On Modern Religion
I've been looking for a quote I once read to include in this post, but I have yet to find it. It is about the irrationality/stupidity of believing in something without evidence. That is, although you have no evidence of such, you could believe that the hamburger you had for dinner last night was actually the ground up remains of your best friend. It is not an impossible proposition. However, unless you have evidence to believe so (direct evidence; your not seeing your best friend since the previous afternoon is not sufficient evidence), the belief would be, I hope you agree, a rather irrational thought.
Obviously, this quote leads into possibly the biggest philosophical debates ever: the existence of God. However, I would to take one step back and look at a slightly larger picture. I would like to look at the spokespeople of God: religions.
But that being said, I am not completely anti-religious. I do believe that religion serves an important purpose in this world. Oh, wait, allow me to rephrase that: I do believe that religion served an important purpose in this world. As many people agree, chaos is not the best method of living in terms of progression, safety, etc. That being said, religion provided a way to escape chaos. Religion provided a cheap form of government. (Note that I will be concentrating largely, if not entirely, on the Judeo-Christian (and their related) religions due to both their vastness and my slightly better knowledge of them as opposed to the many others.) That is, religion, through brainwashing, convinced people that if they did something illegal (that is, they committed a sin), they would receive a life sentence in prison (Hell) with only the dimmest hope of parole (redemption). It's a rather brilliant system, if I do say so myself. It's so brilliant that our current government appears to work off of a parallel set up; the difference is that current government provides a more concrete form of that prison.
This more concrete prison was necessary because of a lack of uniformity in the belief system, potentially brought on by the sudden onset of science. Previously, the goal was to convert people to your religion in order to save them (abstractly from worshipping a false idol, which ultimately would lead them to the depths of Hell; concretely for not holding the same faith, which ultimately would lead to them being killed). However, this worked much better when sticking to abstract beliefs (your belief in the Easter Bunny is wrong; obviously, our belief in Santa Claus is the correct belief--look at how many more Santa Claus believers there are compared to Easter Bunny believers). When science came along, it became slightly more difficult to convert people (you're wrong in believing that putting water over fire makes it disappear--it's just by coincidence that our omnipotent, invisibility-cloak-armed Santa Claus happened to be thirsty at that time, and happened to choose that water to drink). And thus, uniformity became more difficult and the system collapsed. Had it continued to imprison the minds of the people, religion would have been a great governing tool. However, its continuation began to falter (and continues to do so), thus I stated that it had in the past served an important purpose.
(...jumping back to the present...) Surprise! Religion is still here! Only, it has evolved with society such that it can now sort of tolerate other religious beliefs (but only to a point where killing them is unnecessary; commencing dialogue with those of bad faith is still often a touchy topic), it now considers women near equals (yes, religion, believe it or not, women are people too; religion still hasn't completely grasped the fact that they are equal to men, but it's slowly getting there), and it will probably soon consider gay people to be people too (because they are what right now, children possessed by demons?). Thus, in terms of cultural acceptance, religion is coming back into the picture. For dem religious folk, this might seem all fine and dandy. However, this does leave one flaw in the overall co-existence of it all...
That flaw is the birth of pseudo-religions. When Persons A, B, and C are all of Sect X of Type Y of Religion Z (or however specific religion gets nowadays), yet Person A believes Sin Q to be punishable by death, Person B believes Sin Q to be tolerable, and Person C believes Sin Q to, in fact, not be a sin at all, there is obviously something happening with that belief system. I would like to argue that this conflict has indicated the final collapse of any verity that may have existed behind religion.
The difference between religion of the past and religion of the present is this: religion of the past had prophets who conversed directly with said God, whereas religion of the present has a combination of power-hungry leaders (such as those of the "OMG. We're losing believers! We need to keep our believers even if it means defying the words of our God!" kind, and also those of the "OMG. Little Johnny is so cute--I could just touch him next time he comes to Church." kind) and schizophrenic "prophets" (rather, if there were any prophets, they have very likely now been diagnosed with schizophrenia). Thus, in short, religion of the past had people who directly conversed with said God, whereas religion of the present does not.
