Sam Harris

Whereas arguments about god are pointless that does not preclude analysis of the pro and cons of different religions - for example I have never been able to come up with a plausible reason why the creator of the universe would be male, if it has to have a gender I would have thought female would make more sense - as a life creator.
It also helps when discussing different religions with a believer if you assume a God does exist for the purpose of the argument because it removes that issue from the discussion and you come across as more tolerant of others beliefs.
It also worth remembering that we are all entitled to run simulations in our heads to make us either feel better or for amusement and to be able to do this without being called delusional.

agerweb - 11 July 2012 07:54 AM

Whereas arguments about god are pointless that does not preclude analysis of the pro and cons of different religions - for example I have never been able to come up with a plausible reason why the creator of the universe would be male, if it has to have a gender I would have thought female would make more sense - as a life creator.
It also helps when discussing different religions with a believer if you assume a God does exist for the purpose of the argument because it removes that issue from the discussion and you come across as more tolerant of others beliefs.
It also worth remembering that we are all entitled to run simulations in our heads to make us either feel better or for amusement and to be able to do this without being called delusional.

de·lu·sion
? ?[dih-loo-zhuhn]
noun
1.
an act or instance of deluding.
2.
the state of being deluded.
3.
a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4.
Psychiatry . a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.

According to the definition of delusion, those who believe in a creator god are delusional.
Gods, angels, demons, prayer, eternal life…........qualify as fixed beliefs resistant to reason.
The primary harm inflicted by religious belief it the fact that when the mind accepts the word of others “in the know”, it diminishes its own critical thinking abilities.
Religion has protected itself by instilling a set of memes to make it is impolite to question its assumptions.
A tribe can’t have all leaders.
Most must follow.
So it is a natural tendency for people to go along with the consensus mindset.
But when the consensus belief structure is based on delusion, it is illogical and dangerous to succumb to the norm.

I agree with your definition and your views - However, stating it does not help in discourse with believers and it can be both impolite and in some case unkind.

agerweb - 11 July 2012 12:13 PM

I agree with your definition and your views - However, stating it does not help in discourse with believers and it can be both impolite and in some case unkind.

Is it impolite or unkind to disagree with the philosophy of the Klu Klux Klan or Nazis?
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that those who don’t buy into their clap trap are the devil.
What about Scientologists?
Have you actually read what they believe?
Is it unkind to suggest to Flat Earthers that the world is round?
For most of its life the Mormon church believe that blacks carried the mark of Cain and were inferior.
Catholics, JWs, Moslems, Mormons and many other religions consider women to be second class citizens and won’t allow them in their priesthood.
All religions are is notoriously intolerant and yet they expect and even demands tolerance.

People have the right to hold any belief they wish however mad as long as their beliefs do not lead them to harm others either physically or psychologically.  I do not tolerate those who harm others whether they are religious or not.

Telling an individual,  who has harmed no one and lives a good life as best they can, that he or she is delusion is unkind and it reflects badly on the character and nature of the teller.

agerweb - 11 July 2012 02:19 PM

People have the right to hold any belief they wish however mad as long as their beliefs do not lead them to harm others either physically or psychologically.  I do not tolerate those who harm others whether they are religious or not.

Telling an individual,  who has harmed no one and lives a good life as best they can, that he or she is delusion is unkind and it reflects badly on the character and nature of the teller.

 

When a child is told that there is a great big man-like thing out there that created them and that this all knowing entity demands that they behave in certain ways.
When they are told by this thing what to eat, who and when they can have sex and how to cut their hair. I consider that harmful.
When they are told that if the do certain things that are contrary to their god given inclinations, they will be sent to a place where they will be tortured with unspeakable pain for eternity….....I consider that doing great harm.
When women are told that they rank below men…...I consider that harm.
When men are told that they shouldn’t beat their wives with a stick bigger than their thumb…....That is harmful.
I see it harmful when the imaginary afterlife is seen as more valuable than the sentient reality.
I could go on and on…...but you see what I mean.

agerweb - 11 July 2012 12:13 PM

I agree with your definition and your views - However, stating it does not help in discourse with believers and it can be both impolite and in some case unkind.

That may be correct but you have to consider the alternative, and that is that people will continue to be abused by those who claim to act in the name of religion.

You have to also consider the fact that these people most often do not speak out against their belief system for fear of that system failing them, and as a result actually support the abuse of people by the same belief system.

I do not deny the enormous amount of harm done by religious people I am merely pointing out that just because you have irrational beliefs that does not automatically make you a bad person. 

The brilliance of the Abrahamic religions is that the texts are so ambiguous that you can be anything from a psychopath to a saint and justify all positions in between on religious grounds. There are millions of versions of Christianity as people pick what they choose to believe based on their individual world view and individual morality. I know a Christian who believes the only reliable word of Jesus in the bible is the Sermon on the Mount and he lives his life by it and ignores the rest; I don’t object to that.

There is a section of angry non-believers who too often make blanket comments about religion which conflates the truly bad with the innocuous.  This is often perceived as being intolerant and it serves to entrench peoples religious views rather than loosen them.

The battle to free the world of irrational belief is a very long game indeed and I would suggest that phase 1 is to entice people into better and less ambiguous religions. Not least because at this moment in our history we really need religion - can you imagine what would happen if the billions of people who live in abject poverty with no hope of reprieve in this live suddenly stopped believing in a joyous afterlife? The promise of the afterlife is the most perfect of all promises because its a promise you never have to keep.

agerweb - 12 July 2012 12:39 PM

I do not deny the enormous amount of harm done by religious people I am merely pointing out that just because you have irrational beliefs that does not automatically make you a bad person. 

The brilliance of the Abrahamic religions is that the texts are so ambiguous that you can be anything from a psychopath to a saint and justify all positions in between on religious grounds. There are millions of versions of Christianity as people pick what they choose to believe based on their individual world view and individual morality. I know a Christian who believes the only reliable word of Jesus in the bible is the Sermon on the Mount and he lives his life by it and ignores the rest; I don’t object to that.

There is a section of angry non-believers who too often make blanket comments about religion which conflates the truly bad with the innocuous.  This is often perceived as being intolerant and it serves to entrench peoples religious views rather than loosen them.

The battle to free the world of irrational belief is a very long game indeed and I would suggest that phase 1 is to entice people into better and less ambiguous religions. Not least because at this moment in our history we really need religion - can you imagine what would happen if the billions of people who live in abject poverty with no hope of reprieve in this live suddenly stopped believing in a joyous afterlife? The promise of the afterlife is the most perfect of all promises because its a promise you never have to keep.

A mind open to irrationality is prone to accept a broad spectrum of delusional beliefs.
A child who is told there is a god, and believes it, is likely to believe in angels and purple angles on the moon or that the Democrats can save our nation from economic ruin.

I cannot see how humanity benefits from delusional thought in any form.
Although if free will is factored out, the entire dilemma becomes moot.