Choosing One's Beliefs

[Curious George]

What we believe to be true depends on how we go about determining truthfulness. If we want to change the things we "believe in", all we have to do is examine the way we arrived at the presumption of their truthfulness, and change the criteria. .

So to change our beliefs ("things we believe in")
We need to change our beliefs ("criteria" by which we evaluate the things in which we believe)




You cannot see how this is begging the question?

 

[PureX]

We don't accept information or claims in everyday life without good evidence do we?

Of course we do. What planet are you living on? We just elected Donald Trump president! And a third of the country STILL think he's telling them the truth! Evidence is whatever gets us to the truth we want to believe in.

As I've already said, if you tell me humans can fly I'm going to reject that based on my experience and education. I'm not going to say "I do not know if I can fly, so I'll give it a go."

But then you are not the yardstick by which all humans measure themselves for logic and reason. Because apparently a third of your fellow citizens would in fact decide to "give it a go".

Also, why is it that you felt you had to seek out the most overly simplistic, blatantly physical, and obviously biased analogy to make your point? Why didn't you just stick to the actual "truth proposition" being discussed: the existence of God/gods?

My position would be "show me good evidence that humans can fly", and until you gave me that my "default" position would be not to believe you. Fair enough?

No, not fair at all, since no one is discussing the proposition that you can fly (which you can, of course, for the simple price of a plane ticket).

 

[PureX]

Very well written. Kudos.

What is the criteria by which you decide that it is "working for you"?

I am calmer, happier, kinder, friendlier, more positive, sober, and nearly always grateful. If you'd known me before, the change would be significant, believe me!

 

[PureX]

Okay then, I'll take "I don't know", either way I'm not falling on my face to petition a deity. Show me the evidence of your deity and then I might consider it.

I am the "evidence of my deity". I was a hopeless drunk, and now I'm sober. I was obsessed with all things negative and wallowing in resentment, and now I'm not. I believed that life basically sucked and that if God existed, "he" was an ***hole. And now I am grateful just to be alive, and awake, and if God exists I thank "it" for the gift of being. And if this isn't enough to at least get you thinking, I am sorry for you.

For the second time I say hogwash. That may be true in your culture but I live in the UK where Christianity died many years ago. People do not blub and beseech god to let the deceased into heaven here. We tend to focus on the individual and celebrate his or her life. Sure, religion still plays a part but "vast majority"? Don't think so, just saying pal. I won't be thinking of god or the afterlife when I lose the next loved one.

I don't think you have any idea what religion is or how it effects people's lives. I just think you think you do.

 

[PureX]

So to change our beliefs ("things we believe in")
We need to change our beliefs ("criteria" by which we evaluate the things in which we believe)

You cannot see how this is begging the question?

You're sliding off track, here. The subject is choosing what we believe to be the truth. We do this by choosing the criteria by which we assess truthfulness. That criteria MAY be "evidence" of whatever variety and voracity, or it may be something else, like desire, or functionality.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have seen the idea posted several times, now, that we humans are not able to choose what we believe to be true or untrue. ... I know from my own experience that this is a bogus presumption.

Choose to believe that I am a leprechaun. Let me know when you're successful.

 

[PureX]

I describe our will as having the potential of 'free will,' but largely deterministic, because of many chains of antecedent causes. As far as our choice of faith, or belief system, goes there are so many chains of antecedent causes the determines our choice of faith, the culture and religion we are raised in is the major cause for most to choose their faith. With that there is the desire for a 'sense of community,' which if people believe or feel they are no longer a part of their community they choose another.

One thing that is most often not involved here is an 'Independent search for truth or knowledge,' because of the highly diverse and conflicting differences between the belief systems. This results in wide range of conflicting views on science, and an egocentric view of other belief systems that believe differently from other beliefs systems.

I believe the 'potential of free will,' remains, but it is most often not exercised in choosing one's belief system.

I missed this post, earlier, and I'm sorry for that, because it's an excellent and insightful post. Thank you!

Yes, the ability to choose is there, but if we are not aware that we possess it, are we really able to exercise it? And if we are not, then is it really there at all?

A very interesting conundrum, this; hiding within the ideology of 'free will'.

 

[Curious George]

You're sliding off track, here. The subject is choosing what we believe to be the truth. We do this by choosing the criteria by which we assess truthfulness. That criteria MAY be "evidence" of whatever variety and voracity, or it may be something else, like desire, or functionality.

