Why do people hold an irrational belief?

[ray245]

There are alot of people who likes to subscribe to an irrational belief, even if they know it is irrational. Some don't like to think too much about it, while others take a fundamentalist approach towards religion.

People has questioned again and again about the exact use of religion in society, and I have to wonder, perhaps religion is just a tool to help people cope with their fear of death?

Some people might be totally devastated by the notion that there is no afterlife after death, hence having a need to hold on to a irrational belief.

That the more you tried to challenge them (aka rejecting their preaching) the more insecure they get, because you are advancing the notion that what they fear most is true. Hence, even if you not advocating religion to be banned in the nation, you are still viewed as a threat to their belief and you are 'repressing' them.

Does this views holds any water in regards to why people would want to hold a irrational belief, even when they realise that somehow? If this is the case, doesn't that mean people who are deeply religious would require some sort of psychology help?

[Superman]

Personally I think that irrational beliefs, the kind that people hold when they should know better, often come from blatantly refusing to grow up. For example, ever see what happens when you win a verbal debate against a fundie? They often become angry, overly emotional, I've seen some cry even, all because they start to realize that their fantasy-view of the world could actually be wrong. It's like their anxieties take over when they start to realize that things might not be as secure as they want them to be. Mentally they're a lot like children (everything is "bad" or "good," they need rules to live by, the "outside world" is usually viewed with fear and distrust, etc.). That's why you can't always show them the truth with simple facts; on some level they're choosing to stay in their irrational world so reason won't usually break them from their delusion. I think there are also probably neurochemical reasons as well, like seeing patterns where none exist, etc.

Freud said it best in my opinion, "Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires."

[Superman]

doesn't that mean people who are deeply religious would require some sort of psychology help?

Ah, wanted to address this too. A psychologist or psychiatrist would usually see a religious adherent like an anthropologist would. In other words, those types of beliefs are "normal" within our culture and society, even if they really are no different than a more "pathological" kind of delusion. In the context of a different culture, like China for example, doing things like speaking in tongues or having seizures after being "healed" by a preacher may indeed be viewed as a sign of mental illness, just like a Buddhist who hears his dead mother speak to him (often a symptom of psychosis or loss of reality) when he practices Qi Gong may be here. In the end, though, mental health practitioners would tend to dismiss these types of things in and of themselves because they occur in the context of a cultural or "ritualized" setting.

[ray245]

Personally I think that irrational beliefs, the kind that people hold when they should know better, often come from blatantly refusing to grow up. For example, ever see what happens when you win a verbal debate against a fundie? They often become angry, overly emotional, I've seen some cry even, all because they start to realize that their fantasy-view of the world could actually be wrong. It's like their anxieties take over when they start to realize that things might not be as secure as they want them to be. Mentally they're a lot like children (everything is "bad" or "good," they need rules to live by, the "outside world" is usually viewed with fear and distrust, etc.). That's why you can't always show them the truth with simple facts; on some level they're choosing to stay in their irrational world so reason won't usually break them from their delusion. I think there are also probably neurochemical reasons as well, like seeing patterns where none exist, etc.

Freud said it best in my opinion, "Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires."

Which is why I find that there is something isn't fully right with saying wrong with saying that religion serves no purpose in society. The problem is, atheist will be in the general minority(even if some nations are supposed to be an atheist state, people can still hold some sort of religious belief in private) simply due to the fact that the majority of the people simply cannot cope with the fact that there is no afterlife.

God is nothing more than something to reinforce the belief that there is an afterlife to begin with.

In regards to the 'What if your child becomes a fundamentalist' thread, isn't it better to get the child some sort of psychological treatment( assuming you can find a psychiatrist who does not dismiss religion as another cultural trait) and help him over his fears?

Which is why I'm starting to feel that arguing with a fundamentalist is not useful, not just because the fact that those people would ignore what you say to them, but also the fact that that might resulted in doing more psychological damage to them.

Like always, feel free to blast everything apart if my views didn't take things into account.