Present religion strays even further from what could have potentially been the truth in that people are now choosing what they want to believe. It does not matter what was once conversed with God--if one wishes to believe that X (women are equal, or anything related) is true, then one will believe it (or at least, many people that are capable of somewhat thinking for themselves will. And I really don't care if you think that belief is written by man and not God--your whole religion is based off of that book; without that piece of literary nonsense, what do you have to work with? Schizophrenic delusions? Brainwashing by one ignorant generation to the next?). With each and every change brought to the belief system (even if those changes are brought historically, through priests or kings changing a book to better control the people), people stray farther and farther from the truth. And in the end, sure you feel better that you are slowly adapting to what is right (in both reality and your mental state), but the fact remains that you are operating on false beliefs; you are operating on blasphemy, and thus you will be going to Hell (and if you really think God is going to forgive you for your good intentions, then why the hell would there be a Hell? Even the darkest antagonists act out of what they believe to be good intentions, and thus, in that respect, they are the same as you).
Religion has strayed from its role as a governing force, and has become a false sense of security for most people. Because it no longer has the power to say X is X, religion is used by people as an X could actually mean Y, and thus my doing Y is justified, so I am safe to go to Heaven. If you're going to believe that, you might as well believe that if you die, you will be forgiven of all sins. Again, what would be the point of a Hell? Believing in such would be believing a lie, and because so many people live to these rules, they would simply be living a lie.
So what is religion nowadays? It appears to be largely an autoempowering force of "YOU ARE YOUR OWN GOD", with a few other catch-all beliefs. People are now choosing their own beliefs--they are selecting which of their God's rules they wish to follow--and that has become their religion. Allow me to repeat: that has become their religion. There is no more traditional Heaven; there is no more traditional Hell; those died with the Old Beliefs--Gott ist tot. With their autodiety now created, people will now have to create their own afterlife as well. But ultimately, body and soul are one (as will come later), and when the body decomposes, so too will the soul. The real afterlife will come in some form, whether it be as the carbon of a newborn, the dirt of some farmland, or the energy source of an over-consuming race (perhaps it will come to burning human oil when we run out of Earth oil). But real doesn't matter, right? People will simply have to have faith that their own Heaven (or Hell) will come true to them.
But this modern religion does provide one more lie: a lie of community. This lie allows the religious to feel they are not alone--although there is no God, they have each other. This does not come with atheism. Whereas the religious may perhaps meet regularly to discuss their "faith", the closest atheists do is gather on a website where they can brag that their "God's balls are bigger than your God's balls". But this is what the world has come to. Community has become a distant (sometimes even out of this world) thing. What used to be "I haven't seen Vivian in 3 days" has become "I haven't phoned Vivian in 5 days", "I haven't texted Vivian in 2 weeks", "I haven't Facebooked Vivian in over a year". And it is a sad reality--a sad reality it is. But it is our reality. It is our reality, and no matter how badly you wish it, your Heaven will not replace our dirt and your God will not replace that which already exists.
So now I must ask the question--do you really need a Hell, a Heaven, a God to maintain your beliefs? Do you really need a mother, a father, a role model standing in the back of your mind, reminding you that if you break said rules, you're going to spend the rest of your life standing in the naughty corner?
As many religions have stated (and also many non-religious), humans are different than animals in the sense that we are capable of an intelligence that other animals have yet to be capable of. So why is it that people cannot take the time to ponder why they believe what they believe? It is my personal belief that people should believe what they believe for a reason, so that if ever questioned on that belief, they can go beyond because I told myself to, because they told me to, because God told me to. We are capable of an intelligence that should allow us to think on our own, to think without the need to create an illusion in the back of our mind that somebody is keeping track of when we go against our beliefs, only so that we can apologize to ourselves for doing such things the moment before we die. And thus I beg the obvious--ponder your beliefs, and know why they are your beliefs. Should you ever discover that your God is in fact dead, at least you will not be completely lost.
Religion has played its part in our world (exit stage left). It's about time we played ours.
Timebridge
Archives
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
Blogroll
February 22nd, 2010 - 13:39
There is a scientology ad on this page right now. That amuses me.
Anyway, it was a good essay except for the parts where you said it was stupid. Irrational is fine. Stupid is kind of unnecessary.
I will agree with you that Religion is flawed which to me is separate from Faith. Religion is where your “brainwashing” lies. The Church telling you what is good and wrong but for those of Faith, it isn’t hard to find a Bible and find what is what. It depends if a person is willing to do so. Some people don’t because they may not like the answer.
So picking and choosing. What exactly do you mean by that? The 10 commandments? Or the 300 something other sins outlined in Leviticus? Because here is the thing, a lot of Leviticus laws became defunct after Jesus died on the cross. Stuff like mildew on clothes you aren’t going go to hell for. Or say the two you mentioned, the equalization of woman and gay people? I don’t have an answer to those.