Yes and break down what criteria is...a belief.

 

[Misunderstood]

I have seen the idea posted several times, now, that we humans are not able to choose what we believe to be true or untrue. That somehow truth is an overwhelming force that we are unable to turn our backs on, once it's been recognized. And I know from my own experience that this is a bogus presumption.

Furthermore, I see this presumption being iterated in the context of believing in "God", which I find even more absurd, since the nature and existence of "God" has never been sufficiently proven by anyone, ever, either way. Such that no "truth" has ever been established. So that whether one believes in God or not, they can't be turning their back on an established truth by deciding to change their belief, because no such truth has ever been established to turn their back, on.

So I would like to clarify a few things for those who presume they are unable to choose their own beliefs.

1. Belief is a presumed truth, not an actual truth. This is a key point to understand. And as we all know, we can and often do presume, wrongly. In which case we must be able to change our presumptions as circumstances demand.
2. If we can and do change our minds about what we presume to be true according to the evidence of circumstance, then why couldn't we do so in accord with our desire? After all, what is circumstance, anyway, but the context within which our presumed truth becomes true? Its a context that has desire written all over it.
3. So what it all comes down to, then, is how we decide to determine truthfulness. Not that we can't change our minds. And I say that how we determine truthfulness is by how the 'truth proposition' works for us within our own experience and understanding of reality (circumstance).

Example:

Proposed truth - my car can fly.
Experience - my car has never flown.
Understanding - my car does not possess the necessary mechanisms to afford it that capability.
Presumed truth - my car does not fly.

None of this means that my car couldn't, can't, or doesn't fly. It just means that by my current criteria for establishing a presumption of truth (i.e., my experience and understanding of existential reality), this is my presumed truth. If that criteria were changed, however, so might the presumed of truth. And this is where I gain the control, as I am the one setting this criteria.

But what about when the proposed truth is something that we cannot physically test, like a proposed metaphysical truth? Like the existence of a metaphysical god-being that stands as the origin, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists? How do we test this proposal, to determine it's truth?

We adopt the proposal as being true, live by this truth, and then see if it "works for us" in our experience and understanding of reality (we act on faith). And since I am setting the criteria for what "works" and what doesn't, if I change that criteria, I can change the presumed truthfulness that results. If my characterization of "God" isn't working for me, for example, I could change my characterization of "God" and see if the new "God" works better. Or, I could change what it means to be "working" or not working for me. Which would then also change my presumption of it's truth. Once I understand that I control the definition of the proposed truth, and the criteria by which it is judged "working" or not, I am in control of the result. I am in control of whether or not I will presume the proposed truth to be true, or untrue.

There is quite a bit to respond to here, and I will not be able to address it all. I am not sure what to call it, but do not think it is called truth, belief, faith or religion, those come from you in this case. It is just who you are. What you feel is your truth. And your truth forms your beliefs. These truths may not be able to be proven or hold any science behind them, but, they are true to you and are you truths weather right, wrong or otherwise.

Who you are is what you feel is right or wrong, what you feel you are capable of, what you feel you can do, etc. Like if there is someone sitting across a table from you and a gun between you. You are told to pickup the gun and shot the other person, could you do it? What if they had killed a loved one? Or were about to kill a loved one if you did not shot? How you answer these tell a very small part of who you are.

Now if you take all these feeling you have, (some people have a hard time knowing who they are, or are still searching) and compare them to all beliefs and find one that you match, you could say you are a (fill in the blank). You may change beliefs from time to time as you learn more about yourself or the belief you choose. But you are still who you are.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Of course we do. What planet are you living on? We just elected Donald Trump president! And a third of the country STILL think he's telling them the truth! Evidence is whatever gets us to the truth we want to believe in.

You have the cart before the horse mate, go where the evidence leads; you appear to think we should look for evidence of something we have already decided to be true. It is called confirmation bias.

But then you are not the yardstick by which all humans measure themselves for logic and reason. Because apparently a third of your fellow citizens would in fact decide to "give it a go".

You miss my point, giving religion "a go" doesn't involve jumping off a cliff, if it did you would think twice correct?

Also, why is it that you felt you had to seek out the most overly simplistic, blatantly physical, and obviously biased analogy to make your point? Why didn't you just stick to the actual "truth proposition" being discussed: the existence of God/gods?

I'm just pointing out that very often people abandon standards of good evidence when it comes to religion, that they don't do in other areas of their life. There is no justifiable reason to do this. As a man once said faith is the excuse people use when they have no good reason to believe something to be true.

