Support NeoGAF

[Venfayth]

When atheist are "jerks" people don't tend to die to get maimed.

What war-like events are atheists the cause of?

While I wouldn't prescribe this to 'atheists' specifically, I would say that many wars are completely separate from religion. There is no "atheist cause" beyond social acceptance/equivalence, and maybe from a few scientific standpoints.

But it's so easy to start a war or conflict over any number of purely ideological issues. Ideologies in general cause huge conflicts, get people worked up, get people passionate. Religion is an ideology and it's not different than any other ideology in that regard. (In my opinion. Why do I feel inclined to state that what I'm saying is my opinion? I hope I don't come off as some ignorant asshat who believes that he's the only person with answers)

 

[SpectreFire]

When atheist are "jerks" people don't tend to die to get maimed.

What war-like events are atheists the cause of?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

Bad people are bad people, regardless of their religious beliefs.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

Is there a homogenised group of atheists?

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

Bad people are bad people, regardless of their religious beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

He wasn't killing in the name of atheism, he was killing in the name of Stalin.

 

[mavs]

When atheist are "jerks" people don't tend to die to get maimed.

What war-like events are atheists the cause of?

What war-like events are religious people the cause of? I ask not because I think there weren't any, but because I want to know explicitly what you consider to be "caused" by religion.

 

[SpectreFire]

So when I see a homeless person and feel bad for them and want to help them out, its because somebody told me as a kid that I'm supposed to feel that way? I dont buy it, sorry. I know its not a discussion where any ultimate truth can be found(at this time, at least), but I do believe that humans can learn about morality without specifically being taught about it. We are born with the ability to think rationally, and while some people hone this skill more than others, I think thats the main thing thats required to acheive the realization of 'doing good for no reward'.

You're agreeing with everything that I say... but you're not. The hell?

You can't learn without being taught. I'm not saying someone has to sit your ass down and tell you that good=good. I said you can learn from parents, from society, from your general surrounding environment and upbringing. Learning isn't merely centered on reading shit from a book you know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

He wasn't killing in the name of atheism, he was killing in the name of Stalin.

The man was still an atheist though. My point is, bad people are just bad people, and they'll find ways to do horrible things with or without religious beliefs.

 

[Salacious Crumb]

As soon as someone says something like "you can't disprove it" I die a little inside. Belief in something that is unprovable is inherently more illogical than disbelief, don't pretend that they are opposite sides of the same coin.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

What war-like events are religious people the cause of? I ask not because I think there weren't any, but because I want to know explicitly what you consider to be "caused" by religion.

Off the top of my head, the crusades and the attacks on the world trade center.

 

[Bossun]

And nowadays people are being killed in the name of capitalism and money not because atheist decided to kill religious people. While people were and are still being killed because they are not religious.

 

[Wazzim]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

He wasn't killing in the name of atheism, he was killing in the name of Stalin.

Does it matter? Atheism isn't a group.

Off the top of my head, the crusades and the attacks on the world trade center.

They were planned out because of non-religious motives. You can't say it's because of religion when it's only used as a tool for non-religious goods.

 

[Venfayth]

nvm, I don't know how to express what I mean about this topic very well

 

[Raist]

The man was still an atheist though. My point is, bad people are just bad people, and they'll find ways to do horrible things with or without religious beliefs.

He also had a mustache.

 

[Seanspeed]

You know what, I'm a history major and I do actually think that without religion, we wouldn't have arrived at this same point, but we'd actually be further behind.

During the medieval ages, we had empires, but within the empires, people weren't really united on a social level. Commonalities weren't there. People living in one kingdom had little to do or in common with those living in another. Religion was really the only commonality a lot of people had, and it helped united those that would've otherwise just fought amongst each other.

Having that commonality meant more people would've been wiling to work with each other instead of against. The church created an infrastructure that would also close the gap between communities, create a more common dialect and helped literature and printing expand.

As for science. Who do you think was funding scientific research back them? The churches! The nobility didn't care much at all about science and education. It was the church that constantly created schools, and funded scientists, astronomers and writers.

Scientific advancements could have created many opportunities to unite people. Imagine the telegraph, only hundreds of years earlier, for example.

