Is being religious better than being non-religious? - Mormons or atheist wet Dreams?

[LN 910]

In fact, the idea of Heaven and Hell as Cloud City vs. Mephisto's Realm isn't something the Bible brings up. According to the Bible, to simplify it, Heaven is a "new Earth" we go to after we die if we're good and if we're bad we die permanently.

So the very concept of eternal nothingness comes from The Bible. Isn't that strange?

 

[ICametoLurk]

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2018-voter-survey/religious-trump-voters

These national surveys find that Donald Trump voters who attend church regularly are more likely than nonreligious Trump voters to have warmer feelings toward racial and religious minorities, be more supportive of immigration and trade, and be more concerned about poverty.

Religious Trump voters have higher levels of social capital: They are far more likely to volunteer, to be satisfied with their family relationships and neighborhood, and to believe the world is just and that people can be trusted.

Since 1992, record numbers of Americans are leaving organized religion with the share of nonreligious people quadrupling among all Americans and tripling among conservatives.

These data demonstrate how private institutions in civil society may have a positive impact on social conflict and reduce polarization.

An actually interesting topic is how atheism was historically connected to strong left-wing ethics in both ML and SocDem countries but in the late 80s and 90s was bastardised to death by Neoliberals while the Left moved to New-Age woo (Budhism, and so on), to what degree internet culture (New Atheism, something awful, 4chan) either deepened or simply expressed that trend with people simply proclaiming "reason, logic and common sense" as the basis of what they believe in. And people who have problems use that to justify what causes people to freak out.

It's funny because "teaching evolution in schools is gonna make people selfish psychopaths" was actually a widely spread stance in the more activist christian groups.

Will people who hated on Evangelicals wish they came back when there's an entire generation of people who use only pure, bare facts as their entire reasoning, have the entire Internet to find anything that justifies them, and are only interested in themselves and people most similar to them?

 

[LN 910]

Basically, Athiest edgelords are assholes? I could've told them that.

 

[Dial M for Misgender]

Can you help people only through religion? Might accepting the biggest claim one can think of, without evidence, lead one to accepting other, smaller claims without evidence? We may never know.

 

[LN 910]

It's better to live with the thought of something positive in your mind than wasting away with the negative. Either could be truth or lies, who cares? We're all retards.

 

[PorcupineTree]

If you can find a faith that aligns with your mental wiring, it will improve your quality of life.

(Speaking from a Christian context, because I haven’t experienced other faiths first hand.) I don’t think I’ll ever be able to believe in a literal god, but I do believe that the idea of one can be materialized through collective belief. Even if that god is a projection, it will start to feel real. Humans are built to be receptive to ritual like that. The constant bonding with a congregation is healthy too.

I have a unitarian church that I go to sometimes. It’s nice.

The question of whether God is real seems trivial to me. The church is real. It feels good to be there. It’s full of things to do and people who genuinely want to be decent. Why not just roll with that feeling?

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

A lot of religions sound nice, but become more about serving the religion than the people.

Helping the poor is good whether or not there's an afterlife and whether or not there's a judgemental god.
"Saving the souls of sinners" is only good if there's an afterlife and a judgemental god. Otherwise you're wasting your time, and trying to ruin other people's good time.
Giving money to the catholic church is much less charitable than giving to a real charity, so religion has that negative too. It uses people's desire to help others to help itself. If you give money to a church, are you going to give more than you would to any other charity? Because the church is going to spend some of that money trying to spread itself.

So what does better mean? Happier? More productive? More able to fight the alien menace in the year 3622? Not burning in eternal hellfire?

To me, a person who values truth and an accurate view of reality, religion is a negative because it gets in the way of that truth. I value those things because I believe the best way to get what you want is to understand how the things work. If I want to exert influence over the universe, I would be more effective with more accurate knowledge.

I also believe free will is an illusion and we're basically the same as a wildfire or a rock rolling down a hill, so... I understand why some people don't see it the same way I do.

