What's wrong with finding comfort in religion?

For those of you who are athiests: what drives you do do great things in life. Why do you strive to be a model citizen?

I believe that there is no sound argument leading to belief that a God exists, and I am unwilling to buy myself comfort by accepting or endorsing bad logic.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I believe that there is no sound argument leading to belief that a God exists, and I am unwilling to buy myself comfort by accepting or endorsing bad logic.

True, but on the other hand, as long as it does not affect MY life, I have no problem with people believing what they choose. IMO, I have no right to tell people what to believe, just as I think that they have no right to tell me what to believe.

Where it gets sticky, (and right now, it is about as sticky as warm taffy) is when people attempt to pass laws, (that WOULD affect my life) based on little more than their own particular religious beliefs. I think that is an abomination.

I don't see anything more wrong with someone introducing or supporting laws based on his own religious beliefs, than with him doing so based on his own moral beliefs.

Ther

I think what alot of athiest really HATE is when people attempt to rule, control, and enforce thier religion on other people. Religion is a personal choice. Not made by others, and shouldnt be judged by others.
Unfortunatly that happens alot.
IMO - if people feel the need to ' spread thier religion' and convert those who do not follow a particular faith, that shows insecurities in thier choices of religion.

but I find beauty in believing it's something greater.

Quote:

I don't see anything more wrong with someone introducing or supporting laws based on his own religious beliefs, than with him doing so based on his own moral beliefs.

Brandon9000- But what if the laws interfere with the rights of people who do not believe as he does?

One can be an atheist and still believe in something bigger.

Quote:

I don't see anything more wrong with someone introducing or supporting laws based on his own religious beliefs, than with him doing so based on his own moral beliefs.

Brandon9000- But what if the laws interfere with the rights of people who do not believe as he does?

Abortion is the example which comes to mind, but since it is such a hot potato, I will stay away from it for the purpose of this thread.

OK, for example, the Catholic church does not believe in contraception. Suppose a group of Catholic lawmakers decide to introduce a bill that would make the dispensing of contraceptive devices illegal. For argument's sake, the bill passed. All people, whether Catholic or not, would no longer be able to purchase condoms, IUDs, birth control pills, or other contraceptive paraphrenalia. In this case, the tenets of particular religion is foisted on people who do not believe in that faith.

Except by degree, in concept, how different is that from the sharia laws in some Muslim countries?

I never thought i would be defending religion. I have always been that kind of person who bashes people for blindly following anthing.

I think the problem with the hypothitical contraceptive situation is that it would be promoting a specific religion (catholic) like Brandon said.

I do not want to buy myself comfort at the expense of endorsing bad logic, i.e. the so-called evidence for the existence of God.

I believe that there is no sound argument leading to belief that a God exists, and I am unwilling to buy myself comfort by accepting or endorsing bad logic.

as long as it does not affect MY life, I have no problem with people believing what they choose.

I think the problem with the hypothitical contraceptive situation is that it would be promoting a specific religion (catholic) like Brandon said.

That's where everything gets really sticky. If I were to show up on your doorstep completely naked, would you have a problem with that? What if I was a public school teacher, and I taught your kids in school that way? It's my choice, right? And if you say it affects you (or your children, in that situation), how so?

The problem is, just about everything someone does affects someone else. Without a strict moral code, the line between "decent" and "indecent" in the sense of "affecting someone else" is quite blurry. That's where I find humanists at flaw-- "we can do what we want, as long as it's right by our standards, which we set"...well who's the "we"? Society? Maybe I believe it's OK to murder...why does the "standard" in society not include my beliefs? Because it affects other people? So does the image of a homosexual couple walking down the street...where's the difference?

See, it gets real sticky.

And I believe that there is no sound argument leading to the belief that a God doesn't exist, therefore I am unwilling to buy myself comfort by accepting or endorsing that logic.