You're ignorant of history and current events, this was already a waste of time.

Then you don't understand dogma.

Providing facts isn't dogma last I checked.

Plenty of atheist dogma on display in this thread, but then, that's what you're going to get as soon as post an OP with such a title. Like tossing bloodied meat into the Piranha River. — Wayfarer

Atheist dogma is an oxymoron.

Religion may provide many benefits besides eternal life for the chosen believers: it can provide tribal unity, community, emotional and material support, relief from labour via festivals and holy days, some minor protections from the depradations of overlords, rites of passage, guarantee of bloodline descent of property via marriage laws, supremacy of a caste or gender, education of a sort, moral guidelines for the making of legal systems (uneven, at best, justice-wise), work for builders, artists, artisans, third sons and sadistic thugs, escape for the marriage-averse, comfort, merriment and feasts. — Vera Mont

That doesn't sound like a religion thing that sounds like a community thing, which you can have without religion.

The minor protections from overlords is laughable though as the faith in question historically was often such a thing. Education is a bit complex as with the religion in charge you got what they said you should know, which was an issue with church folk in the past usually being among the few learned folk.

Not to mention the hundreds of years of persecution of minority groups because of it: blacks, asians, native americans, LGBT people. As I said before, it was only recently that being atheistic isn't some blight on your character. Growing up you're pretty much taught that those without religion are evil or backwards (heard it alot in my faith as a kid).

There really isn't a good reason to keep it around. You can have all that stuff without religion, but a lot of the evil in the world had religion at it's heart. You'd be surprised what those who believe they are "God's chosen" can be capable of.

I'm honestly shocked this is even up for debate.

Again, that's a simplistic assessment, as though there are no other political and economic factors in play which could determine which are the happiest countries (a metric which is itself contentious, because hard to measure).

Many Buddhist traditions are just as religious as Christianity or Islam. It seems you don't want to educate yourself, but prefer to confine yourself to hasty, simple-minded judgments. As such you will remain part of the problem, not the solution. — Janus

Sounds like you don't understand Buddhism that well, which is understandable, most don't.

It just sounds like you really don't want to accept the facts that overall it looks like religion is a net negative, especially given how a lot of the social issues in the US are rooted in it.

If anyone here isn't forming a cogent argument, it's you. You keep insisting it's not when the evidence is plain to see. All you have is indignation, and that ain't worth much.

I'd be glad to see religion phase out over time, at least then you'd be able to reason with folks better.

Can you cite some sociological studies that show that religion has been a net negative for society? What leads you to think your unargued opinions are true? On what basis do you think you can speak for others as to what makes life worth living or bearable for them? And what makes you think Buddhism is not a religion? If you think that, you are woefully ignorant. — Janus

Considering that some of the happiest countries on the planet are atheist and some of the worst aren't that's a good start. Buddhism is a religion but not to the extent others are, if anything even Buddhists themselves wouldn't call it that.

Sounds like you're just scared.

Not really. You presented the question starkly enough that the response seemed unavoidable. If it's nothing but trouble, like a broken leg, then why wouldn't you cure the fracture? This isn't to condemn those with broken legs, but it's not to humor those with broken legs either by suggesting broken legs are as good as unbroken ones.

I'm also very open to the idea that autism offers some advantages, even if it's just a certain pride in uniqueness, but I defer entirely to those in the know on that as to whether it is worth it for the individual to protect.

This is to say, if you tell me you've got a problem, real or perceived, and there is a cure, why would I intervene on that decision? By the same token, if you have what I think to be a problem, but you don't think it that way, why should I intervene there either. — Hanover

The response was treating trouble like some kind of human or solid entity, it had nothing to do with the question.

The rest isn't relevant to the question.

You're kidding right?

Is that a spiritual yearning, though, or an intellectual desire to make sense of things? — Vera Mont

There is no such thing as a spiritual yearning.

What isn't? — Vera Mont

Well for one I just explained why it's a fiction. Nothing is really alive, it's just matter. Life is an illusion.

This is too simplistic. Organized religion is inevitably political, that is, concerned with control, like any collective ideology. I believe there are also countless people who are religious in various personal senses, and provided they don't attempt to foist their own beliefs on others I can see no harm in that.