[Superman]

Which is why I find that there is something isn't fully right with saying wrong with saying that religion serves no purpose in society. The problem is, atheist will be in the general minority(even if some nations are supposed to be an atheist state, people can still hold some sort of religious belief in private) simply due to the fact that the majority of the people simply cannot cope with the fact that there is no afterlife.

Just because something exists doesn't mean it's somehow inherently helpful or beneficial, nor does the fact that a religion may have lots of followers make it true. Of course atheists are in the minority. That's just the reality of the situation, but it doesn't mean we should just sit back and pay no attention to it, especially when it does far more harm than good.

Yes, everyone is pretty much scared shitless of dying, and to some degree, religion may serve to alleviate that. Here's the problem; the same religions also tell their followers to impose their doctrines on others, often with violence, destroy entire races of people, set people against each other, convince people they're somehow more "special" than everyone else, turn off their brains to new ideas, vote for George Bush... the list goes on and on. Blissful ignorance, in the end, is never better than what might be a difficult reality. As far as how it impacts society and even our planet, the negatives that come with religion far outweigh making the benefit of making someone "feel better" about dying someday. Look at it this way; let's say that you personally are consumed with the idea of death, and it's pretty damn scary. As an adult living in modern society, one who can make rational choices, what makes more sense; to maybe talk about it with friends or maybe even see a therapist to cope, OR change your entire worldview where you believe in an invisible all powerful man in the sky and all the bullshit that comes with it... because some Bronze Age civilization left writings that say so. Not only that, but by taking on this religion, you now have Hell to worry about.

God is nothing more than something to reinforce the belief that there is an afterlife to begin with.

God (or gods and goddesses depending on what part of the globe you happen to be from) might ultimately be nothing more than a projected father that's carried into adulthood, or maybe he's just the result of people doing what they do best, making up bullshit. At any rate, he's not always about alleviating fears of death. I think some eastern philosophies are even okay with dying and ceasing to exist; some want to stop reincarnating so they can find peace. In the end, it's just another myth in a big shitpile.

In regards to the 'What if your child becomes a fundamentalist' thread, isn't it better to get the child some sort of psychological treatment( assuming you can find a psychiatrist who does not dismiss religion as another cultural trait) and help him over his fears?

Ideally, I think it would be better, but don't forget that we're assuming one becomes a fundamentalist because of underlying psychological issues... and that they can be ultimately cured. I don't think it's that simple. I agree that fundies are nuts, but not everyone can, or even wants, to be cured.

Which is why I'm starting to feel that arguing with a fundamentalist is not useful, not just because the fact that those people would ignore what you say to them, but also the fact that that might resulted in doing more psychological damage to them.

Couple of points. Sometimes, it's definitely not useful to argue with them, but there are also people who are fundies because they really don't know any better, and who might just need a good reason to explore their own doubts. If you can show someone like that that they don't have to live in constant fear of hell, and that the Bible is actually full of errors and historical innacuracies, that they can actually be liberated from the strict bullshit of their religion, that they don't have to go out and make fools of themselves by proselytizing, etc., then I think its worth it. I was raised in a fundie home, but I found James Randi's books when I was about 18. He was the voice of skepticism that I needed to hear. After realizing that he was totally right and the religion I knew was blatantly wrong, I felt like I had escaped from a Nazi death camp. I was pretty relieved to discover I suddenly didn't have to worry about Hell, or diving punishments, or that I could take pleasure in wanking to porn, etc. A mental light bulb turned on and I realized I didn't have to live in a world of oppressive bullshit.

And don't worry about "damaging" them. Most fundies don't hesitate to push their crap on everyone else, and they're wrong for doing it. They should be ready to defend the utterly ridiculous beliefs they hold. A jolt of reality isn't a bad thing.

[Intio]

I've heard an ex-fundamentalist Christian (now an atheist) talk about the part of her mind which served only to reinforce a ritualistic belief - simply for its own sake. No matter what rational explanations she was learning about, this part of her mind kept trying to reinforce the belief in a God, and it took some time to die away.