Though you said it helps people put their minds at peace and I can’t speak for all people since that is a giant flaw in religion itself but for me I am not at peace at all and I try my best to not pick and chose. If I am confused about a certain sin, I do research on it. But certain ones, the result is Hell or Misery. That really seems like moral stability and peace of mind and like I said I can’t speak for all but I have spoken to others that have the same issue. Not everyone goes “Oh the Church leader said this is fine so I can go do it now.”
I forget who told me this but they said something along the lines of “You can never have true Faith until you question it.” I can’t go beyond your reasonable reason why because you would dismiss it but I do ponder my faith on a regular basis and the other Christians I know do the same but as before I can’t speak for them.
Anyway, though I disagree with you, it was a fairly decent essay. Next time lay off on the stupidity part though. You aren’t going convince anyone of anything by calling them dumb.
February 22nd, 2010 - 15:06
I just would like to say that perhaps religions need to be modified, because man still needs God, we might have come a long way; but we cannot be our own god yet, so perhaps modifying religion is the way to go.
February 22nd, 2010 - 15:46
Hmm. Interesting. I am not religious, but I don’t completely agree with a few of your points. Here are some thoughts:
From a sociological perspective, a number of theoretical approaches can be applied to a situation, including the Structural-Functional, Social-Conflict, and Symbolic Interaction approaches.
I like your Structural-Functional analysis of religion in the beginning of the discussion. Such an analysis can be further divided into 3 perspectives, including the Manifest Function (what it ought to be), Latent Function (what it is), and Dysfunction (what is wrong with it). In paragraph 3, you mainly focused on the Latent Function of religion. More could have been said about it’s Manifest Function (e.g., psychological well-being, reduced blood cortisol levels, etc.).
I found your connection between religion, science, and the corrections system quite a quantum leap in reasoning :P . Again, from a Sociological perspective, we know that the prison system (or prison problem) is the result of many complex, inter-woven relationships between race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and power and economics. Do Blacks and First-Nations Peoples being disproportionately imprisoned have anything to do with religion and science? Or is it, rather, systemic forces at play? Angela Davis has a very well-written article on this topic: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/Masked_Racism_ADavis.html
Moving on to a psychological perspective, the prophets you spoke of actually had temporal lobe epilepsy, probably of the petit mal form. Check out this documentary, which can be readily torrented: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml
I disagree that those who are religious have a “false sense of security.” I also disagree with your claim about modern religion providing a “lie of community.” In my opinion, these are quite strongly-worded claims. A quick search in MetaLib would reveal that a strong relationship exists between religious beliefs and self-efficacy. In other words, those who belief that a greater force will lead the way usually have more confidence and perform better on a behaviour than control subjects would. This is more than a “false” sense of security. Research also suggests that those who are religious have better quality of life and usually have higher life expectancy due to social support. The social determinants of health tell us that social support is a major contributor to one’s overall health. Surely, a religious community provides that support, not to mention the associated health benefits of certain religious practices, such as the Islam view against drinking.
My personal view is that if we look beyond the the occasionally fanatic heaven-hell-jihad-rar-rar, religion still plays an important and positive role in society.
February 23rd, 2010 - 10:48
@Krystal:
lol. Me too. I guess the ad noted the word religion and decided to insert a religious ad :P
Apologies for using stupid–I was using it to mean “not thinking”, which was a major theme in the essay. So even if I didn’t use it explicitly, it would still have been there.
Not exactly an academic quote (seeing as it is from the Simpsons Movie…), but it gets the point across: “This book has no answers!” And also, if we’re going to use a book as the sole source of enlightenment, a counter argument could just as easily be produced from any atheist bible: http://www.amazon.ca/dp/0812976568
Picking and choosing referred to both the 10 commandments and the other 300 something other sins. I mentioned the ones you also referred to, but as for the 10 commandments, people pick and choose those too. Such as “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy” (which is obviously not chosen by the many who don’t do the whole Church/worship thing weekly), “You shall not kill” (though majorly less common, many devout Christians choose to ignore this rule–they kill to save the souls of those who don’t follow the faith), “You shall not steal” (because surely downloading a song isn’t hurting anybody), and “You shall not lie” (because the benefits to telling a white lie are obvious, many people will choose what they see rather than have faith that being honest will work itself out in the end).
