How attractive would religion be if there were no heaven attached to it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't realize Einstein had anything to do with Creationism. He was a believer though, so point taken

Here is Einstein on his belief: "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."

Calling him a believer may not be totally wrong, but it is certainly misleading. He called himself an agnostic.

Note: This is from Wikipedia, but with a citation for the quote.

PS I don't mean to quote Einstein as an expert on religion. I think he was expressing a personal viewpoint, not intending to tell anyone else what to believe, although it happens to describe my beliefs with more eloquence than I could muster.

PP here. I didn't mean to mislead anyone (hense the reference to Creationism). E. not being a militant denier is enough for me to call him a believer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't realize Einstein had anything to do with Creationism. He was a believer though, so point taken

Here is Einstein on his belief: "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."

Calling him a believer may not be totally wrong, but it is certainly misleading. He called himself an agnostic.

Note: This is from Wikipedia, but with a citation for the quote.

PS I don't mean to quote Einstein as an expert on religion. I think he was expressing a personal viewpoint, not intending to tell anyone else what to believe, although it happens to describe my beliefs with more eloquence than I could muster.

PP here. I didn't mean to mislead anyone (hense the reference to Creationism). E. not being a militant denier is enough for me to call him a believer.

These were Einstein's views on religion. Interpret them however you like, but he clearly didn't believe in the typical Judeo-Christian definition of god and describes the bible as a book of childish legends.

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.”

“I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds… The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”

http://www.inquisitr.com/1538169/was-albert-einstein-an-atheist-or-not-read-his-final-words-on-god/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
not attractive at all. That's why religion is selfish. It's all about being temporarily good in order to secure a spot in the afterlife. that's all . . .

This is an example of sad misunderstanding of a religion (including atheism). Very typical among young Americans, and very distructive.

How is this destructive?

I own that line, btw.

The most selfless folks are those who do good on this earth w/o relying on "payment" in the afterlife.

How can you argue against that? or even call it "destructive?"

fear-based way of controlling the masses

I'm definitely not young either.

It is destructive because it is the equivalent of saying all black people are lazy. That is not at all what religion is "all about". You are ignorant and uneducated. Saying something doesn't make it true. Just because there are selfish religious people doesn't mean all religious people are selfish. Just because religion has on occasion been used to control the masses doesn't mean that is even its primary purpose. You are a sloppy thinker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
not attractive at all. That's why religion is selfish. It's all about being temporarily good in order to secure a spot in the afterlife. that's all . . .

This is an example of sad misunderstanding of a religion (including atheism). Very typical among young Americans, and very distructive.

How is this destructive?

I own that line, btw.

The most selfless folks are those who do good on this earth w/o relying on "payment" in the afterlife.

How can you argue against that? or even call it "destructive?"

fear-based way of controlling the masses

I'm definitely not young either.

It is destructive because it is the equivalent of saying all black people are lazy. That is not at all what religion is "all about". You are ignorant and uneducated. Saying something doesn't make it true. Just because there are selfish religious people doesn't mean all religious people are selfish. Just because religion has on occasion been used to control the masses doesn't mean that is even its primary purpose. You are a sloppy thinker.

Have you looked in the mirror lately?

[Anonymous]

Why do people keep feeding the troll?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
not attractive at all. That's why religion is selfish. It's all about being temporarily good in order to secure a spot in the afterlife. that's all . . .

This is an example of sad misunderstanding of a religion (including atheism). Very typical among young Americans, and very distructive.

How is this destructive?

I own that line, btw.

The most selfless folks are those who do good on this earth w/o relying on "payment" in the afterlife.

How can you argue against that? or even call it "destructive?"

fear-based way of controlling the masses

I'm definitely not young either.

It is destructive because it is the equivalent of saying all black people are lazy. That is not at all what religion is "all about". You are ignorant and uneducated. Saying something doesn't make it true. Just because there are selfish religious people doesn't mean all religious people are selfish. Just because religion has on occasion been used to control the masses doesn't mean that is even its primary purpose. You are a sloppy thinker.

You're now jumping to racial intolerance?

Your mind works in a very odd way.

Yes - it's about control. Religious people NEED to attend some sort of service weekly (You do have your holiday Christians high holiday Jews.) to guide them. Atheists don't. I don't need a godly figure before me to tell me how to live my life.

My daughter, who's 10, said this: "Why can't I just live my life and be happy? Why would I need a god or a book to make me happy?" out of the mouth of babes


I'm not a sloppy thinker. Sloppy thinkers can't think for themselves. They rely on others to think for them. I believe you'd be in that category, my Christian pal. Furthermore, there are studies that show that more women than men attend church b/c of guilt, anxiety and dependence (stemming from fear of the unknown) upon some sort of "higher power."

all healthy in your eyes, I suppose

[Anonymous]

You're now jumping to racial intolerance?

Your mind works in a very odd way.

Atheist PP, it's called an analogy.

Minds that don't grasp analogies do work in very odd ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You're now jumping to racial intolerance?

Your mind works in a very odd way.

Atheist PP, it's called an analogy.

Minds that don't grasp analogies do work in very odd ways.

your ATTEMPT at one

It was a really bad analogy.

[Anonymous]

It would be still attractive to the privileged because they would see their fortune as a direct sign that there is heaven on earth.

[Anonymous]

Wasn't my analogy. Just supporting the PPs trying to get you to think less sloppily. (Not my term either.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You're now jumping to racial intolerance?

Your mind works in a very odd way.

Atheist PP, it's called an analogy.

Minds that don't grasp analogies do work in very odd ways.

Not odd, but very predictable. Atheist troll's whole MO is to pick arguments. If she needs to twist meanings around to fake being offended, so be it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are religions without a heaven attached, so obviously heaven isn't the only attraction of religion.

