Do you see any benefits to religious faith?

[Pat Mustard]

What are an atheist's beliefs?

I was referring to his belief that "faith" mean's human belief

It's not a belief, it's a use of the word within standard definitions, and taking into account that at no stage has a religious belief ever been shown to be anything other than human generated. The fact of the matter is you are saying that because faith can be taken as belief in something which is not human generated (and that people have at times believed that their faith is not in something human generated), therefore religion is not human generated. But you cannot go from part one of your claim to part two without in the meantime providing evidence independent of the claim to support your supposition that religion is not human generated. And semantics will never be evidence.

You really are bad at adversarial debate aren't you arkilogue? Instead of the usual present claim>hear counter claim> present evidence with analysis>hear counter evidence and analysis>critique counter evidence>hear critique of your evidence>summation, you go present claim>be shown where claim falls down>rinse and repeat a couple of times>unilaterally declare that you know more about the other disputant than they do>be slapped down>unilaterally declare yourself the winner.

[Jesster]

And this, Tazzycorn and Stimbo, is why I said a while ago that it's a waste of time to respond to Arki. This thread has painted that picture perfectly.

[Arkilogue]

Let me check up my arse to see if I care what you think. Brb.

... n..nol no.

Just as I thought; fresh out. Sorry.

Yeah we've already covered that and I wasn't really talking to you.

[Mudhammam]

The Hare Krishnas seem to do just fine.

What you are talking about are forms of religion and they have risen and fallen over time as the spiritual needs of the people change. As children, all we needed was a stepping stool to reach what we wanted on the counter....now as an adult the 2nd story roof needs patching and I need a 28 ft extension ladder.

We have matured as a species (some what) and our needs are greater than they were, the old forms no longer meet many peoples needs. We need more input because we have grown.  And what doesn't grow with us will burst as is happening now.

But there are more virulent forms of religion like Islam which rewards martyrdom and the killing of others with a paradise filled with sensual pleasures. Christianity simply can't compete and the Hare Krishna's would flee in a blur of orange and tambourine jangles.

Most of the time in history, a new religion supplants the former ones.

But so long as the religious motive begins from the faulty premise that certain propositions must simply be believed, in spite of good reasons to the contrary, isn't it inevitable that certain forms will be "virulent"?

[Cyberman]

Let me check up my arse to see if I care what you think. Brb.

... n..nol no.

Just as I thought; fresh out. Sorry.

Yeah we've already covered that and I wasn't really talking to you.

Fuck you too, xtian.

[bennyboy]

I absolutely see benefits to religious faith. It can suspend doubt about oneself or one's circumstances, leading to more confident behaviors. I think faith, if it's strong, can really help someone "go for it" in life. The brain does wondrous things, and many of things do not require a rational world view, and are in fact aided by a suspension of critical thought.

[Arkilogue]

I was referring to his belief that "faith" mean's human belief

It's not a belief, it's a use of the word within standard definitions, and taking into account that at no stage has a religious belief ever been shown to be anything other than human generated. The fact of the matter is you are saying that because faith can be taken as belief in something which is not human generated (and that people have at times believed that their faith is not in something human generated), therefore religion is not human generated. But you cannot go from part one of your claim to part two without in the meantime providing evidence independent of the claim to support your supposition that religion is not human generated. And semantics will never be evidence.

You really are bad at adversarial debate aren't you arkilogue? Instead of the usual present claim>hear counter claim> present evidence with analysis>hear counter evidence and analysis>critique counter evidence>hear critique of your evidence>summation, you go present claim>be shown where claim falls down>rinse and repeat a couple of times>unilaterally declare that you know more about the other disputant than they do>be slapped down>unilaterally declare yourself the winner.

Who's standard definitions? The original usage by the people who wrote it, or the several times removed usage over several languages over a couple thousand years? Did you know one of the definitions of "literally" is now it's complete opposite? http://theweek.com/articles/466957/how-w...dictionary


Never said anything about religion being not human generated, my personal opinion is that most of it is in different proportions at different places in different religions. But that's a different conversation. The semantic usage of the word of the time in not proof of God or anything, it's proof of it's actual usage and function as intended in the minds of the people at that time and I provided evidence from the source material to back up my claim of that intended usage. This isn't about what is "true" it's about what they meant by what they said....that is all.