I am interested in how you “research” certain sins. Wouldn’t that be reading a bunch of opinions and picking the ones you like best?
In a sense, Hell and Misery do provide moral stability in that they are believed to be the penalties to betraying “your beliefs”.
Will do–next time I’ll structure it better and I won’t use the word “stupid”. Again, my apologies.
@Fra Mench:
Why do you say that “man still needs God”? That point I will need convincing of.
@Eastwood:
I concentrated on the “Latent Function” because most people look at it the way they were taught to–I wanted to try and change the viewing angle by a few degrees. With regards to the Manifest Function, that is “what it ought to be”, I did mention that its use has been exhausted. That is, it ought to be finished. Science should be able to fill in most of the gaps that a lack of religion/brainwashing will leave behind.
I didn’t look at that aspect of prisons at all in this post because of that reason: it is irrelevant. All I brought prisons up for was to show the parallel set up and function that religion provided in the past.
I don’t see exactly how they came to that conclusion–a few people having TLE definitely doesn’t lead to all those in the past displaying similar hallucinations having TLE as well. Nonetheless, the article was an interesting read.
I disagree. If ever they find out that their God is in fact nonexistant, or that certain chapters of their holy scripture were entirely falsified, that self-efficacy will come crashing down if they realize that it was built up entirely on false beliefs. That self-efficacy should be built up on things that they can clearly see in the natural world, such that so long as they exist in this natural world, they have reasons to believe what they believe.
And as I said before, religion did serve a purpose. Those are some of those purposes. But do you really need religion to say “pre-marital sex is a sin” or “drinking is a sin”? How about using science to say “sex with multiple partners drastically increases chances of contracting STIs which decrease life enjoyability and life expectancy”, or “drinking can lead to cancer, liver failure, etc. which decrease life expectancy”? At least this way, people can go into more detail and see the actual concreteness behind these beliefs as opposed to “because God told me so”.
February 23rd, 2010 - 11:26
One feels a “presence” with the onset of a temporal lobe seizure. Its symptoms are quite different from other disorders. Do check out the film for more details.
The whole point of self-efficacy is basically: if you believe you can do it, you can do it. I don’t think it really matters whether or not the believer scientifically acknowledges existence of the “divine force.” There’s a research topic worth looking into!
Excellent points. But remember, a large proportion of the population have low levels of literacy (especially health literacy). We cannot expect the average person to understand what STI stands for or how liver cirrhosis impacts the body. For example, 88% of Canadians fall at or below the 3rd level of literacy. See: www2.literacy.bc.ca/facts/inCanada.pdf
My arguments have less to do with the prohibitory aspects of religion but more to do with the positive aspects, such as social support. There’s a mountain of research on it.
February 23rd, 2010 - 11:27
oops, messed up the “strong” tag. I meant to bold the first “you” if paragraph 2 :P
February 23rd, 2010 - 11:29
OK maybe research isn’t the best word. And yes it would sort of be like that but I wouldn’t go up to you and be like “Hey, what does Leviticus 19:35 mean?” (It is about using correct measurements). I’d go to a religious leader or someone with a degree in Christianity (yes, it is a degree. idk why) or read papers on it. Actually research would be the right word there. Unless you only classify research as science and math studies then we disagree on definition.
OK Christianity is based upon Judaism also and here lies the rub. Judaism doesn’t take the Torah as it says this so it is. It is all about interpretation so of course there will be conflict going on. So yes, I guess it would be finding whose opinion you like best. If you want to follow the Lord’s rule in this, you are supposed to pray to him to find your answer and he is supposed to guide you to the answer and that may be through research.
Misery and Hell are two different things but I get where you are coming from.
I don’t have a proper counter argument or one that you want find flaws in. I disagree with you obviously but I do like reading your opinion
February 23rd, 2010 - 13:26
You’re right in tagging this as a RANT because I see it as just another modern atheistic rant on the easy target–simplistic, dogmatic religion. And I agree with what I guess is the whole point of this post, as the last paragraph sums it up, to think for yourself.
But really, is this an attack on religion, or people? I know many blind religious people, just as I know many blind atheists, fed by the spoon of either priest or “truth”-producing institutions. Obviously the nature of science encourages people to take things with a grain of salt whereas religion may not, so it’s fair to weigh most of the “brain-washing” on the religious side, but in no way should this indicate the ‘exeunt’ of religion altogether…
As for TLE, I think it’s a bit outrageous to diagnose people who lived over thousands of years ago, lol. And even then, just because the means are discovered doesn’t make the ends any less meaningful. ;)
February 23rd, 2010 - 20:41
Tyler!!