And just cuz the Church happened to be the power that came to be(and hence had the money), doesn't mean another secular ruling party couldn't have done similar, or even more, in terms of funding scientific research.

I have a question for you, or rather, a hypothetical situation.

I want to know how you'd honestly respond (either physically or in thought) to this situation:

Your best friend is a devout christian and he believes that you are going to hell because you don't believe in his god. He asks you maybe once or twice a year to go to church with him and give christianity some thought.

Are you offended by that? Would you lose respect for your friend?

I don't really have a point I'm trying to make with that question, I'm honestly just kind of curious.

Its not even a hypothetical with me. I had a friend(not friends anymore for other reasons) that did tell me I would go to hell cuz of my beliefs and did ask me to go to church with her. She was genuinely upset about it because she cared about me and all, but I couldn't bring myself to humor her in this regard, cuz going to church with her would likely do nothing but reinforce my disbelief and I told her as much.

I do not get offended by this, however. I'm not the sort that is gonna give you a scowl cuz you tell me you're religious. Granted, there's a small part of me that is disappointed when I found out somebody is really religious, but I can look past it for the sake of being a decent human being. I'm an opinionated person and I state my beliefs with a certain conviction, but I dont go out of my way to seperate myself, either. Religious people are too common to completely reject in everyday life, and just cuz I have these deep down disappointments about their ability to think rationally doesn't mean I'm gonna write them off or say they are a bad person. I see lots of good in people no matter what their beliefs. At least I try to.

 

[Bossun]

Fool. Don't talk about mustache.

Aren't you aware of mustachism. These people (also known as hispters today) are pretty virulent. Be careful

 

[Freshmaker]

But there is still the possibility that there is a mad cool reason why we even exist

Not really important.

and maybe some cool stuff does happen when we die.

Sure. People will remember you.

 

[mavs]

Off the top of my head, the crusades and the attacks on the world trade center.

Interesting, if the WTC attack fits then the Cultural Revolution fits better. Communist Albania is probably the best example of atheist cleansing.

Not all the crusades were religious. The sixth crusade especially should be seen as political. What I'm getting at is that there is a double standard between movements populated by atheists and movements populated by religious societies where the atheist movements are largely correctly seen as political, while the religious societies are considered to be driven primarily by their religion. There are cases where that is true, but many more where it is not.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

Does it matter? Atheism isn't a group.


They were planned out because of non-religious motives. You can't say it's because of religion when it's only used as a tool for non-religious goods.

Tell that to the brainwashed hijackers.

 

[soul creator]

I'm not here to argue whether or not those beliefs are valid, but I think it shouldn't be a problem that people want to hold those beliefs. I don't like people who are intent on bunking someone's belief in this matter, just as much as I don't like those who force this belief on others. If it doesn't hurt you or affect you, just let people be.

I probably would just ask if they care whether the things they believe are true. If not, then yeah, there's no point in really discussing anything with them at all, and you'd just have to leave them be. But if they do care, then debate/discussion/finding evidence/etc. seems to be the obvious way to go about that. If some previously held beliefs get "hurt" in the process...well, that's the side effect of discussing one's personal beliefs in public and trying to find if things are true.

And of course, if one does actually care if the things they believe are true, then whatever negative feelings they get from having their beliefs criticized would be outweighed by the fact that they learned something new and more accurate about the world.

 

[Piano]

You know what really bugs me about some atheists?

(You can probably accurately apply this complaint to any 'group' of people on the planet, but in particular it bugs me about atheists, I don't know)

It bugs me to no end when people start these circle-jerking rings of reinforcing why they're atheists, like they're so insecure about choosing to not believe in a god that they need the approval of every other atheist to feel like they did something cool.

It's like those groups of people who smoke pot, then the next time they meet someone who also smokes pot they get so excited and talk about the last time they smoked pot. And then they use words like "dank" or "kush".

This made me lol. HOW DARE PEOPLE SHARE A HOBBY AND DISCUSS IT?!?!

 

[Seanspeed]

You're agreeing with everything that I say... but you're not. The hell?

You can't learn without being taught. I'm not saying someone has to sit your ass down and tell you that good=good. I said you can learn from parents, from society, from your general surrounding environment and upbringing. Learning isn't merely centered on reading shit from a book you know.

