Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H
Gormley


 

Religion blames humanists in some way for the actions of bad humanists

Do humanists and positive thinkers fail to see that there is an evil in the human race that brings us the inquisition and Auschwitz? If so then they are enablers of such evil in some sense. They prevent diagnosis of the problem. People end up being unable to accept that normal human beings do such evil instead of admitting that evil exists and people are evils so we should not be surprised. The alternative is to dismiss evil people as being insane or disturbed. They are pressured to not admit the truth and the mentally ill are insulted by being lumped together with bad people. Religion says that by default humanists and positive thinkers do have dangerously good opinion of human nature. It is true that they will but the question is if that is really dangerous. Religion and faith cannot accept then the logic ďThis atheist or humanist did grave harm and this has something to do with the humanist community for its united in preventing people admitting and seeing that some people are just evil.Ē So the some not all logic is rejected. It is only fair then that when religion is based on such an accusation it has to be willing to dismiss the some not all logic when it comes to its own religious terrorists and monsters. It cannot take the full blame but can say that in some way itís the fault of all the members.

Some think that evil and suffering is evidence that we are not brains in vats. This is based on the assumption that the bad mad scientist who has us in the vat should do more good than bad like everybody else and probably would not go that far as to have us tormented. It is assumed that it is too unlikely for him to be a total tyrant. So he probably is not real. This probability is the reason we believe in evidence. You decide what is probable and then use that as framework to assess and think about evidence. Probability becomes the lamp with which you light up evidence. It makes evidence appear.

So probability is based on the humanist and atheist presumption that people are naturally or mostly good. For that reason, humanists cannot be accused of being pollyannas or blinkered. There is no choice but to affirm human nature enough for if we donít we wonít be functional beings in a functional society.  Religion is the problem not us.