Where have you shown my claim to be false? You've only stated you opinion and as you want to show me all the official check boxes I've missed, I've yet to see you check any. But I can learn from you either way.

---

The Hare Krishnas seem to do just fine.

What you are talking about are forms of religion and they have risen and fallen over time as the spiritual needs of the people change. As children, all we needed was a stepping stool to reach what we wanted on the counter....now as an adult the 2nd story roof needs patching and I need a 28 ft extension ladder.

We have matured as a species (some what) and our needs are greater than they were, the old forms no longer meet many peoples needs. We need more input because we have grown.  And what doesn't grow with us will burst as is happening now.

But there are more virulent forms of religion like Islam which rewards martyrdom and the killing of others with a paradise filled with sensual pleasures. Christianity simply can't compete and the Hare Krishna's would flee in a blur of orange and tambourine jangles.

Most of the time in history, a new religion supplants the former ones.

But so long as the religious motive begins from the faulty premise that certain propositions must simply be believed, in spite of good reasons to the contrary, isn't it inevitable that certain forms will be "virulent"?

Not all religions are about ingestion and regurgitation of dogma, some are paths of inner growth where you forge the necessary tools of concentration of cleave your own path through all the bullshit. In doing so you outgrow all static forms of religion and it becomes your own growing relationship with God. I've had to slay every form I've come across or imagined in the process. God is far more to me than an objective ideation.

Of course some forms are virulent, some have even been weaponized and commercialized for power over peoples minds and the money the make with their bodies. In my estimation many are actually an anti-religion, eschewing personal relationship with God in favor of a murderous group self righteousness.

[Brian37]

I absolutely see benefits to religious faith.  It can suspend doubt about oneself or one's circumstances, leading to more confident behaviors.  I think faith, if it's strong, can really help someone "go for it" in life.  The brain does wondrous things, and many of things do not require a rational world view, and are in fact aided by a suspension of critical thought.

I already said that it has a placebo affect. But no, sorry, it is only a benefit to the individual or the society, the downside is for the reasons I stated before. For all the success the ancient Egyptians had in their polytheism it still did not make their gods real. And worse and far too much when someone gets it in their head their god is real, they can also be successful in form big enough groups to murder minorities or start wars or commit acts of genocide.

Faith is not a virtue, it is a cop out. Our species gets hindered by religion as much as we think it helps. 

Our morality isnt coming from old books or fictional beings. Our species ability to make discoveries, succeed or fail are in our evolution.

[Arkilogue]

Yeah we've already covered that and I wasn't really talking to you.

Fuck you too, xtian.

Don't make me handle you, serpent!

[bennyboy]

I absolutely see benefits to religious faith.  It can suspend doubt about oneself or one's circumstances, leading to more confident behaviors.  I think faith, if it's strong, can really help someone "go for it" in life.  The brain does wondrous things, and many of things do not require a rational world view, and are in fact aided by a suspension of critical thought.

I already said that it has a placebo affect. But no, sorry, it is only a benefit to the individual or the society, the downside is for the reasons I stated before. For all the success the ancient Egyptians had in their polytheism it still did not make their gods real. And worse and far too much when someone gets it in their head their god is real, they can also be successful in form big enough groups to murder minorities or start wars or commit acts of genocide.

Faith is not a virtue, it is a cop out. Our species gets hindered by religion as much as we think it helps. 

Our morality isnt coming from old books or fictional beings. Our species ability to make discoveries, succeed or fail are in our evolution.

That's quite the irrelevant rant.  I didn't talk about, nor do I care about, ANY of those things you are talking about.

The OP question is whether there are benefits to religious faith, and there clearly are.  Whether religion overall serves a greater good in society is an issue of debate-- I'd say probably not, but we haven't had purely secular societies long enough yet to really see if non-religion allows us to do any better.