Your specific quote:

"I'm saying, someone has to teach you the concept of good in order for that to exist in your mind"

Thats all I disagreed with. If thats not what you meant, I'm not sure why you're even arguing with me.... :/

 

[Wazzim]

Tell that to the brainwashed hijackers.

lol true.

 

[QP3]

I don't believe in a one almighty God, or said heaven, but I do believe in an afterlife of some sort.

 

[SpectreFire]

Your specific quote:

"I'm saying, someone has to teach you the concept of good in order for that to exist in your mind"

Thats all I disagreed with. If thats not what you meant, I'm not sure why you're even arguing with me.... :/

Well, I guess I should've been more general. By someone, I mean anyone. You learn from people around you. Sorry about that.

 

[Venfayth]

This made me lol. HOW DARE PEOPLE SHARE A HOBBY AND DISCUSS IT?!?!

I'm not sure why this offended so many people, there are a couple options:

1. I did a shitty job of explaining what I mean.

I'm not talking about atheists discussing atheism, and I'm not talking about druggies 'discussing' drugs. I'm talking about when there is no more to their conversation than talking about how stupid christians are or how amazing being high is. I even preface that my complaint is pretty irrational and state that it can be applied to almost any group of people. People like to be gratified, I get that, but among the groups of morons on the earth, it seems like this phenomenon is particularly prevalent with atheists. Maybe I'm wrong, it's just what I've noticed. Sorry if that offends you.

edit: I just read this again. I'm not saying atheists are morons. I just meant the people who do this kind of circle-jerking are morons.

2. The people who are offended are insecure and in belief that I'm attacking them for doing drugs.

Let me assure you I'm not. I don't give a fuck if you do drugs, but if you do, I don't want to hear you talk about how amazing your last hit was, and I especially don't want to hear you and three other guys regurgitate the same bullshit about how many drugs you've tried over and over again. There's a few groups of people that I've met that do this constantly, and I can't stand being in the same room as them for more than five minutes.

 

[SpectreFire]

I probably would just ask if they care whether the things they believe are true. If not, then yeah, there's no point in really discussing anything with them at all, and you'd just have to leave them be. But if they do care, then debate/discussion/finding evidence/etc. seems to be the obvious way to go about that. If some previously held beliefs get "hurt" in the process...well, that's the side effect of discussing one's personal beliefs in public and trying to find if things are true.

And of course, if one does actually care if the things they believe are true, then whatever negative feelings they get from having their beliefs criticized would be outweighed by the fact that they learned something new and more accurate about the world.

Well I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, I don't really care if its true or not. For me, it's just therapeutic. It's like talking to your stuffed animal as a kid or a pet as an adult. You know they can't or don't really understand what you're saying, but it's comforting to talk anyways.

 

[Liquid Helium]

There are loads of people who are dying from AIDS in Africa because the pope told them condoms are evil.
There are gay people who are told by their churches that being gay is a sin and they grow to hate themselves and their sexuality.
Countless people have died in religious wars.
There are people dying and really ill from diseases we could have cured by now but religious people have halted stem cell research.
Thousands of families were ruined when religiously motivated people flew planes into the twin towers.


And you are telling me Athiesm is making the world a worse place?! All because they told you that the magical place in the sky you believed in were all your dreams come true and there is nothing bad and you live forever isn't real? Grow up.

 

[Seanspeed]

Well, I guess I should've been more general. By someone, I mean anyone. You learn from people around you. Sorry about that.

Again, though. 'Anyone' implies a specific person has to teach you. I dont believe thats the case. As you said, general environment can be enough. And rational thinking is something that all of us are born with the potential to use. We may need to be taught to maximise this skill, but its there all the same.

 

[params7]

No. If the Church and State were still the same we'd still be burning witches and carrying cleansing crusades in several countries. Atheists have much more value for life, imo, than religious people who comfort themselves with afterlife thoughts.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

No. If the Church and State were still the same we'd still be burning witches and carrying cleansing crusades in several countries. Atheists have much more value for life, imo, than religious people who comfort themselves with afterlife thoughts.

These kinds of generalizations only derail conversation.