I remember you-we met through Sarah the night she and Lisa (the other friend you met) were going to a Sigma Chi party. Reach far far back into your memory…Is the me you met then different from the blogger here? Real life/writing similarities? Because sometimes you read a person’s writing and you’re like “They.are.the.coolest.person.ever!” and in person it’s like blehhhh
How are you?
February 24th, 2010 - 10:48
@Eastwood:
My point on TLE was more along with Miriam’s–I don’t see how they could jump that that conclusion; it doesn’t seem logical to me. That is, TLE is sufficient to feel a presence, but it’s not necessary.
Ah, the anything is possible thing? I would call that more of a fantasy–anything is possible within one’s mind, but in the natural world, no matter how much you believe you can be both holding this object and not holding the same object at the same time, you can’t do it.
A large proportion of the population have low levels of literacy. Okay, but then why not teach them the truth instead of lies? Either way you’re resorting to teaching them something, correct?
The positive aspects, in my opinion, are dying, just like modern religion. I hope that when religion comes crashing down, the people involved don’t come crashing down as well.
And typo fixed :P
@Krystal:
Isn’t it something you’ve said before that you resort to the Bible and not to the Church because it is the Bible that holds the answer, and the Church that holds false interpretations? It seems to me that there’s a contradiction here if you seek answers from religious leaders (who are directly affiliated with the Church) and those with “degrees” (who have likely been taught by those in the Church). Philosophy is fine–I’m sure they’ve put more thought into it than most people. But the problem is that if you start philosophy with a false premise, anything that follows is meaningless. Most philosophy in religion begins with “God exists”, then followed by “God said this” and thus “You must do this”. Should the case that “God exists” be false, then the “You must do this” is meaningless. That is, should it be the case that God doesn’t exist, “You shall not kill”, “You shall not steal”, and “You shall not lie” would be meaningless. I hope (well, I’m fairly sure I know) you agree that many of the Bible’s preachings are not, in fact, meaningless, but there are other reasons for those beliefs–it’s not simply because “God exists” and “God said this”.
If you have a starving man with no job, and a starving man with a shop carrying only a single slice of bread (which say, the man can sell to buy a bag of rice or something larger in the next town), the outcome will not be a result of what God tells them to do. The outcome will be some combination of honor (whether or not to steal the bread), life’s worth (whether or not the man’s (and his family’s) life is worth it), and how he considers he status compared to the other starving man. But maybe that’s all God is–one’s subconscious? But then again, if so, the devil is also one’s subconscious as well, no? In the end, you are you. That’s all you have within yourself.
Me too. I’m glad some people have chosen to openly express their opinions here.
@Miriam:
Maybe it’s an easy target for a reason? Either way, I really think it’s something that needs closing… And as for classifying it as a rant, I didn’t know how else to classify it–I don’t think the original post was well thought out enough to be philosophy. Hopefully a revised version integrating any discussion will come closer.
On your “is this an attack on religion, or people?”, I would say asking that is the same thing as the “hate the sin, love the sinner” declaration. That is, you may hate homosexuality, but that is exactly what makes Bob who he is. The only way to separate them is to say that Bob is simply a body, which is something that would contradict the basis of religion.
The difference between blind religious people and blind atheists is that blind religious people are believing something without reason whereas blind atheists are, without reason, not believing something; this is a topic I mentioned in the first paragraph–belief without reason. However, I will note there are atheists who don’t believe in a God, and also atheists who believe in no God; whereas the former best serve my topic here, the latter do also exist. And of that latter, I do have to admit, there are some who believe for no reason. I find this to be parallel to what was mentioned before about religion having some value (and whether or not that justifies it) in that this non-optimal atheism provides truth but for an incorrect reason, from which you have the debate on truth versus morality (perhaps this was some of the meaning behind the Tree/Fruit of Knowledge–that knowledge would eventually bring about the death of God).