I am the "evidence of my deity". I was a hopeless drunk, and now I'm sober. I was obsessed with all things negative and wallowing in resentment, and now I'm not. I believed that life basically sucked and that if God existed, "he" was an ***hole. And now I am grateful just to be alive, and awake, and if God exists I thank "it" for the gift of being. And if this isn't enough to at least get you thinking, I am sorry for you.

I sense I have upset you mate, you appear to think I am having a go at you personally, but I'm not. I'm pleased that you have sorted yourself out in your personal life but that doesn't constitute evidence of a deity. People rehabilitate and turn their lives around for any number of reasons; sometimes people attribute it to a god (pick any god you like), sometimes people attribute it to the love of another person(s), sometimes just because they get sick of the rut they've got themselves in. You don't need to believe in a deity to make a decision to change your life style. Give yourself some credit for turning your own life around.

I do understand the power of religion btw, it can be a powerful drug that changes personality and personal habits overnight. It is a demonstration of the power of belief. All I'm saying is that it is belief without good reason, without good evidence. That is something I would say is best avoided. However, if you're saying religion is the only thing keeping you sober, and if you were to find out it is false today you would immediately go back to old habits then fine; stick with your religion. As long as it isn't a religion that seeks to harm or deny other groups their freedom, I have no quarrel with you.

 

[PureX]

There is quite a bit to respond to here, and I will not be able to address it all. I am not sure what to call it, but do not think it is called truth, belief, faith or religion, those come from you in this case. It is just who you are. What you feel is your truth. And your truth forms your beliefs. These truths may not be able to be proven or hold any science behind them, but, they are true to you and are you truths weather right, wrong or otherwise.

Who you are is what you feel is right or wrong, what you feel you are capable of, what you feel you can do, etc. Like if there is someone sitting across a table from you and a gun between you. You are told to pickup the gun and shot the other person, could you do it? What if they had killed a loved one? Or were about to kill a loved one if you did not shot? How you answer these tell a very small part of who you are.

Now if you take all these feeling you have, (some people have a hard time knowing who they are, or are still searching) and compare them to all beliefs and find one that you match, you could say you are a (fill in the blank). You may change beliefs from time to time as you learn more about yourself or the belief you choose. But you are still who you are.

I would say that we are always becoming who we are, through the choices we make. Each time we choose to lie, or to tell the truth, to act on emotion, or to wait for reason, to blame others rather than searching one's self, it becomes a little easier the next time. And there is a cumulative effect from all these choices made, day to day, that is defining who we are, and who we are becoming.

I was an alcoholic for many years. Every time some minor difficulty would show up in my life, I would run to a drink. And the more I did that, the more 'automatic' it became, until I eventually discovered that I could not stop myself from doing it. My poor choices had BECOME ME. And I was trapped by them. I didn't intend to become an alcoholic. And I hadn't realized that each time I chose a drink as my 'solution' to every little problem that it would cause me to become an alcoholic. Nevertheless, my choices had consequences, and in my case the consequence was alcoholism.

It was very difficult to STOP making that choice to drink once I had become fully alcoholic. I couldn't do it by myself. It took years and a LOT of outside help to break free of that trap. But eventually I began to make different choices in similar circumstance, and doing so became easier the more I did it. And I have now been sober for many years. So for me, understanding that my life is all about choices, is very important. As a drunk I believed that life sucked, so I may as well just drink til I die. I do not believe that anymore. But it took a lot of persistence and soul-searching to figure out how to change that view of truth and reality. But doing so has saved me. And I am here to tell others that it can be done. We can choose what we believe to be the truth, and change our selves and our lives as a result.

 

[PureX]

I'm just pointing out that very often people abandon standards of good evidence when it comes to religion, that they don't do in other areas of their life.

I think what they abandon is YOUR standard of "good evidence" when they consider religion. And to be honest, I suspect those people are as pleased with the standars they chose as you are with your own.

There is no justifiable reason to do this. As a man once said faith is the excuse people use when they have no good reason to believe something to be true.

Well, they don't really need to justify their choices to you or me, though, do they. And I can't think of any reason why they should.