 

[Aristion]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

He wasn't killing in the name of atheism, he was killing in the name of Stalin.

Even if he hypothetically did kill in the name of atheism, that still wouldn't have any impact on what atheists actually believe. The same thing goes with Christianity or any other world religion.

 

[Pixel Pete]

Personally, I believe that without religion, we might actually be much farther along in terms of scientific advancements.

This is so safe an assumption that it's almost guaranteed. But then again, we might be far enough ahead to have well an truly destroyed ourselves and/or our planet, so who knows if it's really for the worse?

Atheists have much more value for life, imo, than religious people who comfort themselves with afterlife thoughts.

"Life is so sweet because it happens but once."
But I think it's important to distinguish that atheists have more potential value for life than the religious can, not that they necessarily take advantage of that.

But it's interesting either way. I'm not truly in the best position to question as I never believed in the afterlife, so it's never been a 'loss' as such.

However, to question the meaning of life when absent of an afterlife is a question that doesn't make any sense to me. It implies, in the words of Sam Harris, that if experience isn't infinite, it is meaningless.

 

[Seanspeed]

This is so safe an assumption that it's almost guaranteed. But then again, we might be far enough ahead to have well an truly destroyed ourselves and/or our planet, so who knows if it's really for the worse?

Carl, is that you?

Personally, I think Sagan was too influenced by living in the Cold War. I think scientific advancements generally make the world a safer place to live in.

 

[numble]

The Cultural Revolution was for atheistic causes even if it furthered a Cult of Personality.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

Even if he hypothetically did kill in the name of atheism, that still wouldn't have any impact on what atheists actually believe. The same thing goes with Christianity or any other world religion.

Except many religious texts advocate murdering non-believers. I don't think murdering believers is a tenement of non-belief.

 

[numble]

Except many religious texts advocate murdering non-believers. I don't think murdering believers is a tenement of non-belief.

The WTC/9-11 attacks, which you mentioned, weren't about murdering non-believers, they would've still attacked the Pentagon if it was full of Muslims. They attacked Middle Eastern government institutions in the past.

 

[Pixel Pete]

Carl, is that you?

Personally, I think Sagan was too influenced by living in the Cold War. I think scientific advancements generally make the world a safer place to live in.

he is definitely a product of his era, but the concepts he used to skeptically inquire and criticize his era are universal and invaluable.

The WTC/9-11 attacks, which you mentioned, weren't about murdering non-believers, they would've still attacked the Pentagon if it was full of Muslims. They attacked Middle Eastern government institutions in the past.

However, it's very likely that the attacks were a result of the effect of pure, blind faith. Regardless of whether that is true, faith of the religious kind (in spite of evidence) is something I consider a profoundly negative thing which causes society as a whole to regress.

 

[IpsoFacto]

Well, I hope I don't step on anyone's toes but here's how I see it...

In the issue of atheism, I didn't have as much as a problem with as before as I do now. The main reason I despise this new wave of atheists is that ironically all the bad things they claim to say about having a belief system is immediately contradicted by simple fact that they show zero respect for people who disagree with them.

This bugs me in particular with a close friend of mine, ever since he became a self-described atheist and he's also a ecology major, but his attitude has shifted dramatically.

Because I happen at one point I happen to disagree with him a particular point of view of his, he now feels the need to talk down to me as if I were feeble-minded and uninformed.

When you have no respect for your peer, don't expect any kindness in return.


And have some people here, mentioned before, some amazing statements that I've heard from, presumably, atheists, that even a high-school kid would be embarrased to say.

 

[Pixel Pete]

the quality of their character shouldn't have any impact at all on the validity of the points they are trying to make.
If they are douches, it's not because of a system of thought which is mostly inherently valueless. It's because they are douches.

 

[SpectreFire]

Again, though. 'Anyone' implies a specific person has to teach you. I dont believe thats the case. As you said, general environment can be enough. And rational thinking is something that all of us are born with the potential to use. We may need to be taught to maximise this skill, but its there all the same.

Yeah. Sit in a coffee shop and look out at the street for an hour downtown. You'll learn more about social etiquette and norms than you could ever learn from a book or teacher.

