provided they do not infringe the rights of others. So while I support freedom of religion, I recognize that, as with any freedom, there are inevitable limitations that must be applied in support of the public good. Where religious practitioners err, I contend, is in presuming that the supposed authenticity of their beliefs gives rise to a right to impose their beliefs on others.

Belief in religions requires faith, which necessarily entails a departure from rationality. It is widely presumed that this departure is either desirable or acceptable. I question this presumption. On the basis that the validity of any contention must in some way be tested on the basis of reason and observation, I assert that, due to their lack of supporting evidence, and due to their numerous contradictions with each other, within themselves, and with known facts, we must assume that all religions are false.

The fact that people willingly adhere to false beliefs is not necessarily harmful. Indeed, I concede that in providing psychological consolation and in inspiring charitable works, the practice of belief may be somewhat beneficial. I contend however, that only wilful blindness to the violence and destruction caused by religion, over centuries and to the present day, could obscure the fact that religions are on balance harmful to society. Whatever moral, charitable or consoling advantages religions may have had, in the 21st century these are best obtained by other means.

In a climate of tolerance and multiculturalism it has become taboo to question the authenticity of anyone's religious belief. In sympathy with the motivation behind this convention, we should also seek a harmonious and peaceful world. However I contend that is it wrong not to confront beliefs that are not only false but harmful. This confrontation must extend, not only to extremist beliefs, but to all false religious beliefs, since all carry the potential of causing harm. I thus advocate rational discourse as the antidote to delusion and unfounded bigotry.

While in an ideal world we might prefer that all religious practices and freedoms should be conducted in private between consenting adults, I am realistic enough to accept that this will not be achieved. However I certainly think curtailing government support, endorsement, subsidy and promotion of religion is possible. This we should all vigorously advocate.

On religion in particular, the time appears to me to have come, when it is a duty of all who, being qualified in point of knowledge, have, on mature consideration, satisfied themselves that the current opinions are not only false, but hurtful, to make their dissent known. John Stuart Mill

And yet you support the Islamic "Republic". Laughable. I cant say I disagree with you completley on this, but it is rather hypocritical.

And yet you support the Islamic "Republic". Laughable. I cant say I disagree with you completley on this, but it is rather hypocritical.

No I don't, and please don't try to hijack this, I have said that the Islamic Republic is reactionary, I simply encourage discussion regarding their foreign policy from their POV, also their are plenty of Iranian politicians who aren't religious in the sense I have mentioned above. Also the only tim I have really supported Iran on NSG was on questions of war versus the US, in which case it's the lesser of two evils in terms of many things.

Don't use "I contend" anymore. Its just not very good writing.

Second: listen to the NPR/PRI series called "electrons to enlightenment" it addresses a lot of the issues you are trying to bring up in dealing with a resolution between science and religion i.e. faith and logic.

Third: Don't take any religion literally, even if its followers do. Most of the time, any of the stories that don't seem to make sense are there just to teach a lesson, not to try and set down absolute fact (which is an entirely different discussion).

Other than that, pretty well written other than a few choppy transitions.


On to the arguments:

In your third paragraph, what you are essentially advocating is exactly the same as what you seek to end. By trying to rationalize confrontation of someone else's beliefs as untrue, you open yourself up to the very same criticism. Since there is yet no abject proof of the existence/non-existence of a creator/god/whatever, we cannot rationally assume that any one of these is either wrong or right. Since we cannot assume that there is one correct answer, each potential answer has an equal chance of being the correct one.

The next point is that within a society that comprises many different beliefs, there is very little that can be done to change the beliefs of someone. If a person is a devout christian and firmly believes that abortion is a sin and should be banned, there is nothing anyone else can do to change that view. I know, I've tried many many times and we always agree to disagree.

I agree with you that rational discourse is the best means by which to come to a greater understanding of humanity as a whole but don't expect to change very viewpoints. I also agree with the idea that the government needs to stop providing funding to religious missions or organizations. It should never happen anyway because of Jeffersons wall of seperation and because of numerous Supreme Court decision which established things like the secular purpose test, but sadly enough, this is often ignored.



All that being said, I am a firm secularist/athiest but I also can't discount the fact that someone else might be right.

to: BLARGistania

I just wanted to point out something; you said that "since we cannot assume that there is one correct answer, each potential answer has an equal chance of being the correct one" with relation to the existence of god(s).

There's a problem with this statement, I think.

The chance is not equal. Just because nothing can be proven to exist or not to exist doesn't mean that everything has an equal chance of existing... I'm definitely more sure that the computer I'm typing this into exists than that of god(s) of any religion existing... I'm not trying to give any estimate of the chances here, its just that the confidence (I think this word is more appropriate) of god(s) existing cannot be rationally argued over... well, at least among believers...

There is a distinct difference between talking about a computer and the existence of a god.

I could go into the extended philosophical debate my friends and I had the other night about quantum physics and the possibility of existence as well as our inability as humans to understand the nature of things, but for all practical interactions I won't.


The main difference here is the terms of the possibilites being presented. On the side that I presented, we were looking at the possibility of existence of god v no-god in the lense of all the world religions and secular beliefs. In this sense, because we cannot determine the true nature of the universe and give any certain proof one way or another.

In the counter example you gave, you likened the existence of a computer to the existence of god. These are two different arguments. The computer, at least within your own perception, is easy to prove because you can percieve it and percieve that you use the computer. I believe that your computer exists because I accept your assumption of the existence of the computer. However, within the realm of god, we can never gain physical or mental evidence strong enough to tip the balance of the scales in favor of one or the other, so, in the realm of religion, all possibilites have to be considered equal until there can be a way to prove through mental logic or physical proof that there is one answer that bears either a higher probability of being right or a fully correct answer.

to: BLARGistania

I just wanted to point out something; you said that "since we cannot assume that there is one correct answer, each potential answer has an equal chance of being the correct one" with relation to the existence of god(s).

There's a problem with this statement, I think.

The chance is not equal. Just because nothing can be proven to exist or not to exist doesn't mean that everything has an equal chance of existing... I'm definitely more sure that the computer I'm typing this into exists than that of god(s) of any religion existing... I'm not trying to give any estimate of the chances here, its just that the confidence (I think this word is more appropriate) of god(s) existing cannot be rationally argued over... well, at least among believers...

I think that if we where to re-word it just little bit it would make more sense to you:

'since we cannot assume that there is one correct answer, each potential answer should be treated as if it has an equal chance of being the correct one'