Some people are simply not satisfied with this life; they just can't accept that this life is all there is. If it makes them happier and healthier, and hence more socially benevolent, to believe something for which there can be no evidence for or against, what's the problem?

Religious institutions should be judged, not on the basis of their doctrines, but on the basis of their actions. Are they more beneficial overall than otherwise or not, and do they stand in the way of socially progressive and inclusive values and environmental healing and sustainability or not: those are the salient questions. — Janus

Except it is that simple, sorry you can't accept that. Religion overall has been a net negative for society, it's stagnated progress, and as we have seen recently it has reversed it in some ways.

It was useful for a time but if people aren't satisfied with this life, that is their problem. Life has more than enough in it but people don't know how to see it. It doesn't make them happier or healthier as it's more like a drug that you have to keep pumping to feel like it's all ok. But look at stuff like Buddhism which works to peace by accepting things as they are rather than trying to make them what we want them to be.

You're kinda just proving my point on why it's not good.

Nature works. Just go out in the woods, or walk along a beach; gaze at stars or learn about coral reefs. Our earliest conscious, reasoning connection to the universe was through the earth, air, water and other life all around us. Urban civilization creates artificial barriers between our inner life and the sources of life. We need to reconnect for full physical, mental and spiritual wholeness. We don't need supernatural or philosophical intermediaries. — Vera Mont

From a certain standpoint nothing is alive, it's all just matter and how it's arranged. That what looks alive is just an illusion since it's really all just matter, nothing dies matter just rearranges.

Also that reconnection isn't a real thing it's just a fantasy we made up in our heads.

I would argue that religion isn't either. Religion is more about making their truths reality.

Though IMO there are no existential truths, just opinions.

Listening to many of the voices on this forum, you'd be convinced that the history of religion is the history of evil and that all we can do is struggle to free ourselves from it. What that doesn't see is what calls forth the need for religion in the first place (because anthropology and history have shown that it is utterly ubiquitous in human culture). That is invariably depicted by atheism as a kind of sense of dependency which also needs to be thrown off. — Wayfarer

It effectively is as you can find thousands of examples of that, even to this day. Religion was an old form of trying to understand the world but as time moved forward it became evident that it wasn’t as more scientific explanations proved better. But given that power structures are entrenched in our society that operate on it and people don’t like change it persists.

It served its purpose for a time but now needs to be let go.

Dogma is not only religious. 'The central dogma of molecular biology is a theory stating that genetic information flows only in one direction, from DNA, to RNA, to protein, or RNA directly to protein.' Political orthodoxies have their dogmas, as do many other disciplines - Soviet Communism was notoriously dogmatic. Dogma is simply the regular form of an accepted principle or axiom. In itself it is not necessarily problematic, but becomes so when it is allied with authoritarianism, which is often is. — Wayfarer

That’s kinda a misunderstanding of what dogma is. Especially trying to liken it to molecular biology.

"I have no cause for complaint on the grounds that the power of understanding or the natural light which God gave me is no greater than it is... I have reason to give thanks to him who has never owed me anything for the great bounty that he has shown me, rather than thinking myself deprived or robbed of any gifts he did not bestow." (Italics mine)

Of course, non-religious people would call this "nature", not God. But it's a valid perspective.

Even with this, some people won't be satisfied, and that's OK too. — Manuel

Too bad he’s wrong about that. It’s not a valid perspective but rather a naive one.

I'm also not a fan of ironing out all the wrinkles in human variability. Doing so might well eliminate musical prodigies, business geniuses, brilliant and productive writers, the rare very gifted inventor, etc, as well as eliminate problematic variations such as mental retardation, schizophrenia, epilepsy, and so on. — BC

This doesn’t seem like a bad thing. I think the world could use less geniuses, inventors, etc considering most of the issues today were caused by them. The world will also survive without writers or musical prodigies.

Though I’m not really seeing your point with the rest of your statement.