I sense I have upset you mate, you appear to think I am having a go at you personally, but I'm not. I'm pleased that you have sorted yourself out in your personal life but that doesn't constitute evidence of a deity. People rehabilitate and turn their lives around for any number of reasons; sometimes people attribute it to a god (pick any god you like), sometimes people attribute it to the love of another person(s), sometimes just because they get sick of the rut they've got themselves in. You don't need to believe in a deity to make a decision to change your life style. Give yourself some credit for turning your own life around.

First, I am not the least bit upset by anything anyone writes on here, including you. I'm sorry if my writing style is giving you that impression. And secondly, I know very well that addiction recovery involves a great deal more than having faith in a god. But addiction recovery is not the subject of this thread, faith in god, is. So I was simply offering a glimpse into my experience with faith in god as it related to that recovery. And I did this because I know there are many millions of human beings in the world who are using their faith in god to help them deal with similar problems and difficulties. And this help is available to them whether gods exist or not. Because faith, in itself, is a very powerful tool for personal healing and change. A tool that atheists reject, and admonish others to reject, simply because they have chosen not to believe in the existence of gods.

I do understand the power of religion btw, it can be a powerful drug that changes personality and personal habits overnight. It is a demonstration of the power of belief. All I'm saying is that it is belief without good reason, without good evidence.

Why isn't the positive change, itself, a "good reason"?

That is something I would say is best avoided. However, if you're saying religion is the only thing keeping you sober, and if you were to find out it is false today you would immediately go back to old habits then fine; stick with your religion. As long as it isn't a religion that seeks to harm or deny other groups their freedom, I have no quarrel with you.

So, everyone else should forgo ideals that they find positive and useful because you don't? (unless it's an emergency, of course) That idea seems mighty self-centered, don't you think?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now let me explain how this works in actual practice.

I have long considered the proposal of the existence of "God", and have decided that I can not verify the nature or existence of such a 'being'.

Decide or conclude?

I can, however, accept that such a being could exists based on my desire that it be so, and on the amazing and inexplicable mystery that existence continues to show itself to be.

"Based on your desire that it be so?" You're describing wishful thinking. It's an irrational basis for a position.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

I think what they abandon is YOUR standard of "good evidence" when they consider religion. And to be honest, I suspect those people are as pleased with the standars they chose as you are with your own.

Not what I was saying. Allow me to wheel out my Iceland example. I believe Iceland exists though I've never been there to see it for myself. However, there is excellent evidence to suggests that Iceland exists; satellite images, testimony from people who live in Iceland, Iceland has been mapped by cartographers, and of course if I still doubt I can hop on a plane and fly to Iceland to check it out for myself. Good evidence that none of us would think to seriously question correct? Religion is not the same thing, the world is full of claims of invisible deities, invisible communities, however none of them can back up their assertions with the sort of evidence that leads me to believe that Iceland exists. Fair enough?

Well, they don't really need to justify their choices to you or me, though, do they. And I can't think of any reason why they should.

Again, not what I meant. If you don't want to tell me why you believe what you believe, fine I'm not going to demand otherwise. However, if someone proselytises and explains his or her reason for belief it is fair to critique it isn't it?

First, I am not the least bit upset by anything anyone writes on here, including you. I'm sorry if my writing style is giving you that impression.

Great, I'm not here to troll, but you do write in a way that makes me suspect you are angry/irritated by me. If that's not the case, fine, I'm in favour of discussion over squabbles.

And secondly, I know very well that addiction recovery involves a great deal more than having faith in a god. But addiction recovery is not the subject of this thread, faith in god, is. So I was simply offering a glimpse into my experience with faith in god as it related to that recovery. And I did this because I know there are many millions of human beings in the world who are using their faith in god to help them deal with similar problems and difficulties. And this help is available to them whether gods exist or not. Because faith, in itself, is a very powerful tool for personal healing and change. A tool that atheists reject, and admonish others to reject, simply because they have chosen not to believe in the existence of gods.

Why isn't the positive change, itself, a "good reason"?

So, everyone else should forgo ideals that they find positive and useful because you don't? (unless it's an emergency, of course) That idea seems mighty self-centered, don't you think?

I think you misunderstood my meaning. I meant if you are certain your religion is the only thing keeping you sober then you should stick with your religion, and definitely not abandon it. You think I'm interested in leading people down harmful paths just to score points on an internet forum? Not a chance mate, if religion keeps you away from addiction and nothing else hits the spot, you should definitely stick with your religion. I may not agree with your reasoning, I may not agree that what you say is true, but I'm not going to discourage anything that stops a person harming themselves or others. I would have a problem, though, if those religious beliefs meant you thought other groups (other faiths, LGBT people, atheists etc.) should be marginalised or have their freedom curtailed because your holy book says so. I hope that explains my position a little better.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think what they abandon is YOUR standard of "good evidence" when they consider religion. And to be honest, I suspect those people are as pleased with the standars they chose as you are with your own.