 

[IpsoFacto]

the quality of their character shouldn't have any impact at all on the validity of the points they are trying to make.
If they are douches, it's not because of a system of thought which is mostly inherently valueless. It's because they are douches.

True, except that in my particular case, this person is assuming that being atheist somehow makes it OK to act like a douche on the grounds of being a "freethinker".

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

The WTC/9-11 attacks, which you mentioned, weren't about murdering non-believers, they would've still attacked the Pentagon if it was full of Muslims. They attacked Middle Eastern government institutions in the past.

The attackers did commit those acts because of their radical interpretation of their religion. They also weren't the head of the operation, they were used as pawns. They were jihadists who were tricked into thinking these attacks would hurt the supporters of the people harming their people.

There were muslims in The WTC when it went down, but they weren't "true" muslims to the attackers. They were traitors and felt that they deserved to die all the same.

 

[Pixel Pete]

True, except that in my particular case, this person is assuming that being atheist somehow makes it OK to act like a douche on the grounds of being a "freethinker".

it doesn't, true. However, and although it sounds like a generalization, there is a bad habit among the religious to take offence when someone criticizes religious ideas.
Now I understand that it can be the underpinning foundation for your entire world-view, but if you can't question that, if you can't evaluate it critically, and rationally, then frankly you're up for grabs.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

The WTC/9-11 attacks, which you mentioned, weren't about murdering non-believers, they would've still attacked the Pentagon if it was full of Muslims. They attacked Middle Eastern government institutions in the past.

The attacks were still carried out by religious fanatics.

Here are all the relevant quotes from the last 35 minutes of the cockpit voice recordings of United 93, I don't know that you can say that all this in the span of 35 minutes means the attacks had nothing or little to do with religion:

In the name of Allah, the most merciful, the most compassionate.

In the name of Allah. In the name of Allah. I bear witness that there is no other God, but Allah.

Allah knows.

Let's go guys. Allah is greatest. Allah is greatest. Oh guys. Allah is greatest.

Oh Allah. Oh Allah. Oh the most gracious.

Trust in Allah

Oh Allah. Oh Allah. Oh gracious.

Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.

Allah is the greatest.

Allah is the greatest.

Allah is the greatest.

Allah is the greatest.

Allah is the greatest.

Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.

Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

Well, I hope I don't step on anyone's toes but here's how I see it...

In the issue of atheism, I didn't have as much as a problem with as before as I do now. The main reason I despise this new wave of atheists is that ironically all the bad things they claim to say about having a belief system is immediately contradicted by simple fact that they show zero respect for people who disagree with them.

This bugs me in particular with a close friend of mine, ever since he became a self-described atheist and he's also a ecology major, but his attitude has shifted dramatically.

Because I happen at one point I happen to disagree with him a particular point of view of his, he now feels the need to talk down to me as if I were feeble-minded and uninformed.

When you have no respect for your peer, don't expect any kindness in return.


And have some people here, mentioned before, some amazing statements that I've heard from, presumably, atheists, that even a high-school kid would be embarrased to say.

There's a disturbing trend of people generalizing christians/atheists/whatever belief based on some asshole they met who happens to be that belief.

You've probably met super nice folks who are christian but never mentioned it explicitly and I bet you've met decent atheists who didn't go out of their way to insult you.

This kind of generalizing isn't good for you personally.

 

[Septimius]

This discussion reminds me of this quote attributed to the Buddha (there are different versions but the meaning is the same):

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." - Buddha

In short he suggested knowing through direct experience rather than believing.

I like the version that says "including what I am saying". The whole thing stems from Tathātā - "thusness". It means that we shouldn't try to capture the things when we speak of them, as saying "that is a tree", but rather just point to it, and let it be what it is. Buddhas are also known as Tathāgata - He Who is Thusness, or something to that effect.

