- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
Atheism may become more prominent, but it can't replace religion. Read More
Hmmm...
I suppose I would consider myself an Atheist. But, Atheism, as hinted at in this article, is NOT a religion. It's isn't even an ideology or a doctrine. It is simply an answer to a question that closes one door and opens another. I shut the door on Christianity 5 years ago. Atheism is a point to begin. You Rebuild your spiritual, and rational self based on this new assumption that there is no god. When you come to grips with the reality of this, your view of the universe changes in a fundamental way. It could be a door into Buddhism - an atheistic philosophy. Or any other eastern philosophy. What you have rejected deities, you know how to unlearn all the stuff you learned, and then refill it with information and a framework that works for you. So, no. Atheism won't replace religion. But I believe it will server as a catalyst for doing so.
Agree to a point
I'm not an atheist, but I agree that you are describing the right way to go about rebuilding the self after shutting the door on Christianity. Buddhism, while not theism, is still a religion which offers transcendence. So I wonder if it and similar philosophies support what I've claimed, or not. What do you think?
Religion just needs to go away
Nothing should replace it. Religion should just die off. It is a man-made construct with no basis in fact, based on fear, and used for centuries to control people. Everyone is born an Atheist and has to be indoctrinated into a belief system. Someone who basis their morals on a belief that some invisible sky fairy will send them to hell isn't a moral person. There is nothing moral about religion.
The connections
Your claim "no basis in fact" is too strong, as is "there is nothing moral about religion". I think Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and William Wilberforce serve as examples of people who demonstrate through their teachings and lives the connections that can exist between religion and morality. Of course, you don't need to be religious to be moral, but that is a separate issue. And there are several other religious motives for being moral apart from fear of hell, such as love of God, other humans, and the good in general.
Ghandi abused women. While
Ghandi abused women. While this fact has been obfuscated by the popular vision of the guy, it is well documented and he himself admitted to it.
thanks
I did not know that, as I've never studied him in much depth.
Gandhi's individual failings
Gandhi's individual failings have no bearing on the truth of any particular religion, only on his own beliefs and behavior. I am not aware of any religion that puts forward the thesis that all it's believers are perfect. Christianity, for one, specifically deals with the flawed nature of all humanity.
Religion and fact
If religious beliefs are not true, then the claim that they have "no basis in fact" is not too strong. It is, after all, impossible for that which is false to have a basis in fact.
I think some religious
I think some religious beliefs are true, but even if they aren't, it is possible for a false belief to have some basis in fact. For example, a person could have a belief that is false, based on 5 other beliefs, one of which is true. The initial belief would then have some basis in fact, even if all things considered it is false.
Sky fairies
Sky fairies are no sillier than magical proteins that can self assemble into people over millions of years.
We's all gotz religion.
I fully agree! Sadly, I have
I fully agree! Sadly, I have lived in the middle of the Bible belt for the past 19 years (overwhelmingly Baptist), and at times over the years I have been treated like a pariah and actually demonized by some because I don't (even publically!!!) voice my adherence to any religious doctrine. Usually, I try to keep my mouth shut - when they are pushing me to GO TO CHURCH and EDUCATE myself about God -(becuase if I just KNEW more I'd believe!)however, I have on occasion felt forced to point out that ANY beliefs that are a absolute result of what country you were born, unto what FAMILY you were born and in what century you were born - Cannot be anything remotely resembling an absolute - much less something upon which to base your entire life and belief system! The last person I said that too (in defense) - actually responded that - "well -- I don't Look THAT far back!) - she said this seriously and without any sense of shame or defensiveness! WOW All I could do was look at her in disbelief. How can people not THINK about WHY they believe? And How they COULD believe?
Beliefs that are Absolute
I disagree with your assertion that beliefs that are absolute depend on the circumstances of your life. (When you were born, what part of the world, during what time and to what family etc.)
I absolutely believe that murder is wrong. So have many other people throughout time that have lived all over the world. People have a natural sense that murder is wrong because it is what many refer to as 'natural law' that is a part of us. I could use many other examples of what we inherantly know to be absolutely wrong.