Except they apparently aren't happy with them, since they don't accept all the other religions that clear the same bar as their own.

If someone's standard of evidence is so low that mutually exclusive claims all meet it, then it's objectively too low. Above that point, there's a judgement call to be made about how high the standard should be, but I've never seen a religious standard of evidence that's anywhere near that point.

 

[PureX]

Decide or conclude?

"Decide", because it's based on my conception of what "metaphysical being" is, and that's not something I can contemplate, and then "conclude". It's remains open to contemplation, and so far I'm choosing to go with the idea that it's probably beyond the capacity of my intellectual comprehension. Though, admittedly, I LIKE that idea very much.

"Based on your desire that it be so?" You're describing wishful thinking. It's an irrational basis for a position.

Says who? Wishful thinking is also called imagination, which is by far humanity's greatest asset, and forms the foundation of all our intellectual pursuits.

 

[PureX]

Not what I was saying. Allow me to wheel out my Iceland example. I believe Iceland exists though I've never been there to see it for myself. However, there is excellent evidence to suggest that Iceland exists; satellite images, testimony from people who live in Iceland, Iceland has been mapped by cartographers, and of course if I still doubt I can hop on a plane and fly to Iceland to check it out for myself. Good evidence that none of us would think to seriously question correct? Religion is not the same thing, the world is full of claims of invisible deities, invisible communities, however none of them can back up their assertions with the sort of evidence that leads me to believe that Iceland exists. Fair enough?

There is physical evidence for Iceland's physical presence. So what? That's an easy question with easily obtained and obvious "evidence". It's a "no-brainer".

Now lets ask a metaphysical question: does perfection exist? Suddenly things become much more difficult, because perfection is not a specifically physical phenomena, it's a way of perceiving physical phenomena. Or more precisely, it's a way of perceiving the relationships within and between various physical phenomena. But what's the criteria defining that "way"? And who decides this? Does our perception of existence, "exist"? It seems the more we consider the question, the more obscure and confusing the required "evidence" becomes. It is experiential? Is it consensual? Is it both, Is it neither?

Again, not what I meant. If you don't want to tell me why you believe what you believe, fine I'm not going to demand otherwise. However, if someone proselytises and explains his or her reason for belief it is fair to critique it isn't it?
Great, I'm not here to troll, but you do write in a way that makes me suspect you are angry/irritated by me. If that's not the case, fine, I'm in favour of discussion over squabbles.

It's really NOT the case. I appreciate your responses and the fact that you take the time to share your thoughts with me/us.

I think you misunderstood my meaning. I meant if you are certain your religion is the only thing keeping you sober then you should stick with your religion, and definitely not abandon it. You think I'm interested in leading people down harmful paths just to score points on an internet forum? Not a chance mate, if religion keeps you away from addiction and nothing else hits the spot, you should definitely stick with your religion. I may not agree with your reasoning, I may not agree that what you say is true, but I'm not going to discourage anything that stops a person harming themselves or others. I would have a problem, though, if those religious beliefs meant you thought other groups (other faiths, LGBT people, atheists etc.) should be marginalised or have their freedom curtailed because your holy book says so. I hope that explains my position a little better.

The problem I see here is that you focus almost exclusively on how the abuse of religion harms people, and you ignore almost entirely how the proper use of religion helps literally BILLIONS of human beings deal with all sorts of internal and external difficulties that no one and nothing else, will. I only offered my own experience as one tiny example. And it doesn't matter if my faith in "God" helped me a little or a lot. The point is that it did help. And it continues to help. And it does so for HUGE numbers of human beings, all over the world, and throughout human history.

Yes, religions have been used to abuse people. To hurt people, and to kill people. But so has medicine. So has science. So has philosophy. So has politics. So has commerce. So have bricks and rocks and hammers and automobiles and airplanes and anything else that could be turned into a weapon. Because that's who we are, and what we do to each other. But most religions are trying NOT to encourage this inhumanity within mankind. Is science trying to stop us from destroying each other? Is atheism?

 

[Desert Snake]

Hence my addition to "because of" I agree in some instances it can be "depite," just not all.

