religion and charity
Jul. 8th, 2007 09:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
miriam_eWhy is it that even religious moderates are so often convinced that you need religion or faith to be a good person or to find purpose in life? It is incredibly arrogant. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It is really no more arrogant than believing that out of thousands of irrational beliefs, theirs is the only one that is right.
I listened to The Spirit of Things tonight. Big mistake. The guy being interviewed was amazing, but tripped and fell headfirst into the metaphoric mud when he said that faith is necessary for purpose. And Rachael Kohn clearly showed her limitations when she implied that religion gives us charity. Of course she ignored all the charitable atheists and agnostics (oh, but they don't count -- how could atheists possibly be charitable?). Ignore the fact that the least religious countries regularly live up to their international aid promises, whereas the most religious countries have never done so. The least religious countries have the most peaceful and healthy populations, whereas the most religious countries are split by fear and hatred and obscene wealth contrasted with appalling poverty.
Are people so willingly blind?
Sure, some religious people can be good and charitable, but on balance religion's harm far, far outweighs any good it has ever done. While atheists and agnostics quietly get on with the job of doing good without constantly trumpeting how great they are.
I listened to The Spirit of Things tonight. Big mistake. The guy being interviewed was amazing, but tripped and fell headfirst into the metaphoric mud when he said that faith is necessary for purpose. And Rachael Kohn clearly showed her limitations when she implied that religion gives us charity. Of course she ignored all the charitable atheists and agnostics (oh, but they don't count -- how could atheists possibly be charitable?). Ignore the fact that the least religious countries regularly live up to their international aid promises, whereas the most religious countries have never done so. The least religious countries have the most peaceful and healthy populations, whereas the most religious countries are split by fear and hatred and obscene wealth contrasted with appalling poverty.
Are people so willingly blind?
Sure, some religious people can be good and charitable, but on balance religion's harm far, far outweighs any good it has ever done. While atheists and agnostics quietly get on with the job of doing good without constantly trumpeting how great they are.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 02:05 pm (UTC)If a religious book doesn't convey the morality of god then what use is it? Religious people generally feel they derive their morality from their holy book, but if they can choose to believe this part yet discard that part then clearly their morality comes from somewhere else. Why bother with the book at all?
This problem is accentuated when you are confronted with the almost 1,000 major religions and countless insignificant ones. How do you choose to believe in one religion and not another when none offers any proof and they all say "just believe"?
It becomes even more uncomfortable when you notice how badly broken religious societies are.
But the cause of religion is dealt a fatal blow when you come to realise how many good and moral atheists are all around. If atheists can be good, moral, optimistic, and forgiving, then of what possible use are a bunch of irrational, hate-based superstitions? It doesn't require all atheists to be good; just a single good atheist is sufficient to break the argument for religion because then it becomes clear that goodness and morality can come from elsewhere and religion is not required.