Is the Argument for Religion Rejection a benefit?

[Goosebump]

There are benefits of being an atheists, some of them are :
To stop hating your self because of your sins.
To accept your sexuality if you are a sexual minority.
To stop being afraid of thinking.
To stop wasting your life on bullshit
Etc

I'd argue the first is subjective as "sin" is subjective.
I'd argue the second is independent of ones personal religion as religious beliefs that accept homosexuality may exist.
I'd argue that some religions may offer free thought and questioning as a path to enlightenment.
The fourth I'd argue is subjective to the individual.

All of those are weak arguments I grant you. Also my original premise is flawed. I meant to be more specific to a christian ideal.

The fault is mine and I'm verry sorry for it if I've wasted your time.

[DramaQueen]

There are benefits of being an atheists, some of them are :
To stop hating your self because of your sins.
To accept your sexuality if you are a sexual minority.
To stop being afraid of thinking.
To stop wasting your life on bullshit
Etc

I'd argue the first is subjective as "sin" is subjective.
I'd argue the second is independent of ones personal religion as religious beliefs that accept homosexuality may exist.
I'd argue that some religions may offer free thought and questioning as a path to enlightenment.
The fourth I'd argue is subjective to the individual.

All of those are weak arguments I grant you. Also my original premise is flawed. I meant to be more specific to a christian ideal.

The fault is mine and I'm verry sorry for it if I've wasted your time.

I'm okay.

[Goosebump]

I'd argue the first is subjective as "sin" is subjective.
I'd argue the second is independent of ones personal religion as religious beliefs that accept homosexuality may exist.
I'd argue that some religions may offer free thought and questioning as a path to enlightenment.
The fourth I'd argue is subjective to the individual.

All of those are weak arguments I grant you. Also my original premise is flawed. I meant to be more specific to a christian ideal.

The fault is mine and I'm verry sorry for it if I've wasted your time.

I'm okay.

I thank you for your acceptance. And applaud you for your response sir. The Fault was mine.

[Cato]

GB,
The benefits you describe are of the circle-jerk, pat on the back variety inherent between members of any group; fraternities come to mind. This is the real reason why people have a problem with 'new atheism'; it's not that atheism is new, but that there are enough atheists now that religious based in-group pressure is no longer a meaningful deterent against atheists speaking our minds.

You have not demonstrated any tangible benefits because of the beliefs themselves, only superficial benefits associated with in-group bias. There is no evidence for god; therefore, I'm an atheist. As Min mentioned before there is no cost benefit analysis involved here. I think you should be more careful how you consider those that will change their beliefs about existence simply because the group demands it; any group for any reason that isn't supported by demonstration and reason.

Gullibility is the word you were looking for before. Gullibility isn't a fallacy; however, it makes one easily convinced by fallacious arguments.

[Goosebump]

Just so we are clear, I never fostered an opinion on the matter what so ever. I expressed a point of view when challenged but never said it was my own. Further-more my Religious Views: atheist. Also I respect you, I assume you where reading quickly.

GB,
The benefits you describe are of the circle-jerk,

I never put forth any benefits. I did ask if there where any and defend when one claimed there were not... wait. Nope I just read them again I never put forth any named benefit.

You have not demonstrated any tangible benefits because of the beliefs themselves, only superficial benefits associated with in-group bias.

I'd say I haven't demonstrated any benefits. I just checked and I don't think I ever put for a benefit of any kind. I asked if there were political, economic or cultural benefits. But I think, again I'm not good a proof reading, I didn't specify any one benefit in any category or in name what so ever.

Gullibility is the word you were looking for before.

I was not looking for any word sir. I was just trying to illustrate a concept. If you drew that word for me, or for my position or for what you read in this thread than it is your word and your's alone.

I'm sorry if I didn't do a better job in illustration. I'm not good with words.

[ignoramus]

The poe meter is now at 75% and rising steadily....

[Goosebump]

The poe meter is now at 75% and rising steadily....

Ok so I knew I had no idea what you were talking about but google did!

So by being a "poe" I'm conforming to Poe's Law which I read as:

It is an observation that it's difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between parodies of fundamentalism or other extreme views and their genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane.


I'd grant you 100% on that. Does that mean it's not worth discussing?

Also thank you for the educational point and for indirectly insisting that I educate myself on it. Thank you for that.

[Tonus]

Basically is there any political, sociological, economical benefit to being Atheist, Agnostic, Gnostic or Deist or any I missed as apposed to being in an organized religion?

That depends on your community, although I would not split it along religious and non-religious lines. For example, a deeply-religious community may be less tolerant of an atheist member and that could affect him politically, economically, and so on. But the community may also be less tolerant of a religious person who doesn't represent the local religion (say a Muslim in a mostly Christian community, or even a Protestant in a mostly Catholic community, and so on). But this can be true to a lesser extent if a person who supports a particular sports team lives in a region where his team's rival is extremely popular.

I think it's more a question of demographics than it is of ideology.

[Goosebump]

Basically is there any political, sociological, economical benefit to being Atheist, Agnostic, Gnostic or Deist or any I missed as apposed to being in an organized religion?

That depends on your community, although I would not split it along religious and non-religious lines. For example, a deeply-religious community may be less tolerant of an atheist member and that could affect him politically, economically, and so on. But the community may also be less tolerant of a religious person who doesn't represent the local religion (say a Muslim in a mostly Christian community, or even a Protestant in a mostly Catholic community, and so on). But this can be true to a lesser extent if a person who supports a particular sports team lives in a region where his team's rival is extremely popular.

I think it's more a question of demographics than it is of ideology.

That's a benefit or dis-benefit on a very narrow level. However even if you were in such a narrow community but voted for a senator. If you voted your morality would that not be a benefit if it was reflected largely in the population?

[Tonus]

That's a benefit or dis-benefit on a very narrow level. However even if you were in such a narrow community but voted for a senator. If you voted your morality would that not be a benefit if it was reflected largely in the population?

I think it's the same question: if I reflect the standards of my community, then I am likely to see the benefits of that association. If I vote for a particular candidate then the likelihood that he will succeed is dependent on whether a majority of my fellow voters share my support of him.

If I hold a minority view in my community, then the candidate that I support will probably lose the election. Being a minority would not benefit me. But I would still vote based on my support (or belief, if you will). I don't think that there is a reasonable or practical alternative.