Given your above post I think we are saying the same thing.

Agreed, I think we are.

 

[PureX]

Except they apparently aren't happy with them, since they don't accept all the other religions that clear the same bar as their own.

Most religions are open to and tolerant of other religions. You really need to get those biased blinders off. They are seriously skewing your vision of reality.

If someone's standard of evidence is so low that mutually exclusive claims all meet it, then it's objectively too low.

Says whom? ... Oh, says you. No bias there, of course.

The truth is often paradoxical from our limited, binary, human perspective. Learning to accept and embrace paradox is actually a sign of high levels of awareness. It is also often taught by and to those who follow advanced spiritual paths.

Above that point, there's a judgement call to be made about how high the standard should be, but I've never seen a religious standard of evidence that's anywhere near that point.

Again, those biased blinder do get in the way. Perhaps try looking through the religious artifice (myth, metaphor, allegory, etc.) to the spiritual wisdom they are meant to convey, and stop assuming that all "evidence" is and must be physical. Expecting physical evidence to validate metaphysical phenomena is a clear path to inevitable failure, and rejection.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

There is physical evidence for Iceland's physical presence. So what? That's an easy question with easily obtained and obvious "evidence". It's a "no-brainer".

Now lets ask a metaphysical question: does perfection exist? Suddenly things become much more difficult, because perfection is not a specifically physical phenomena, it's a way of perceiving physical phenomena. Or more precisely, it's a way of perceiving the relationships within and between various physical phenomena. But what's the criteria defining that "way"? And who decides this? Does our perception of existence, "exist"? It seems the more we consider the question, the more obscure and confusing the required "evidence" becomes. It is experiential? Is it consensual? Is it both, Is it neither?

Yes, but those philosophical "metaphysical" questions cannot be answered by demonstration or "physical" evidence, or be "detected" with technology; "hard" solipsism may be true but I cannot investigate it to determine whether it is true (for that matter "hard" determinism may be true but we have no way of investigating it). Nor can ontological arguments cannot be demonstrated to be true, we have no means to investigate these concepts (at least for now, who knows what the future may bring?).

In the absence of any meaningful investigative tools, the most rational thing to conclude is at best agnosticism about these things. They are so speculative, and cannot be explored. As it happens, I suspect there is truth in determinism, and solipsism is sort of true in that we can only really be sure of our own individual existence; I'll never be able to demonstrate beyond doubt you are not an illusion created by my brain. I have to be intellectually honest and say "I don't know", anything else is an assertion that cannot be substantiated.

I believe I experience a reality called "life" and that millions of humans share that reality, we are all aware of and can agree on commonality in the human experience (emotion, physical exertion, learning, physical pleasure, physical pain etc.). It may be an illusion, but we're stuck with it, and it appears to be a reasonably stable and predictable reality. So I'm more inclined believe things about that "shared" reality, than philosophical concepts that cannot be explored. I'm not saying we shouldn't bother to think about the "metaphysical" btw.

The problem I see here is that you focus almost exclusively on how the abuse of religion harms people, and you ignore almost entirely how the proper use of religion helps literally BILLIONS of human beings deal with all sorts of internal and external difficulties that no one and nothing else, will. I only offered my own experience as one tiny example. And it doesn't matter if my faith in "God" helped me a little or a lot. The point is that it did help. And it continues to help. And it does so for HUGE numbers of human beings, all over the world, and throughout human history.

Yes, religions have been used to abuse people. To hurt people, and to kill people. But so has medicine. So has science. So has philosophy. So has politics. So has commerce. So have bricks and rocks and hammers and automobiles and airplanes and anything else that could be turned into a weapon. Because that's who we are, and what we do to each other. But most religions are trying NOT to encourage this inhumanity within mankind. Is science trying to stop us from destroying each other? Is atheism?

I admit to be anti theistic, but I certainly don't paint every religious person or every religion with the same brush; I used to be a Christian myself after all. I actually enjoined you to stick with your religion if that is the only thing keeping you "on the wagon", I'd never say religion always produces negativity because it doesn't.

Saying that, religion commonly does promote prejudice against particular groups based on religious beliefs, sometimes that prejudice spills over into violence. At its worst, it seeks to control and indoctrinate people from childhood; people should be free to choose to belong to a religion but that choice should be made as an adult. There is no such thing as a Muslim, Christian or Jewish child, it just so happens their parents are Muslim, Christian or Jewish, the kid doesn't get a say in the matter.