Then there is the story Richard Dawkins tells of a scientist who began to uncover more and more evidence that his Christian world-view was wrong. The more evidence that piled up, the more certain he was that he needed to get rid of those wrtitings... so he threw away his text books and stopped being a scientist. When someone consciously chooses to do that, in full knowledge that their religious beliefs (creationist) are demonstrably wrong - what more can anyone do?

I think you have to instill into someone a respect and admiration for the methodology which will dispel their superstitious beliefs. Not everyone is 'wired up' to love science or pay much interest to it, but there has to be at least some other intellectual ground for a believer to move onto before you lever them off their current position.

Remember: many of these believers think that atheists "have no hope", "have no morality", "see no beauty in nature", "think that everything is meaningless", etc.

If that is their only alternative to belief, they will carry on believing; if only because they attribute most positive things in life to their God. Ergo, lack of God means a dimunation in their life.

[fgalkin]

Recently, I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that religion is necessary for a civilized society.

People have already discussed that religion addresses the fear of death, but I think everyone in this thread has managed to miss the one real benefit that religion provides- a system of morality.

Yes, that system of morality is usually arse-backwards and thousands of years obsolete, but consider all the times you've encountered the "atheists are immoral" argument. It had confused me for a time, until I've realized that people genuinely can't imagine morality as something stemming from humans themselves. They need and all-seeing, all knowing man in the sky dishing out rewards and punishments. Which is why the most prominent religions of today feature some sort of system of the sort, be it heaven and hell, karma, or whatever else.

Unfortunately, it seems that most people are genuinely not capable of acting morally without some sort of threat of punishment. Even on this board, you have some semi-serious posts to that extent. And in the view of most criminals, while it is easy to hide from the law, it's much harder to hide from being reborn as a dung beetle.

Of course, the system doesn't always work perfectly, and religions bring their own unnecessary crap into the mix- religiously-inspired genocide, oppression of certain minorities (or even majorities), etc. But at the same time, they provide stability to the community as a whole, and were no better or worse than other groups at the time. Of course organized religion, as any institution, is highly resistant to change, and when it does happen, it does not always work for the better (and a lot of the "popular" movements for change are worse than the institution they are trying to supplant- consider Lutheranism during the Reformation, or the various brands of Christian, Islamic, and Jewish fundamentalism today). But that is an issue that is completely separate from the one I am talking about- that society as a whole needs a religion.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Patrick Degan]

Recently, I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that religion is necessary for a civilized society.

People have already discussed that religion addresses the fear of death, but I think everyone in this thread has managed to miss the one real benefit that religion provides- a system of morality.

Yes, that system of morality is usually arse-backwards and thousands of years obsolete, but consider all the times you've encountered the "atheists are immoral" argument. It had confused me for a time, until I've realized that people genuinely can't imagine morality as something stemming from humans themselves. They need and all-seeing, all knowing man in the sky dishing out rewards and punishments. Which is why the most prominent religions of today feature some sort of system of the sort, be it heaven and hell, karma, or whatever else.

Unfortunately, it seems that most people are genuinely not capable of acting morally without some sort of threat of punishment. Even on this board, you have some semi-serious posts to that extent. And in the view of most criminals, while it is easy to hide from the law, it's much harder to hide from being reborn as a dung beetle.

Of course, the system doesn't always work perfectly, and religions bring their own unnecessary crap into the mix- religiously-inspired genocide, oppression of certain minorities (or even majorities), etc. But at the same time, they provide stability to the community as a whole, and were no better or worse than other groups at the time. Of course organized religion, as any institution, is highly resistant to change, and when it does happen, it does not always work for the better (and a lot of the "popular" movements for change are worse than the institution they are trying to supplant- consider Lutheranism during the Reformation, or the various brands of Christian, Islamic, and Jewish fundamentalism today). But that is an issue that is completely separate from the one I am talking about- that society as a whole needs a religion.

