An Atheist Goes to Church

@trarmp:
You make some good points.

I agree that American Fundamentalist Evangelicals are a rather small Christian group in relation to the entire world of Christendom. Unfortunately they wield power and influence, at least in the U.S., that is way beyond their size. On the basis of all kinds of moral and social measures, their influence is far more toxic than benevolent.

I agree that there are some groups of people who practice a largely benevolent and responsible form of Christianity. It would seem that these people are good people in spite of their religion rather than because of it. They do not differ much from benevolent and responsible people who have no belief in the supernatural. The unifying feature is good socialization. Psychological studies have shown that this is the result of a combination of genetics, early nurturing environment, socioeconomic and environment. There is little, if any, positive association with religious belief or upbringing. In fact, the reverse appears to be generally true: the more religious the upbringing the more likely there are to be signs of social ill health.

Now you can argue that this is not true for all groups of Christians (which is true), but this amounts to special pleading. It is like saying that people who have never been to prison are more moral than those who have so therefore the prison system, rather than a sick society, is responsible for immoral behavior.

In general, people tailor their religious beliefs to fit their socialization, culture and circumstances as much as they can. Someone once said something like: “Good people tend to good things and bad people tend to bad things, but in order for good people to do bad things you need religion.” (George Carlin?) Research in the behavioral sciences supports this claim.

The problem which many atheists bring up is that even the well-socialized Christian groups are extremely reluctant to take a positive and interventionist stand against the toxic elements practiced by other adherents of their professed religion.

Most people who claim to be Christians will quickly dissociate themselves from the most horrendous of these practices, especially when children are tortured or killed. The most usual defense is to blame the adherent but not the religion. They are “insane” or “false Christians” or “led by the devil”, but never gullible people who simply believed their often equally gullible religious leaders without question or decided to follow what appeared to be the literal meaning of biblical text in the honest belief that this was a clear message from god.

In the U.S. “religious freedom” is generally taken to mean not interfering with people’s beliefs even when they harm other people. With very few exceptions, Christian groups are not prepared to spearhead legislation that restricts the harmful religious “freedoms” and eradicate hatred, prejudice or disrespect for minority groups, especially when such attitudes and behavior can be easily justified by referring to sacred texts that are clearly, or not so clearly, in accord with them.

I am using the term “religion” here in its correct dictionary sense, not in the extraordinary sense used by evangelicals to distance themselves from “organized” religion and set themselves up as superior adherents who “only” have a “relationship with Jesus”. No matter how much they protest, this “relationship” with what they believe to be a supernatural being qualifies as “religion” in the generally accepted use of the term.

I am at a loss for words to understand how you could describe religion as “absolutely the first science”. If you are serious about this then it suggests that you do not understand the meaning of the word “science” or the “scientific method” that defines it.

From Wikipedia:
“Science (from Latin: scientia meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[…. An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found for example in Aristotle, whereby “science” refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.”

Science requires that claims be testable and potentially falsifiable. It also requires objective evidence.

Religion, OTOH, rarely produces testable or potentially falsifiable claims. When it does produce falsifiable claims and these are debunked, it simply denies any dis-confirming objective evidence. If this does not work it then resorts to reinterpreting sacred writings to make them fit the facts it simply cannot deny.

Religion accepts subjective evidence as not only valid, but insists that it is superior to objective evidence. Science, academic knowledge and objective evidence are often decried as tools of the devil and scientific researchers and higher level academic staff are claimed to be deliberately anti-religious.

This is the very antithesis of science.

Writing about the scam that is religion is what I see that he’s done and since when are Presbyterians fundamentalists? Oh and to those religious hospitals you mention? Do you think they’re free? I was hospitalized at a Catholic hospital for three days many years ago and I can tell you it cost me thousands and thousands of dollars, so don’t go on about that bullshit you religious wingnut.

Where do you think religious hospitals get their money to pay for all the help they provide? From those they lie to, and then steal from through guilt. Find me an atheist organization that receives net billions from tax exempts and donations from mentally enslaved individuals, and I will point you in the direction of an “Atheist Aid Society.”

@Bradley

You make some basic errors of logic here.

First, there is nothing wrong with taking the church you were introduced to as a reasonable sample of the kind of religion practiced in the area. We know that Christians cannot agree on doctrine or methods of worship or much else, but there is no reason to suppose that your version is much different in the morality that underpins it or the concentration that it has on spreading the faith rather than doing unconditional good in the world.

In the U.S. the churches are both tax exempt and receive huge government hand outs to enable them to do charity work that is done by secular government in other countries. Theist organizations are therefore acting on behalf of a government that is privileging the Christian religion. Secular government organizations have been cut and the funding given to faith based charities. They are cheaper to run than secular government ones and the fact that they spread their religion as part of the their charitable outreach is ignored. In this virtual theocracy secular, atheist or non-believer charities are at a serious financial and infra-structure disadvantage.

This is very different in other parts of the world where the best social and medical support organizations are run by government paid professionals who are required by law NOT to preach or favor any religious or non-religious point of view. According to international comparisons, these countries and their citizens are doing much better on a whole range of fronts to do with people caring and lower crime rates, than countries like the outlying USA. The USA is, in fact, at the bottom of the heap on just about every factor other than national arrogance.