I'm sorry that you have been bothered by overly enthusiastic Christians. All the education in the world will not change a heart. I think about why I believe all the time with many of the decisions I make in my daily life. I am a devout Catholic that has many friends who believe a lot of different things. I would bet money that you and I would get along. But make no mistake, there is absolute truth.
As an aside, when a fundamentalist asks me if I've "been saved" I like to tell them, “Yes I have, it was close and I don't like to talk about it.” It's an old Catholic joke. You're free to use it.
Absolute truth?
How can you profess to know this? IF there is absolute truth, it does not follow necessarily that god exists. And if god does exist, god MIGHT know the truth, but you could not, as a catholic. For, catholics profess to be flawed beings. Maybe what you mean is that YOU BELIEVE in absolute truth.....you cannot prove that it exists for me....hence you merely speculate.
Stop using that excuse...
While it is true that religion (more specific, organized religion) has been used as controlling force, the only problem I have with the statement of 'Everyone is born an Atheist' is that it implies that Atheism is the natural state of mankind, when that is completely untrue. I am not advocating any kind of religion, but even the most ancient of humans held a belief in a higher power, even if it was just the sun or the ocean. That would mean it is natural for humans to have a belief in a higher power for whatever reason it is something hardwired into a good percentage of humans.
Just saying, that particular statement always bothered me and since there are a plethora of other things to cite as to why someone should be an Atheist, I just wish folks would refrain from using that particular one.
"[Religion]is a man-made
"[Religion]is a man-made construct with no basis in fact, ... and used for centuries to control people"
Kinda like love, money, and marriage
"There is nothing moral about religion."
That statement is dogmatic and has no basis in fact
"[Religion]is a man-made
"[Religion]is a man-made construct with no basis in fact, ... and used for centuries to control people"
Kinda like love, money, and marriage
"There is nothing moral about religion."
That statement is dogmatic and has no basis in fact
Dear Psychology Today: Please
Dear Psychology Today:
Please find better point writers for theism. This is embarassing.
Thank you,
Atheist who would like an enticing argument for the existence of the religious institution.
-ps.
"[H]uman beings long for transcendence of some sort, as shown by the presence and prevalence of religious belief throughout cultures across time."
Oh? So therefore, we must have "Religion"?
Pretty fantastic argument for a Doctor of Philosophy.
Why?
I'm not sure why my argument is so "fantastic" or what is "embarassing" in the post. My narrow point is that there is a prevalence of longing for transcendence among human beings, and that this is one reason why religion can last and will not be replaced by atheism. There is nothing outlandish or even very controversial about this claim. Others might prefer a different explanation, or think that we should try to eliminate the longing for transcendence, but those are separate issues.
I'm not seeking to advocate theism in the post, i.e. argue for the existence of God. Rather, I'm discussing the existential attraction of religion in general. If there is a widespread desire for transcendence, and many religions by nature offer it, this is one reason to think that religion will survive.
Michael, I mean no offense,
Michael, I mean no offense, but this article read to me as though it were written by a high school student. I felt the same way when I read this.
no offense?
Okay.
Theist
Suggestions: Thomas Aquinas, Charles Dickens, Victor Hugo, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Mother Theresa, Albert Einstein, CS Lewis, Pascal, Abraham Lincoln, Dante, Barack Obama (so he says), Hilary Clinton, Martin Luther King, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, John Adams, most of the signers of the declaration of independence and the United States Constitution....
And specifically to your point, Francis Collins, the head of National Institutes of Health and former head of the Human Genome Project, amongst many others,
Out of curiosity
Why would you feel the need to add "so he says" behind Barack Obama's name? Why did you not feel the need to add that behind the names of everyone? I sense a bit of skepticism on your part, no?
Theist
Suggestions: Thomas Aquinas, Charles Dickens, Victor Hugo, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Mother Theresa, Albert Einstein, CS Lewis, Pascal, Abraham Lincoln, Dante, Barack Obama (so he says), Hilary Clinton, Martin Luther King, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, John Adams, most of the signers of the declaration of independence and the United States Constitution....