Appeal to Tradition. None of that says that a system of morality cannot exist absent a religious context. All that says is "people won't believe in it any other way because that's the way it's always been done". Furthermore, if religion was as powerful in instilling a system of morality which would stick and be universally recognised, there wouldn't be so many antisocial types constantly plaguing the peace and order of the community, and that's from the lowest criminal-type to the highest (Dick Cheney).

[Darth Wong]

You are all answering the wrong question. The question is not "why do people hold irrational beliefs". The question is "what does it take for people to think rationally?" The ability to think rationally is the rarity, not the inability to do so.

Think of rational thinking ability as a somewhat unusual talent, like the ability to slam dunk a basketball. Nobody asks "why do people have so much trouble slam-dunking a basketball" because it's obvious: most people lack the ability to do so. Similarly, the average person is nothing more than a glorified monkey and cannot be expected to think logically, any more than I would expect my dog to understand algebra. When Joe The Plumber speaks of logic, he is merely stating intuition and believing that it is logic, because he doesn't know what real logic is.

Look at all the people who speak of logic but who also assail scientists for being "close-minded". They honestly do not understand that logic is close-minded; the whole point of logic is to dismiss the vast majority of ideas in any given situation because they fail to meet a strict standard. The difference between logic and other forms of close-mindedness is the reason for the dismissal, not the fact that one dismisses ideas at all.

[Adrian Laguna]

There is a small subset of people who hold irrational beliefs that they know are irrational, but will not change them due to whim and indifference. It's really odd how they can enumerate at length the various fallacies inherent in a conclusion or beliefs, and yet continue to hold to them regardless. Or how one moment they can tell you why a certain course of action is stupid and counter-productive, and the next moment they're taking it anyway. It's like the analysis part of their brain is logical, but the decision part is just fucking crazy.

[Patrick Degan]

People will hold to an irrational belief because, on some level, it provides emotional satisfaction and/or reinforcement and, on that basis, probably a small degree of physical satisfaction as well (endorphin release, perhaps...?). Rather like one's favourite sweet treat or drug of choice. It takes a very powerful rationality to resist that sort of pull.

[Kanastrous]

They often become angry, overly emotional, I've seen some cry even, all because they start to realize that their fantasy-view of the world could actually be wrong.

Perhaps that's accurate for some, but I think that the emotional behavior is more commonly driven by frustration. Because what they're telling you is TRUE. And RIGHT. And it's just oh-so-frustrating that you're being obstinate (or perhaps controlled by Satan) and not getting it.

I lose track of the number of believers who have proudly told me that they acknowledge their beliefs to be irrational;. That's doesn't bother them. It's frequently a source of pride. Because you know, any old person can believe in something rational, but it takes a special sort to hold fast to a belief that they know is not.

[Samuel]

They often become angry, overly emotional, I've seen some cry even, all because they start to realize that their fantasy-view of the world could actually be wrong.

Perhaps that's accurate for some, but I think that the emotional behavior is more commonly driven by frustration. Because what they're telling you is TRUE. And RIGHT. And it's just oh-so-frustrating that you're being obstinate (or perhaps controlled by Satan) and not getting it.

I lose track of the number of believers who have proudly told me that they acknowledge their beliefs to be irrational;. That's doesn't bother them. It's frequently a source of pride. Because you know, any old person can believe in something rational, but it takes a special sort to hold fast to a belief that they know is not.

Did you bother pointing out the prevalence of the belief 13 is an unlucky number or the number of people who do the lottery? Most people know that folk superstitions are bunk... but they still are influenced by them.

Not to mention that "special" is not always good- sometimes it just makes them... "special".

Yes, that system of morality is usually arse-backwards and thousands of years obsolete, but consider all the times you've encountered the "atheists are immoral" argument. It had confused me for a time, until I've realized that people genuinely can't imagine morality as something stemming from humans themselves. They need and all-seeing, all knowing man in the sky dishing out rewards and punishments. Which is why the most prominent religions of today feature some sort of system of the sort, be it heaven and hell, karma, or whatever else.

People say religion when what they mean is that we need more police.
-H L Mencken.