 

[TheCapybara]

I'm generally of the opinion that you can believe whatever you want to believe, as long as you don't try to burn people at the stake or decapitate them for whatever you believe in. If you want to think that the world's a big flat disk being held up by four elephants who are, in turn, standing on the back of a colossal turtle that's swimming through space then whatever, more power to you, but if you start persecuting other people for believing in something besides your weird turtle religion or for doing something that goes against your turtle religion's core tenets then we're gonna have a problem. Personally, I don't really care about religion enough to interrupt my day to sacrifice a lamb on a stone altar or whatever, but I don't really have enough evidence disproving the presence of some higher power to go about loudly denouncing the existence of any sort of god, so I suppose I'd be agnostic. Comes down to what sort of person you are as to whether being religious or non-religious would be for the better for you.

 

[PorcupineTree]

A lot of religions sound nice, but become more about serving the religion than the people.
Helping the poor is good whether or not there's an afterlife and whether or not there's a judgemental god.
"Saving the souls of sinners" is only good if there's an afterlife and a judgemental god. Otherwise you're wasting your time, and trying to ruin other people's good time.
Giving money to the catholic church is much less charitable than giving to a real charity, so religion has that negative too. It uses people's desire to help others to help itself. If you give money to a church, are you going to give more than you would to any other charity? Because the church is going to spend some of that money trying to spread itself.

So what does better mean? Happier? More productive? More able to fight the alien menace in the year 3622? Not burning in eternal hellfire?

To me, a person who values truth and an accurate view of reality, religion is a negative because it gets in the way of that truth. I value those things because I believe the best way to get what you want is to understand how the things work. If I want to exert influence over the universe, I would be more effective with more accurate knowledge.

I also believe free will is an illusion and we're basically the same as a wildfire or a rock rolling down a hill, so... I understand why some people don't see it the same way I do.

It depends on what the religious organization is doing and what rules they’re imposing on its followers. I see offerings/tithing as more of a payment for the community building services it’s providing, both for the congregation and for the public. The charity element has more to do with volunteer work.

I think there are some people who would still be genuinely altruistic without the fear of god, but the church is good at keeping the community as a whole in line. That’s probably a big reason why it’s been around so long.

I think I’d be more obsessive about the truth if there was a chance that we’d actually find it, but I think it’s beyond our comprehension. It’s easier to humor a nice story.

 

[Mammal Pod]

Pascal's Wager states that it's better to live as a religious person as:
A) If God exists, you give up earthly pleasure for eternal salvation (+infinity)
B) If God doesn't exist, you still merely gave up earthly pleasure (-1)
If you are not religious:
A) If God exists, you enjoy earthly pleasure but are sentenced to eternal damnation (-infinity)
B) If God doesn't exist, you got to enjoy earthly pleasure (+1)

The biggest payout and lesser loss both rest in being religious.
This isn't an attempt to convert anyone or start fights, just an interesting concept since everyone else already said what I wanted to say (that religion shouldn't make you a better or worse person, that some choose to believe out of fear of death and that is not necessarily harmful, and that it can also have a negative effect on people such as fundamentalists or used to run away from responsability).

 

[Overcast]

Can't really say, but I do feel the existence of divine beings would make things a bit more interesting in some ways.

 

[DarthBrooks]

Does op mean in the Pascal's Wager sense of the term? Better to have faith and be correct then to not and burn? I mean you specificate a rather questionable sect of christianity. One that has performed post mortem baptism. (Spoiler alert leave Anne Frank the fuck alone kthanksbye)
You just have to go with what feels right to you. A previous user stated that religion is just a distraction from death. Well, everything outside of life's necessities to exist are as thus. It is all distraction so we don't obsess on our own demise.
Are you searching for pure reason? I suggest Kant.
Are you searching for purpose? I suggest Spinoza.
You can read all the great deep thinkers or you can go find out on your own. It all ends the same.