And specifically to your point, Francis Collins, the head of National Institutes of Health and former head of the Human Genome Project, amongst many others,
I think "transcendence" for a
I think "transcendence" for a good portion of believers means to them that there is something after death. But there are ways to transcend everyday life without putting religion in play - connecting with other people, finding nature, and creating meaning in one's own existence. That's speaking from secular humanist's perspective. Not sure why some of these posters have to be so snarky.
Only by forming and
Only by forming and practicing positive beliefs and values can one build a coherent and meaningful life. So if something is to replace religion, it will not be atheism.
Atheism is not a "replacement" for religion so much as it is an important pivot point for whatever may come to replace religion, eg secular humanism. So the distinction between "positive beliefs and values" and the "negative" rejection of deities is a pointless one; the correct distinction is between religious dogmas and the belief systems that follow the rejection of religion, of which there are plenty. Atheism replacing religion, then, would be better phrased as theism vs atheism. Theism in itself does not provide any positive beliefs or values; the positive beliefs and values that spring from religion are derived from the dogmas themselves, not from the question of whether or not deities exist. The most obvious example of this would be deism, which provides no dogma (how could it?)
Your post also implies that because sports fail to provide sufficient meaning that only religion can. I should not have to point out what is wrong with that.
reply
My post is a response to a previous post by another Psychology Today blogger, which is why I was discussing the notion of atheism replacing religion. Theism in fact does provide many positive beliefs and values which are thought to be grounded in the nature of God, so I guess we just disagree on this point. My post does not imply that since sports fail to provide meaning only religion can, at least that was not my intent. My point was that while many people feel sports can replace religion, I don't think it is up to the task.
I know you weren't the one to
I know you weren't the one to word it that way originally, and I almost noted that in my first comment.
When you say "thought to be grounded in the nature of God", this proves my point - the positive beliefs and values are derived from the *dogma*, the supposed knowledge of the *nature* of God (or Brahman or etc.) But this goes beyond merely theism vs atheism, beyond ontology - the belief in the existence of a god in and of itself does not necessarily lead to any values, for example as in deism or pantheism, which are both theistic but do not have associated dogmas or positive beliefs or values; the claims do not extend beyond "A god or creator exists." Specific claims about the nature of god are required in order for positive beliefs and values, but this is no longer just theism, it is religion (or spirituality or etc.) They're different things.
And I also figured that it was not your intent to imply that only religion can provide meaning, which is why I didn't bother taking it on, only mentioning how I interpreted the particular wording.
Atheism and the truth
As Wimivo says, atheism isn't obligated to provide anyone with a purpose in life. It is merely a conclusion about whether religious beliefs are true or false. Let's assume for the sake of argument that religious beliefs actually are false. In that case, what you are saying is that human beings are insufficiently intelligent to satisfy their psychic needs without resort to lies. You may well have a point.
Your first point about
Your first point about atheism was part of the point I was trying to make, so I agree. And if religious beliefs are false, it may well be the case that many of us must resort to lies to satisfy our psychic needs. I take it that this was in very general terms part of the point being made by Nietzsche and Freud.
Trying to discredit theism is absurd
Belief in a god is the means to an end. analyzing the means without considering the end is foolish. Someone repetitively putting their hands across strings for 2000 hours would seem insane if you didn't know that the end goal was to become a professional guitarist. The goal of religion is self-improvement by way of sacrifice, discipline and service. If achieved (and the person is happy), it's pedantic to care about whether what was believed in was technically accurate.
Furthermore, self-sacrifice is very hard for most humans and requires a strong support group. Religions create a "club" with initiations and requirements, penalties for violating club rules (maybe silly to you- but so are all clubs' initiations and requirements) that bond group members.
It works for some people, so stop overanalyzing them and let them be.
And if you think you're above having "beliefs"- you don't really know that the light went on when you flipped the switch because an electric circuit was formed. You heard it growing up and everyone else seems to think so. So you have come to BELIEVE it.
Post new comment