Seriously, we don't need faith to keep the proles in line- after all, even if people are unable to deal with the concept of morality outside of religious beliefs, they are able to deal with the threat of punishment and have it influence their behavior. Not to mention Albania proved you can completely eliminate religion with no harmful side-effects, aside from the totalitarianism that got it set up, of course.

[Darth Wong]

It's not that people have some built-in psychological aversion to imagining morality without an overlord, it's that a lot of people are raised poorly, by parents whose only means of explaining their rules is "because I say so" or "shut up or I'll tan yer hide" or "I brought you into this world and I can take you out".

That kind of violence-based authority-oriented morality scheme does not translate well to the adult world, so we need to invent an All-Father to keep it going. Christianity doesn't even hide it, and refers to him openly as "Father" and "Lord" and "Almighty".

However, if kids aren't raised that way in the first place, or if they are at least exposed to alternative methods, they are more open to a morality scheme which is not necessarily based around violence and authority.

[FireNexus]

Mike, would you say that the inability of most people to think rationally is due to poor upbringing and education, a lack of the actual hardware to do so, or some combination of the two?

[Gil Hamilton]

Recently, I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that religion is necessary for a civilized society.

I would argue strongly against that. Religion is not necessary to a society, it only occupies that spot because people are raised that way. Were people raised areligiously, it would be silly to invoke the magic sky father.

People have already discussed that religion addresses the fear of death, but I think everyone in this thread has managed to miss the one real benefit that religion provides- a system of morality.

We can skip the discussion of fear of death, but that's a silly argument as well ("Oh, it was horrible, Neddy! I was almost ushered into the loving arms of Paradise!"). As morality, we'll let's go on.

Yes, that system of morality is usually arse-backwards and thousands of years obsolete, but consider all the times you've encountered the "atheists are immoral" argument. It had confused me for a time, until I've realized that people genuinely can't imagine morality as something stemming from humans themselves. They need and all-seeing, all knowing man in the sky dishing out rewards and punishments. Which is why the most prominent religions of today feature some sort of system of the sort, be it heaven and hell, karma, or whatever else.

Unfortunately, it seems that most people are genuinely not capable of acting morally without some sort of threat of punishment. Even on this board, you have some semi-serious posts to that extent. And in the view of most criminals, while it is easy to hide from the law, it's much harder to hide from being reborn as a dung beetle.

There are two large problems to that. One, is a matter of environment. People themselves are a product of what raised them.

One is that if a person spent all their life hearing all the adults in their life sincerely claim that the moon was made of cheese, you'd have a damn hard time convincing them it was made of the dehydrated rock. Look at all the people who sincerely believe in the various stripes of Creationism despite all evidence against, that honestly think that man was created from dirt and woman was created from his rib. The issue with atheism is the same thing. They spend all their life hearing that atheists are bad people, of course they are going to have trouble seeing things differently, because it's been so thoroughly baked into them by action of their environment. It isn't that religion is necessary, its just that alot of peoples upbringings have emotionally and intellectually crippled them into making it necessary. That's an issue of upbringing, and hell, many people who hold to it are PROUD of that handicap.

The second problem with your argument should be obvious. A deep belief in religion clearly doesn't make men moral beings. Look at the populations of prisons. A vast majority of people in prisons aren't atheists; most are religious, often deeply so. Religious belief doesn't stop people from committing crimes, or stop them from being cruel or callous. Occasionally, as in your next paragraph quoted, it even causes them.

This is because "The Magic Sky Father Says So" isn't a system of morality. It doesn't address WHY things are moral or immoral, it doesn't cause ethical behavior, it simply asserts that if you don't behave a certain way, you'll be punished. Simple self-interest and fear of pain is the system of morality for animals. I've trained my dog not to tear up the trash or be violent towards others, not out of the virtue of the act, but because I'll be cross with him if he does not and with sufficient repetitions, the lesson sinks in. Clearly, human beings are very much capable of higher morals than that. Fear of retribution doesn't even work in people. Humans still do heinous actions to each other despite a belief in hell or karma or God, or because of it.

