[miniguy (OP)]

...wrong?

I am an athiest but one of the issues i struggle with is arguing against people that say religion gives them comfort.

If someone's love one dies and they find comfort in the belief they are now an angel in heaven why are they wrong to think that?  Would good would taking that belief away from them do?

[jimbobghost]

as an atheist, I can sympathize with your concerns.
i also lost the love of my life, but found no solace in well meaning folks attempting to advise me that "she was in a better place" or some such thing.

don't worry about their good intentions...they mean well...as hard as it is, you must go on living.

[Bored chemist]

In general, I'd prefer  it if people didn't get used to accepting comfortable lies.
Brexit.
Trump.

[miniguy (OP)]

'Why argue against them?'

Well that's my question.

I have no problem with arguing why I think religion is wrong.  I think it holds science and therefore progress back, as well as all the social issues, like how persecutes women, homosexuals, non religious and so on.  But I come to a bit of a road bloc when it comes arguing against a person that finds comfort in the belief that their loved one is now an angel looking down on them from heaven.  I guess one issue is I have is if they believe in God for that reason, then how can you argue against a person that says being gay is wrong because God says so?  I mean believing in homosexuality is wrong is no different in believing in God because it gives you comfort, as both are about believing in God, which to any atheists seems completely mad.

[alancalverd]

Just like any other addictive substance, it's difficult to get excited by what people do to themselves, but important to defend third parties against the actions of addicts.

If someone finds solace in selfdeception, no problem, but if he uses it as an excuse to harm others, or even feels inclined to induce others to use it he must be stopped.

It is no concern of mine what anyone believes, injects or shoves up his nose, but the teaching and preaching of religion to others should be illegal, and there shold be no concessions in law, taxation or expectation of civil behavior on grounds of a professed faith.  That said, my Jewish relatives in Quebec always register as Catholic because they get a local tax concession for the education budget.

[evan_au]

Everyone needs a set of principles that guide their decisions from day to day.

Some philosophers have spent their adult lives thinking through what these principles could/should be, and different philosophers have come up with somewhat different sets of principles.

But with the powers that modern technology gives people today, a 12 year old today can be far more dangerous than a trained soldier from a century ago (think automatic weapons, or an automatic car). With home DNA printers probably becoming feasible within the next 20 years, a 12 year old could could start a pandemic far worse than the 1918 influenza outbreak.

So we can't expect every 12 year old to come up with a set of reasonable principles for themselves - it will need to be taught. And as soon as any organisation gets to teach children life principles, some will seek to exploit that communication channel for their own ends.

Despite Alan's dislike for religious teaching, some explicitly atheist organisations have been quite destructive - think Stalin's Russia, Mao's China or Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. When a political leader (think Stalin) or philosopher (think Marx) becomes effectively deified, any behavior becomes acceptable; I'm sure there are examples on the other extreme of political views (but Western countries don't like to talk about it - think McCarthyism).

So, for me, the teachings of Jesus 2,000 years ago gives me some principles that I can extrapolate to the challenges faced in society today. Some issues related to human nature have not changed much at all, while others issues related to technology would be totally alien to people from that era.

[Bored chemist]

Everyone needs a set of principles that guide their decisions from day to day.

It is remarkable how far you can get with "What would happen if everybody did that?".
It stops the witch burnings and the 12 year old mad scientists.

So, for me, the teachings of Jesus 2,000 years ago gives me some principles

Christ's relatively recent addition to the genre of "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is quite similar to the version my mum used (quoted above).

[alancalverd]

Deification is indeed dangerous. I don't recall anything in Das Kapital that gave authority to Lysenko or the gulags, nor did the Judaic fundamentalism of Jesus require his latterday followers to persecute his co-religionists. It is the insertion of a priesthood between the deity and the public that makes religion offensive.

McCarthyism is a fine western example of extreme politics, just like nazism: every politician since Cicero requires an identifiable public enemy that he can "beat" in order to "save the nation". Jews, Catholics and coalminers were easy pickings (though it is arguable that Thatcher would not have been re-elected if she hadn't started a war - Macchiavelli's fallback strategy) and the neat trick that McCarthy employed was to set up an inquisition such that he and he alone could identify the enemy thus becoming both philosopher and saviour.

[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey]

The answer to this question ought tom boil down to truth. Giving a crack addict crack might make them feel better.

[syhprum]

Although a Jewish lay preacher promulgating the ideas of John the Baptist known as Jesus may well have existed and met his end after falling under the influence of the anti Roman resistance I am certain that no true record of his teaching exists .
The Christian religion would seem to be the invention of Saul of tarsus who had his own motives

[jimbobghost]

to answer the question posed:
no, it is not wrong. as long as one's beliefs do not cause another harm, the only damage that may occur is to the believer.

as an Atheist, i believe in free will; and even self deception is acceptable.

[ATMD]

It comes down to this, should something that could never be proven by science automatically be considered false? That is what belief in God is all about. People all over the world claim to have experienced supernatural events and miracles in their lives yet none could be proven, are we to say that their experiences were delusional and false hallucinations?

Richard Dawkins was always against anecdotal evidence, what if anecdotal evidence was the only proof you could have for the existence of God? And if that is the case, a question arises, why is God hiding? This is a theological question rather than a scientific one.

[Bored chemist]

If kicking the cat gives you comfort is it wrong?

[ATMD]

If kicking the cat gives you comfort is it wrong?

I would think it is because it causes harm to another living creature. Would you consider having a personal belief in God as causing harm to others?

[Bored chemist]

If kicking the cat gives you comfort is it wrong?

I would think it is because it causes harm to another living creature. Would you consider having a personal belief in God as causing harm to others?

I can give you at least 4000 years of case histories where it does...

[jimbobghost]

God love you BC

[ATMD]

to answer the question posed:
no, it is not wrong. as long as one's beliefs do not cause another harm, the only damage that may occur is to the believer.

as an Atheist, i believe in free will; and even self deception is acceptable.

Would it not be better to keep an open mind for the possibility of God? Let us forget the image of God portrayed to us from the institutional religions for a moment, and look at all the mystical, spiritual events that man has experienced throughout history.

[Bored chemist]

look at all the mystical, spiritual events that man has experienced throughout history.

Be careful what you wish for
You may find that some of it can definitely be explained by neurological problems like temporal lobe epilepsy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_lobe_epilepsy#Link_with_religiosity
in which case it's hard to accept that  the rest of it is any more "real". It may just arise from different- as yet undiagnosed- brain problems.

[ATMD]

look at all the mystical, spiritual events that man has experienced throughout history.

Be careful what you wish for
You may find that some of it can definitely be explained by neurological problems like temporal lobe epilepsy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_lobe_epilepsy#Link_with_religiosity
in which case it's hard to accept that  the rest of it is any more "real". It may just arise from different- as yet undiagnosed- brain problems.

I am not sure it has to do with a malfunctioning in the cognitive process though, some highly intelligent humans and great thinkers of this world have experienced spirituality.

Why do we suppose that God and a spiritual world beyond our realm could not possibly exist?

God could easily create a spirit world that could not be detected by our eyes or our scientific instruments. To say that something that could not be proven by our science could not possibly exist would be to say that we can observe everything that exists. If we could observe everything that exists, then by logic, we are God, for nothing could exist that is beyond our observational ability.

[jimbobghost]

AMTD,
"If we could observe everything that exists, then by logic, we are God, for nothing could exist that is beyond our observational ability."

you are truly a deep thinker.

in fact, i concur...i believe myself to be God...and nothing exists beyond my observational ability.

frighteningly, when i turn off my computer; you also cease to exist.