 

[queerape]

For some people it is, for some people it isn't. Some people can do without spirituality, for some people it is a need of life. Some people have tried to leave religion, only to find their way back every time. Others have tried to join, each time to no avail. Some are meant to be religious, some atheist, but neither is better than the other inherently. It all matters with what's right for you.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Pascal's Wager states that it's better to live as a religious person as:
A) If God exists, you give up earthly pleasure for eternal salvation (+infinity)
B) If God doesn't exist, you still merely gave up earthly pleasure (-1)
If you are not religious:
A) If God exists, you enjoy earthly pleasure but are sentenced to eternal damnation (-infinity)
B) If God doesn't exist, you got to enjoy earthly pleasure (+1)

The biggest payout and lesser loss both rest in being religious.
This isn't an attempt to convert anyone or start fights, just an interesting concept since everyone else already said what I wanted to say (that religion shouldn't make you a better or worse person, that some choose to believe out of fear of death and that is not necessarily harmful, and that it can also have a negative effect on people such as fundamentalists or used to run away from responsability).

There's a big problem with Pascal's wager in that it can be used for literally anything. For example, I will make the statement "If you don't give me all your money, you will suffer for eternity".

A. If I was right, and you give me all your money, you give up earthly pleasure for eternal salvation (+infinity)
B. If I was wrong, and you give me all your money, you merely gave up earthly pleasure (-1)
OR
A. If I was right, and you don't give me all your money, you kept earthly pleasure but got eternal suffering (-infinity)
B. If I was wrong, and you didn't give me all your money, you get to enjoy earthly pleasure(+1)

So are you gonna send me all your money? Only if you're a fucking moron.

Also, pascal's wager can be mathematically disproven if you consider that for any given "good god" who goes by the rules you listed, there's a "bad god" who might want the exact opposite!. Bad god will punish you eternally if you don't enjoy your earthly existence to its fullest.

See, the problem here is it's arbitrary. Pascal's wager is a great example of how human intelligence can be subverted by invoking infinity, a concept alien and terrifying to us. I can tell you to do literally anything, if I say you get infinite reward for it, or you get infinite punishment for not doing it, if you believe me. If I told you to kill yourself in the most horribly painful way possible, you'd do it, because the punishment for not doing it is infinitely worse.

This is one of those areas where I'll say RationalWiki has some decent, logical arguments. Or maybe it's just my bias because they agree with me on this...

The argument that "Well nobody can know there isn't a god so being an atheist is just as crazy as being sure god is real" is deeply flawed, because you can use that argument again for literally anything.

How do you know there isn't a planet exactly 54 light centuries away from the sun filled completely with clones of myself living out a real life version of fortnight every day? Are you agnostic to that possibility? How could you know that planet doesn't exist?

The more important question is "What evidence do we have that such a planet exists". The answer being "Absolutely none". So because there's no reason to believe it's true, we assume it's not. Otherwise the answer to every question is either "Yes" or "Maybe".

People ask "What evidence do you have for non-existence of god?". I'd say the same evidence that you have for the non-existence of clone fortnight planet. Namely, the complete lack of evidence of its existence.

It gets philosophical from there, basically to have a somewhat representational model of the universe we inhabit, we have to make lots of assumptions. We don't give the same credibility to any random idea, otherwise we'd spend all our time wondering about some speck of dust in another theoretical universe instead of how we're gonna feed ourselves. The only reason to give more credence to "God exists" over "Fortnight clone planet exists" is because one idea has been repeated more. However, that doesn't excuse believing in Judaeo-Christian god over Thor or Vishnu. I never, ever have heard a person say "How can you say you don't believe in Thor, how can you be so sure?"

To be clear, I don't believe in Thor, Vishnu, Fornight clone planet, or Judaeo-Christian god. Also this post got way too long and nobody is going to read it...

 

[Pajeet123]

I came to the conclusion that being non religious is better a long time back by making this observation.

Extremely religious places like India, Africa, Middle East etc where most people are ardent believers - Underdeveloped, poverty stricken, war torn shitholes
Supposedly "Godless" moralless satanic nations like Germany, Finland, Iceland, Canada, a major chunk of the USA etc - First world countries where even the poor have more opportunities than average middle class person from here can even dream of.