There is nothing in religion that commands a person not to steal, for example, except fear and pain of the Lord. However, it is intellectually easy to come up with reasons out as a consequence of the human condition and complex self-interest as to why you should not steal.

1) A person has the same right to life and property as you do and robbing them causes them pain. Reasonably, experience pain is bad, and presumably, the other experiences it too. Thus, it is wrong to rob someone because it is wrong to unnecessarily cause pain.

2) Complex self-interest. Any society where you are free to rob someone is a society where you are free to be robbed. Thus, it is better to not rob someone, because its best to respect other's property if you want to be respected in the same way.

The fact that was have a legal system is proof positive of this. We have laws and human police and courts out of the necessity of society to enforce good social behavior, for the good of everyone in it. Laws, of course, aren't always moral, but ideally, they exist to enforce ethical behavior. Religions invariably says that justice is the province of God, but no one just WAITS for God to deal with a murderer. We as humans do. That makes the justice of God redundant. You don't NEED a second layer of God if you believe in human justice.

Of course, some might argue that human justice is imperfect and that there needs to be Ultimate Justice that is inescapable, since clearly some people commit crimes and get away with it, or commit unjust acts and remain entirely on the side of the law, or so on. However, I fail to see any evidence that the Universe is required to fair, do you? That's all the most impetus for human beings to be responsible adults and take responsibility for justice ourselves.

Of course, the system doesn't always work perfectly, and religions bring their own unnecessary crap into the mix- religiously-inspired genocide, oppression of certain minorities (or even majorities), etc. But at the same time, they provide stability to the community as a whole, and were no better or worse than other groups at the time. Of course organized religion, as any institution, is highly resistant to change, and when it does happen, it does not always work for the better (and a lot of the "popular" movements for change are worse than the institution they are trying to supplant- consider Lutheranism during the Reformation, or the various brands of Christian, Islamic, and Jewish fundamentalism today). But that is an issue that is completely separate from the one I am talking about- that society as a whole needs a religion.

It's interesting you claim that people need religion to be moral and then list how religion makes people act immorally. What it doesn't address is WHY people need a religion. I've demonstrated that you can intellectually conceive of a system of morals that excludes the divine or supernatural or faith all together. Further, people should aspire to higher morality than simple fear of pain, since that is the morality of beasts and not even really that effective. So WHY do people need such a thing, other than they've been reared to think they do?

[Elaro]

To answer the OP:

Why hold an irrational belief?

Because: Why not?

People don't start believing irrational beliefs out of reason. They believe because they choose to believe. And because no evidence led them to the information contained in their belief, they can't examine the 'why' of this belief, and so find nothing wrong with it. Of course, there's nothing right with it either.

And there may also be an aspect of pride in there. They want to avoid admitting that they made a mistake.

Now, as to say that faith is a mental illness, I would say nay. It's more of a mental injury. An individual causes him/herself mental harm by considering a belief right arbitrarily. It's akin to trying to percieve a yellow duck as of another color. Or trying to think that 2 + 2 = 5. It's a mistake, and they are scared to admit it. The hardcore believers, like that ex-scientist, have been led to believe that they have to consider a set of statements true if they are to survive. So obviously they're scared out of their wits. And when some piece of real evidence comes threatening their beliefs, they shift their perception of reality to accomodate their beliefs. That is a sign of mental unhealth, for sure.

[Shroom Man 777]

It totally sucks that almost everyone around me, at school and home, believes in shit like ghosts and spirits and hauntings and exorcisms - thinking stuff like the Exorcism of Emily Rose was based on real events, with actual-factual demonic possessions - and they think that they've seen ghosts in the places we've been to and everything.

It's patently mad. I can't believe it, and I think they think I'm a moron or I'm ignorant because I don't buy their fucking delusions.

[ray245]

I would argue strongly against that. Religion is not necessary to a society, it only occupies that spot because people are raised that way. Were people raised areligiously, it would be silly to invoke the magic sky father.

