^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^
Religious people have strong needs to feel safe, even in the face of death, and to feel that there is an omnipotent, loving guardian watching over them.
These are reasonable hopes, but the evidence doesn't support the conclusions that life after death or any relevant God exists.
Nonetheless, the emotional needs are very real. Should atheists acknowledge these needs expressed by those who believe in the supernatural?
^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^
2007-02-05 06:06:06 · 22 answers · asked by NHBaritone 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Yes and no.
One thing to be aware of is that relgion teaches the behavior that creates the emotional needs that are fulfilled by relgion. People are indoctrinated at young age to believe these things.
That being said, I would never tell a dying person that they will not be going to Heaven to meet dead loved ones and I would not tell someone who is depressed that the one thing giving them hope, faith in God, is a delusion.
2007-02-05 06:12:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
I do acknowledge the fact that people who are religious have a need for the religion so they can feel safe and secure. And I've said so many times. A lot of people need religion so they won't have to be scared of death and what might happen afterwards. I think if someone wants to be religious and believe in god, then that's just fine. If they need to believe in hell so they won't do bad things, then that's great. As long as they don't push their religion on me, they can praise god until the sun comes up.
2007-02-05 06:11:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Should they? They should do what they want. Sure let's approach the religious and tell them that religion is their emotional need. That seems a really good way to stir up a lot of hostility. That's like the religious telling atheists "we'll pray for you". Many atheists see that as an insult. Furthermore there are a lot of ways of meeting an emotional need. Religion is just one.
2007-02-05 06:27:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
My merely duty and purpose, as an Atheist, is to maintain knowledge and guard Mankind from Slavery. We, Atheists, do not carry forth, merely percentage so as that 'those who've ears to take heed to' may be wakened; for each of the others (bigots) as a change, there is no longer a lot we are able to/are prepared to do. major element is to make constructive that knowledge gained't wander away and that on our Planet there'll continuously be a portion of loose Mankind (no count number how huge that element is).
2016-11-02 09:48:25 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think if you watch atheists' responses to people who are Pagan, Wiccan, Buddhist etc, you'll find that so far as people's emotional needs are met by religion, we're aware and happy for them. However, if those emotional needs are met by belonging to a large, powerful and oppressive organized religion, I'd be bound to question what those emotional needs are. I find that there are a lot of people who fall into that category who fulfil their emotional need to impose their judgement and condemnation on other people. I think being aware of that is fine. Putting up with it, no.
_
2007-02-05 06:19:32 · answer #5 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
People can get their emotional needs met in all manner of ways. Those who rely on a belief in a supernatural protector are handicapped emotionally and are often less likely to actually own up to the responsibility of caring for others that all humans should and would understand if we relied more upon humanism as our guiding philosophy rather than organized religion.
2007-02-05 06:19:44 · answer #6 · answered by magistra_linguae 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I do acknowledge those feelings. I think religion gives people some relief from the anxiety they feel about death, which is why it's so appealing.
But I still think they are wrong.
2007-02-05 06:25:17 · answer #7 · answered by Robin W 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Okay, fair enough but I still don't need or want an emotional crutch. If one needs a support, then go to your friends and family. If you cannot or don't want to, learn to deal with it by yourself. It builds character and shows yourself that you can deal with your own problems, be independant instead of relying on a church.
2007-02-05 06:11:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, absolutely. That's one thing Sam Harris does so much better than Richard Dawkins. He even goes so far as to call for an end to "faith-based religion". Adding the qualifier faith-based to the word "religion" is a very interesting way to put it.
2007-02-05 06:10:05 · answer #9 · answered by Contemplative Monkey 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I am aware of that which is why I don't criticise faith in God but I don't see how being obsessed with meaningless religious dogma can't be harmful.
2007-02-05 06:10:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