But I'm against such a pill being available to the general population. That would mean the end of autism. My son would be in the last generation. Parents would give it to their autistic children en masse. — bert1

You say that like it’s a bad thing. Also you could just not take it or give it. I’m sure there would be folks who would do the same, but they don’t get to speak for all and neither do you.

I'm just making the point that there is no necessary connection between having a shitty time and wanting not to be autistic. — bert1

Except there is.

Well, sort of. You could maybe develop a medication or surgery or something that turn people from being autistic to neurotypical, but such a thing could only correctly be called a 'cure' by people like you who conceive of autism as a disease. Neurodivergence is generally not conceived that way, so 'cure' would be the wrong word. Unless you want to say that you could 'cure' bipedalism by hacking someone's leg off. — bert1

This is a bit of a strawman. Autism is very much an impediment to one’s life, trying to liken it to bipedalism is woefully wrong.

Not to mention the neurodivergence is kinda divided on the matter. I mean you have blind people who view blindness being cured as offensive. I think those who don’t view it as a disease are blind to the full scope of how it manifests. Like I said, I’m not the only one who feels like I do.

There is an irony in atheism insofar as it is a theological position. It both requires study of theological arguments, epistemology, metaphysics, and religion. In order to be without gods he must first have gods to be without. In some sense he never leaves religion, always keeping one foot in its sphere. — NOS4A2

This is a wild misunderstanding of atheism.

It’s a non position. Also you don’t need gods to be an atheist.

Like…this is just wrong

No it really isn’t.

The Nazis didn't murder the Jews because of religious differences. A Jew who disclaimed his Judaism was no safer than a devout one.

Nazi Germany is a good example of a war that was not about religion. It was about ethnicity.

Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Un, Putin, all devotly religious folks I suppose, trying to impose their brand of religion on the masses. I'll have to read up on that. I wasn't aware of that. — Hanover

Factually incorrect. Nazi ideology was religiously motivated, as fascism tends to do. Also I said most not all.

Also you don’t have to believe the ideology just weaponize it, trump is an example of this. They invoke religious language with their message. Stalin did it too, though he was kicked out of the orthodoxy for stealing for the church.

Like I said before, folks here seem ignorant of how this works in real life.

most of those were religious though, trump too (or at least uses it well)

I don’t know, I think religion is a special breed compared to others.

It makes a difference when you divinely chosen as opposed to elected

this thread was just bait from the looks of it, even the op’s wording seems to suggest it

It seems fairly obvious to me why.

Of course not, why suggest it? It is a very common reaction, in my experience, when someone attacks one's way of life, to become defensive and reactive. You can see it happening in this thread, and a glance at history will yield many examples. It's not a matter of blaming atheists, but of a misdirected argument that leads to an unnecessary conflict. It is perfectly possible to be a Christian atheist. — unenlightened

Uhh you suggested it.

Also Christian atheist has to be the most laughable example of how nonsensical religion can be.

No one is being defensive and reactive, though that seems to have been your goal. IMO atheism hasn’t really done anything but exist. So there really was no need to include it, but you did because you knew what it would do.

It was fairly obvious.

It’s also not a good mark on religion when historically people have been horribly punished for going against it. Like it wasn’t even an option to pick anything else.

Even today it’s sort of like that. Try running for US president while being an atheist. In fact it was only recently that being atheist was not considered some moral failing or black mark on a person.

Like OP just seems woefully ignorant, same with a lot of others in this thread, about what religion is and has been historically. You can’t blame atheism for what religion does. Religion wants control, plain and simple. And it has punished those who want other options.

Like…my existence would not have been an option solely due to religion.

That’s kinda ignorant of how religious texts are actually used by people. They make references to it all the time, the issue though is that every group thinks they’re the one that has got it right about what it says. The interpretation AND the text are important. The difference here is that atheists IMO have broken free of the need to follow it.

Interpretation necessarily involves imposing some sense of wisdom and logic upon the text in order to obtain palatable results. Do you not impose your wisdom and logic when describing your ethical conclusions? Can't you manipulate whatever secular means you use in determining your ethical conclusions to justify whatever result you want? It's not like religion has a monopoly on justifying bad acts. — Hanover

Wrong. Religion tends to have a monopoly on justifying bad actions. It’s kinda where that quote “religion can make good people do bad things” comes from. It’s also why there’s no real arguing with them because when your ethics are divinely inspired you can’t logic it. Why do you think they default to “god works in mysterious ways”. The majority of negative events in human history can be traced back to religion. The current trend of homophobia for one, nazi Germany, etc.