However, isn't there still limits to how many people in society can raise their kids in those manner? People who do not believe in god can still believe there is some sort of afterlife and etc. You are expecting people to be as 'brave' as you in regards to accept the fact that there is nothing after death.

As long as this fear of death exist, some form of belief would exist in the world. The problem is getting people to stop doing any physical actions to justify the existence of their religion or beliefs.

There has yet to be any society where the majority of people reject any concept of afterlife(Like ghost for example).

[Shroom Man 777]

Of course not. How can you expect to reject, in such a short span of time, the sheer momentum of cultural beliefs and religious whatsits that have existed ever since the dawn of humanity? These mindsets and ways of thinking have been with us for thousands of years, they won't be gone overnight or anytime soon. Maybe in the far future where there will be robots, people will have forgotten these primitive superstitions, but we're still quite far from that point of time.

[Gil Hamilton]

However, isn't there still limits to how many people in society can raise their kids in those manner? People who do not believe in god can still believe there is some sort of afterlife and etc. You are expecting people to be as 'brave' as you in regards to accept the fact that there is nothing after death.

As long as this fear of death exist, some form of belief would exist in the world. The problem is getting people to stop doing any physical actions to justify the existence of their religion or beliefs.

There has yet to be any society where the majority of people reject any concept of afterlife(Like ghost for example).

There is the opposite. Fear of death doesn't mean necessarily there needs to be an afterlife, but rather that people should value the life they have more. This encourages people to live more ethically. If you believed, really believed, that this. is. it. would you sit on your ass? Some might, but I would suspect people as a whole would rather do something with their lives if they were in touch with their mortality.

Further, you can build a whole set of ethics on one's mortality. After all, crimes against other people actually bear start to reason something heinous. After all, murdering someone isn't just sending them packing to heaven or the next life or whatever, but actually extinguishing the existance of a human being. That should come with a visceral loathing, that when you act cruelly to someone, you are actually harming the only existence they are provably going to get.

[ray245]

However, isn't there still limits to how many people in society can raise their kids in those manner? People who do not believe in god can still believe there is some sort of afterlife and etc. You are expecting people to be as 'brave' as you in regards to accept the fact that there is nothing after death.

As long as this fear of death exist, some form of belief would exist in the world. The problem is getting people to stop doing any physical actions to justify the existence of their religion or beliefs.

There has yet to be any society where the majority of people reject any concept of afterlife(Like ghost for example).

There is the opposite. Fear of death doesn't mean necessarily there needs to be an afterlife, but rather that people should value the life they have more. This encourages people to live more ethically. If you believed, really believed, that this. is. it. would you sit on your ass? Some might, but I would suspect people as a whole would rather do something with their lives if they were in touch with their mortality.

What about the fear of losing a loved one to death? Given the fact that it is extremely hard for people to accept a person's loved one is gone forever, and you don't have a chance of meeting them when you are dead.

Not sure if the majority of people can cope with such a concept.

[Kanastrous]

I just can't grasp why it's so difficult. These are the conditions under which we exist. Just fucking deal.

[Gil Hamilton]

What about the fear of losing a loved one to death? Given the fact that it is extremely hard for people to accept a person's loved one is gone forever, and you don't have a chance of meeting them when you are dead.

Not sure if the majority of people can cope with such a concept.

If there existence is finite, maybe you should take as best care of them possible. People ought to take care of each other, because This Is IT and we are all in life together. Know what I mean?

[ray245]

I just can't grasp why it's so difficult. These are the conditions under which we exist. Just fucking deal.

People's personality may be different? It's like saying why it is hard to grasp why some people take a longer time to recover from the death of a loved one than others.

If there existence is finite, maybe you should take as best care of them possible. People ought to take care of each other, because This Is IT and we are all in life together. Know what I mean?

I'm not saying we need religion to have some sort of purpose or morality in life. I'm talking about the fact that unless we could eliminate most people's fear of death or fear of not seeing their loved ones ever again, most people in any society would still have some sort of believe in an afterlife.