This next part is just etymology, but I find it fascinating. A quote from Alan Watts:
"The Sanskrit word "tat" (our "that") is probably based on a child's first efforts at speech, when it points at something and says, "ta" or "da." Fathers flatter themselves by imagining that the child is calling them by name - "dada" or "daddy". But perhaps the child is just expressing its recognition of the world, and saying "that!" When we say just "that" or "thus" we are pointing to the realm of nonverbal experience, to reality as we perceive it directly, for we are trying to indicate what we see or feel rather than what we think or say. Tathata therefore indicates the world just as it is, unscreened and undivided by the symbols and definitions of thought. It points to the concrete and actual as distinct from the abstract and conceptual. A Buddha is a Tathagata, a "thus-goer," because he is awakened to this primary, nonconceptual world which no words can convey, and does not confuse it with such ideas as being or non-being, good or bad, past or future, here or there, moving or still, permanent or impermanent."

 

[GhaleonQ]

The attacks were still carried out by religious fanatics.

Here are all the relevant quotes from the last 35 minutes of the cockpit voice recordings of United 93, I don't know that you can say that all this in the span of 35 minutes means the attacks had nothing or little to do with religion:

Are you familiar with any of the Islamic prayers?

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Are you familiar with any of the Islamic prayers?

Are you familiar with what a religious fanatic is?

 

[Conciliator]

If someone were to ask what one thing I think would make the world a better place, I would propose the secularization of Africa and the Middle East. Which is happening, but just very slowly. Just as it happened in the Western world. Hopefully the huge free information/communication enabled by the internet will expedite it a bit.

There's a lot of disappointments that hit as one's worldview becomes less religious. A lot. I actually was just talking in the other atheism thread about the desire to 'go back'; to be religious again. Atheism is not easy on the nerves. One of the many disappointments is facing a universe that is no longer inherently just. In fact, it is not concerned with justice what so ever, and the concept of justice has no tangible consequences except for those that we create personally and as a civilization.

By our nature, when good things happen, and especially when bad things happen, we seek a reason. We seek control. We seek justice. Why are the crops bad this year? Because we didn't do our raindance right. Why did a hundred innocent children drown and/or get violently crushed in a Tsunami? Because people were behaving in a way not part of God's will. Why did I get in a random car wreck and become paraplegic? Well, that one is tough, but Everything Happens For a Reason.

So, one of the most universal experiences must also be justified: Why was this other guy able to hurt me, cheat me, manipulate me, deceive me, exploit me without consequences? Because life is a test, and he is failing, and his punishment is eternal damnation. Your reward, however, is infinite bliss. Ah, justice...it feels like an opiate.

 

[Pixel Pete]

If someone were to ask what one thing I think would make the world a better place, I would propose the secularization of Africa and the Middle East. Which is happening, but just very slowly. Just as it happened in the Western world. Hopefully the huge free information/communication enabled by the internet will expedite it a bit.

There's a lot of disappointments that hit as one's worldview becomes less religious. A lot. I actually was just talking in the other atheism thread about the desire to 'go back'; to be religious again. Atheism is not easy on the nerves. One of the many disappointments is facing a universe that is no longer inherently just. In fact, it is not concerned with justice what so ever, and the concept of justice has no tangible consequences except for those that we create personally and as a civilization.

By our nature, when good things happen, and especially when bad things happen, we seek a reason. We seek control. We seek justice. Why are the crops bad this year? Because we didn't do our raindance right. Why did a hundred innocent children drown and/or get violently crushed in a Tsunami? Because people were behaving in a way not part of God's will. Why did I get in a random car wreck and become paraplegic? Well, that one is tough, but Everything Happens For a Reason.

So, one of the most universal experiences must also be justified: Why was this other guy able to hurt me, cheat me, manipulate me, deceive me, exploit me without consequences? Because life is a test, and he is failing, and his punishment is eternal damnation. Your reward, however, is infinite bliss. Ah, justice...it feels like an opiate.

I don't mean for this to sound like a personal attack, just to be clear.
I'm not personally bothered by the lack of inherent justice in the universe because I don't believe that I'm necessarily entitled to it.
There are three views to take in the context of this discussion though; those who are religious, those who are atheistic, and those who were the former and are now the latter. I'm in the second category, which tends to mean I never 'lost' anything by never abandoning religion.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Religious concepts (God, Heaven, etc) are only comforting to those who were raised with religious concepts. They're only "sad/distressing" to lose for those who were raised with them.

To those who were not raised with these concepts... they're actually quite creepy!

It's not universally comforting to believe these things. It's just comforting to believe the things one was raised with.

You cannot be more wrong.