I don’t manipulate secular means. I don’t have the heart to contradict and lie like religious people tend to do.

You really do seem to be ignorant about human history.

the problem is that people seem to forget this can manifest in many ways and while some have the good traits and minimal bad down have nothing but bad and struggle needlessly.

So it can be considered an illness based on how it manifests.

Yes you can. Not really hitting it out of the park huh.

This just sounds like making excuses for the text or religion. Never mind that the text itself contradicts itself multiple times and makes exceptions for followers that it doesn’t for others. Not to mention preach some awful things.

Even Christ wasn’t exactly a good guy in the book itself. There is a reason a lot of atheists say they became atheists by reading the Bible.

Personally I think we’d be better off without religion as I think it’s done more harm than good. But at least today you have to option to practice or not unlike the past.

also the problem with interpretation of a text is that people can use it to justify just about anything they want to so you’re not really helping your cast but more illustrating a huge problem with religion.

Except you’re just wrong. Life today is arguably better than in the past, especially when it comes to religion.

Now that it doesn’t hold such a strong position anymore I can not worry (well not so much these days) about being gay. If anything it’s religions fault that it’s even a problem today.

Also IMO Religion doesn’t answer how to live so much as tell/force you to live as such or else.

And I thought I was guilty of bad logic.

None of this is the fault of atheists. Religion hasn’t had a good track record of allowing people to live as they please and those who stood against it generally paid the price.

Religion is about control, that seems to be the nutshell here.

Again, missing the point.

Even in the links you referenced they were forced to acknowledge that to say that some differences are not to be accepted (if anything your position is the absurd one, we can't embrace every different.

Regardless of how philosophy tries to spin it there is a "normal" for human beings and not everything is just a matter of difference but illness at times. In the case of autism is depends how it manifests in the person. For some they would benefit from being released of the negatives, others have the positives and minor negatives.

The argument is that a net negative life experience is caused by autism, and the conclusion is that curing the autism will result in a positive life experience. It's a rendering of the medical model of disability. — Banno

This is just ignorance. There are plenty on the spectrum who have similar experiences to me and feel as I do and know without these handicaps our lives would improve.

But as I said you're missing the details here, well the important ones.

This is getting into irrelevant details.

It seems to still be avoiding actually acknowledging that some individuals have a net negative life experience because of it and as a result might be something to treat or cure rather than accept. '

I think Gage is an extreme case because it was overnight. But people still say the same of those who they haven't seen in over a year, friends that change and grow a lot.

Well, that is the same for all autistic people! What you've said so far seems to be entirely autistic-normal, it's pretty much the defining characteristics. The difference, as you say, seems to be that you don't find any positives about being autistic, whereas many other autistic people do. So is that what you mean when you say "What you've had to deal with"? Is it not feeling anything positive about your autism? — bert1

People have those in different ways and capacities so no it's not all the same for all autistic people. Some are able to turn their singular interests into careers and stuff like that, others are locked in by them.

Again you are presuming to speak for other autistic people which is where your argument is weak. It's not about feeling it's about what is. And what IS is that the traits can manifest as something good or detrimental, in my case it's detrimental. It's been nothing but a roadblock in my life.

What I think is that you and other people trying to convince others that there is something good to it sounds more like trying to convince yourself of something more than them. Like trying to deny that just because it's good or neutral for some that it applies to all when that is laughably ignorant. I and others would give anything to not be this way, but we learn to deal because there is nothing else. It's almost like trying to acknowledge that fact would make folks question themselves.

I'm not? I'm highlighting the absurdity of his point. Calling someone who changes from what they are as dead is the most nonsensical thing I've heard. It sounds like someone who is afraid of things changing, though if he's on the spectrum that makes sense.

Not to you, clearly. But many people have found it extremely helpful. — bert1

you can't really be sure about that.