As for the “‘exuent’ of religion” due to its falseness, I again present the idea of beginning with a false premise. For an analogy, assume we have reached a point where we clone people for organ donations except we don’t recognize those people as people (sort of a darker analogy, but I don’t often use other ones…). Assume Bob was raised as an organ donor body, but many, many years later they found out that there was a huge mix-up and Bob is actually not a clone, but a real human (working with the original assumption, however false it may be, that clones are not human). Should Bob be sent to the slaughter house? Or should he be sent into the real world to join other humans? Should this scandal ever occur, based on public reactions right now, I think the latter would be the expected case; in other words, because he was raised on a false premise (that he was a clone), everything that followed became void (that he should be treated as a clone).
And as mentioned above, I agree with you on diagnosing the dead.
@Alison:
I sent you an e-mail :)
February 24th, 2010 - 12:18
Yes it is something I’ve said before because the Church is stupid and/or crazy depending on the denomination or the preachers(So not going help my argument but I’ve already lost so w/e). UNBC offers a degree in Christianity. Not all the profs/lecturers are from the Church unless it is like one of those classes how to teach a sermon to become a minister. And not all that write scholarly papers on it are of faith either. Got to look at both sides of the coin or else you are just ignorant. (General you used here).
I have nothing to counter argue that. You won the argument.
You’ve been saying in you responses to others and also in your blog entry that you hope people don’t come crashing down. That isn’t likely to happen unless you slowly wean them away. It would be like someone going up to you and being like “Your mom and dad never existed”. Which is absurd but this is a metaphor. Now you exist so your parents had to exist (we are ignoring adoption and things like that here). You talked to them and they taught you morals but somehow it was all part of your mind and what you wanted to believe. Ya, that is going mess people up.
At least if you go with the weaning approach it is more like abandonment and easier to grasp. Some stay stable, some don’t.
February 25th, 2010 - 10:30
I find it interesting that you chose that as a metaphor: that your existence necessitates a creator (your parents). Likewise, the existence of your parents necessitates a creator, and I do mean this metaphorically as well.
March 4th, 2010 - 00:01
Ok, to follow your example: there is a “Bob” and a “homosexuality” to it, and they form one thing. Bob = religion. Homosexuality (for the sake of your example) = The sad fact that human beings believe things without thinking it through. Now, I don’t think Bob and homosexuality are necessarily inseparable– religion doesn’t have to discourage free thought at all.
“The difference between blind religious people and blind atheists is that blind religious people are believing something without reason whereas blind atheists are, without reason, not believing something; this is a topic I mentioned in the first paragraph–belief without reason.”
I think this is a problem with wording.
-Blind atheists are, without reason, not believing something –sure, they don’t believe in religions.
HOWEVER, Blind atheists are, without reason [harsh, more like, without proof], believing in the non-existence of a God.
Also, blind religious people, without reason, are not believing something (the non-existence of God).
In the end, we’re all the same lol
And finally, did I miss something in PHIL 120???? A false premise DOES NOT necessarily mean that the conclusion is FALSE. (ex: All dogs are birds, and all birds are canines, therefore all dogs are canines) Does that mean that all TRUE and good conclusions should be abandoned just because they started out with a false premise? Aren’t religions just the practices and teachings BASED on the fact that there is a God? What you have to argue is that the teachings are useless.
Cheerio!
March 6th, 2010 - 09:50
Religion doesn’t have to, it just tends to do so. And can you truly call it free thought if that thought is restrained to being based on something that doesn’t necessarily exist?
On “we’re all the same”, I disagree, hence I differentiated the two types of atheists: those that don’t believe in a God, and those that believe in no God. It’s very suttle, but it is a difference.
That is true (that a false premise doesn’t necessitate a false conclusion), and I stated that in my first paragraph of the original post. As for “Does that mean that all TRUE and good conclusions should be abandoned just because they started out with a false premise?”, and I assume you’ve taken PHIL 120 due to your reference, when designing an argument, you can assume something to be true, but as soon as it leads to a contradiction, everything that follows that assumption must be assumed to not be true. In other words, you cannot structure an argument if you start with something that is false–the “true” conclusion was a function of something other than the false premise (possibly faulty reasoning, or pure coincidence). That being said, I don’t know what “TRUE and good conclusions” are being presented here… And I could argue bottom up, but I decided it would be more efficient to argue top down. I did this because of the reasoning that conclusions derived from a false premise are drawn out of nothingness, and whereas the conclusions created by religion are highly subjective and debatable, most of the reasons and observations I presented above are much more concrete and less based on a viewpoint (ie. it’s difficult to view the fragmentation of religion as anything than fragmentation…).