This. My religion does not have heaven or hell.

That said, I do think the belief in heaven is a necessitating motivation for the type of person that does better in their life when there are discouraging factors (hell) and rewarding factors (heaven). This is completely okay and should not be looked down upon.

There are different types of people and it is my belief that the abundance of different religions is a good thing so that people can gravitate towards what works for them to become better people. If someone needs to believe in heaven and hell to keep their moral compass in check, than that's better than not having that religion in their life at all.

So it's better to be controlled by lies than it is to learn how to self-manage?

fine as a temporary fix for a 5 yo but hardly acceptable for an adult

It's not a lie if you believe it

On a more serious note, you don't get to tell people what's the truth and what are the lies. It's as simple as that.

So it would be alright to assure a child that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

Just as good and less damaging as insisting being gay isn't a choice or that diversity leads to a better education.

In good company with the parents of Leelah Alcorn, then.

Tragic. A whole family damaged due to intolerant religious beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're now jumping to racial intolerance?

Your mind works in a very odd way.

Atheist PP, it's called an analogy.

Minds that don't grasp analogies do work in very odd ways.

your ATTEMPT at one

It was a really bad analogy.

What is bad about it? Both are sweeping generalizations that are offensive to the people being generalized. If you want to insult Christians, there are so many intelligent ways to do it. Why say something that is an offensive and untrue generalization? All religions are not all about control. There must be thousands of religions. Their believes, and the people that believe them, are extremely diverse. Some don't even need a God. So how can you generalize about anything so broad and diverse without appearing ignorant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're now jumping to racial intolerance?

Your mind works in a very odd way.

Atheist PP, it's called an analogy.

Minds that don't grasp analogies do work in very odd ways.

Not odd, but very predictable. Atheist troll's whole MO is to pick arguments. If she needs to twist meanings around to fake being offended, so be it.

no - not picking arguments

I'm simply pointing out the weaknesses in religion.

If you need an ancient text to guide you, then you have no self-management. I don't need to be told to honor my father and mother. That's a given for me - but not necessarily a given for people raised in abusive households now, is it?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion
Misinformation and facts about secularism and religion: Even smart people perpetuate untruths about atheism and religion

Fortunately for atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists, there is no factual basis for Plante's claim that "research has consistently found" secular individuals to be more prone to such antisocial behavior. Consider, for example, a March 2009 academic article in Sociology Compass that extensively researched the subjects raised by Plante. The article, by Phil Zuckerman of Pitzer College, is entitled "Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions" and, unlike Plante's article, it cites detailed studies of the areas in question.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-atheists-we-distrust/

It wasn’t just the highly religious participants who expressed a distrust of atheists. People identifying themselves as having no religious affiliation held similar opinions. Gervais and his colleagues discovered that people distrust atheists because of the belief that people behave better when they think that God is watching over them. This belief may have some truth to it. Gervais and his colleague Ara Norenzayan have found that reminding people about God’s presence has the same effect as telling people they are being watched by others: it increases their feelings of self-consciousness and leads them to behave in more socially acceptable ways

Gervais and Norenzayan’s findings may shed light on an interesting puzzle: why acceptance towards atheism has grown rapidly in some countries but not others. In many Scandinavian countries, including Norway and Sweden, the number of people who report believing in God has reached an all-time low. This may have something to do with the way these countries have established governments that guarantee a high level of social security for all of their citizens. Aaron Kay and his colleagues ran a study in Canada which found that political insecurity may push us towards believing in God. They gave participants two versions of a fictitious news story: one describing Canada’s current political situation as stable, the other describing it as potentially unstable. After reading one of the two articles, people’s beliefs in God were measured. People who read the article describing the government as potentially unstable were more likely to agree that God, or some other type of nonhuman entity, is in control of the universe. A common belief in the divine may help people feel more secure. Yet when security is achieved by more secular means, it may remove some of the draw of faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
not attractive at all. That's why religion is selfish. It's all about being temporarily good in order to secure a spot in the afterlife. that's all . . .

This is an example of sad misunderstanding of a religion (including atheism). Very typical among young Americans, and very distructive.

How is this destructive?

I own that line, btw.

The most selfless folks are those who do good on this earth w/o relying on "payment" in the afterlife.

How can you argue against that? or even call it "destructive?"

fear-based way of controlling the masses

I'm definitely not young either.

It is destructive because it is the equivalent of saying all black people are lazy. That is not at all what religion is "all about". You are ignorant and uneducated. Saying something doesn't make it true. Just because there are selfish religious people doesn't mean all religious people are selfish. Just because religion has on occasion been used to control the masses doesn't mean that is even its primary purpose. You are a sloppy thinker.

You're now jumping to racial intolerance?

Your mind works in a very odd way.

Yes - it's about control. Religious people NEED to attend some sort of service weekly (You do have your holiday Christians high holiday Jews.) to guide them. Atheists don't. I don't need a godly figure before me to tell me how to live my life.

My daughter, who's 10, said this: "Why can't I just live my life and be happy? Why would I need a god or a book to make me happy?" out of the mouth of babes


I'm not a sloppy thinker. Sloppy thinkers can't think for themselves. They rely on others to think for them. I believe you'd be in that category, my Christian pal. Furthermore, there are studies that show that more women than men attend church b/c of guilt, anxiety and dependence (stemming from fear of the unknown) upon some sort of "higher power."

all healthy in your eyes, I suppose

I think men just aren't that reflective compared to women. And generally women have been in charge of their children's education. many men seem to be either fanatical about religion or impatient about it.There have been just as many bad leaders who were anti-religion as pro-religion. Many atheists just substitute something else instead of religion to worship. There are sloppy impatient thinkers everywhere.