 

[Otterly]

Depends what you do with it really. There are non believers and religious people who live moral lives that are beneficial to humanity at large and those around them. There are people who are religious who are good and those who do terrible things.
If you’re asking if society as a whole is better than I’d say yes as long as the religion isn’t some Carthage level stuff.
The west has had religion removed as a mainstay of public life (less America, but certainly the UK.) it’s not been a positive change overall. We seem to have a hard wired need to follow and believe and social cults have sprung in to fill the gap.
Some of them are approaching Carthage tier.

 

[Gender: Xenomorph]

Pascal's Wager states that it's better to live as a religious person as:
A) If God exists, you give up earthly pleasure for eternal salvation (+infinity)
B) If God doesn't exist, you still merely gave up earthly pleasure (-1)
If you are not religious:
A) If God exists, you enjoy earthly pleasure but are sentenced to eternal damnation (-infinity)
B) If God doesn't exist, you got to enjoy earthly pleasure (+1)

The biggest payout and lesser loss both rest in being religious.
This isn't an attempt to convert anyone or start fights, just an interesting concept since everyone else already said what I wanted to say (that religion shouldn't make you a better or worse person, that some choose to believe out of fear of death and that is not necessarily harmful, and that it can also have a negative effect on people such as fundamentalists or used to run away from responsability).

That's a stupid argument tho.

If the world doesn't end in 2025, would it make more sense to give away all your worldly possessions to some cult leader with the off chance that he might ssve you?

No. That's retarded. You will look like an idiot either way. A bird in hand is worth more than 3 birds in the bush.

Religion is good to keep niggercattle complacent. If they believe in some greater sense of justice, they are less likely to rise up and will accept their fate.

There won't be anyone judging you in the afterlife. Fact of the matter is, you have a better chance understanding the universe/afterlife without the knowledge of religion than with.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

Giving money to the catholic church is much less charitable than giving to a real charity

Not that I think the Catholics are more deserving of your money, but charities themselves are sus as they are NGOs and are also about enriching themselves.

Anyways, there does seem to be some correlation between non-lolcows and religious people per capita. Yeah sure, there are bad actors--typically Islamic--that use piety for bad ends, but there's a whole lot of normies that come across as more centered because of their faith. Atheists... tend to be like Dawkins or Sam Harris at best and Amazing Atheist at worst; smug, annoying, and hypocritical because DA SCIENCE says so. Normie atheists are "moral" insofar as their society encourages moral behavior, but do not see moral behavior as an intrinsic good, such as Harris insisting on scientific ethics and then throwing it all away to excuse Hunter Biden's behavior or to support COVID lockdowns.

 

[Devout Muslim]

Extremely religious places like India, Africa, Middle East etc where most people are ardent believers - Underdeveloped, poverty stricken, war torn shitholes
Supposedly "Godless" moralless satanic nations like Germany, Finland, Iceland, Canada, a major chunk of the USA etc - First world countries where even the poor have more opportunities than average middle class person from here can even dream of.

Did you necro this thread just to try and retcon ‘Protestant work ethic’ into ‘atheist work ethic’?

Atheists inherited the modern world from Christians. If you want to look at muh atheism compare India to China or Thailand to Vietnam or Russia to America. Even these aren’t really great comparisons but they’re better than comparing White People to Brown People.

 

[Pajeet123]

Did you necro this thread just to try and retcon ‘Protestant work ethic’ into ‘atheist work ethic’?

Atheists inherited the modern world from Christians. If you want to look at muh atheism compare India to China or Thailand to Vietnam or Russia to America. Even these aren’t really great comparisons but they’re better than comparing White People to Brown People.

Sorry for the late reply, but my point is that at least if an atheist country ends up being a shithole, then at least there's no fallacy. The country sucks, it's as simple as that. Whereas with hardcore religious countries, what's the excuse? If Shiva and Krishna are so powerful, then why is India a place where leaving is considered an achievment? If Allah is so great then why is half of the middle east a warzone? If Jesus is so all-loving then why are christian African countries (which are probably the most Christian place in the world at this point) still such impoverished hellholes? At least underdeveloped atheist countries don't act like if they pray hard enough, they'll become first world in no time.