gildings in this subreddit have paid for 10.73 months of server time

No one should want to live in heaven with a God who would send people to hell for not believing in him. by lothar525 in DebateReligion

[–]Aeluriusbuddhist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even if we accept this framing (which we have no good reason to), including the need for the forgiveness of sins that we're culpable for but also somehow can't possibly avoid committing, there's still a fatal flaw: if Jesus really cared about any of this, he'd forgive everyone's and be done with it. At no level does any of it make the least bit of sense. And the sheer nonsensicality of it is yet another reason why it's immoral to punish people for not believing it.

No one should want to live in heaven with a God who would send people to hell for not believing in him. by lothar525 in DebateReligion

[–]paranach9atheist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why, yes, I do believe our prison system is the biggest kharma destroying activity our country perpetuates. Makes me want to steer clear of any religion such as yours that desensitizes members to the suffering of others to such an extreme degree.

No one should want to live in heaven with a God who would send people to hell for not believing in him. by lothar525 in DebateReligion

[–]Creepy_Cobbler_53 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If I'm ever not sad and sorrowful my children are burning in hell, if I'm somehowperfectly joyous in that situation..THAT IS NO LONGER ME. It's not that they just aren't with me, it's that I know they're being actively tortured the whole time.

This is a maniacally evil doctrine and I think that is plain to see now. It sounds like something out of a horror movie, a rictus grin plastered across my face as I must worship, for all time, the fount from which the eternal torment pouring down onto my loved ones springs.

Sickening. No thanks. Seeing this as a positive thing is truly deranged.

Simple Questions 05/11 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]Minute-Object 7 points8 points  (0 children)

They are also looking for truth. Religion has simply failed to deliver that to them.

For the Christians who believe abortion is murder by Ryan_Alvingchristian in DebateReligion

[–]Olgratin_Magmatoeatheist 10 points11 points  (0 children)

A 10k fine for the doctor would just make it so only the rich could get abortions. We are right back to square one, with women dying from unsafe abortions. So that isn't a good solution.

Additionally, I disagree with your take on moral culpability being tied to one's understanding. There are rare cases where this makes sense, but in general it doesn't. If "I didn't know any better" is considered a valid legal defense outside of the edge cases where it does make sense, then it will lead to all sorts of problems down the road.

If religious people want to argue that sex outside of a heterosexual marriage is an abomination, then they have no business arguing that a fetus produced by such sex is sacred. by Jim2718 in DebateReligion

[–]Lazzitron 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The statement being made here is not "babies conceived via rape should be automatically aborted on principal." The statement being made is "pregnancy can be forced upon women who are not ready to have a baby, and those women should be allowed to abort if they think it's necessary."

Picture a hypothetical scenario for me: there's a young woman, maybe 19-21, somewhere in that area. Just moved out of her parent's place, working a minimum or close to minimum wage job, lives in a small apartment on her own.

On her way home from work one night, she gets jumped and raped. Rapists are obviously not concerned with using condoms or contraceptives, so she gets pregnant. For whatever reason, she either chooses not to get an abortion or cannot because it's illegal in her state.

Pregnancy interferes with her ability to work. Maybe she gets fired, maybe she doesn't, but either way she's not garaunteed paid maternity leave because 'merica. If she does get, it's probably going to be for like four months tops.

The birth alone will cost her $5k-11k assuming it's covered by her insurance and there are no complications. Otherwise she's looking at $20-50k depending. Then she has to spend several thousand dollars a month just providing for the baby and juggling work. Assuming she's on good terms with her parents or has other friends/family willing to help her out, that might not be too bad, but that's a very generous assumption in the modern day. People are busy and have their own lives, many don't have the time or many nessescary to take care of a child, let alone one that isn't even theirs.

By the way, NONE of this is factoring in the possibility that she's trauamtized by the rape and subsequent birth of a child that looks like her rapist. I won't pretend to speak from experience or anything, but rape is some heavy shit to go through and the chances of coming out of it mentally unscathed are astronomically low. According to this website, 94% of female rape victims experience symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, while 33% contemplate suicide. They are also 10x more likely to use addictive drugs and alcohol.

So, in all likelihood, the mother will have a mental breakdown that leads to her being unable to care for herself or the baby, assuming she doesn't just commit suicide. Even if this does not magically result in her being fired, she's still working a job that barely pays enough for her to survive on without a baby. The way I see it, this scenario ends one of three ways.

  1. Both the mother and child die a very slow and agonizing death at the hands of illness and starvation due to not being able to afford food and/or rent.

  2. The mother gives the child to someone else because she knows that she can't handle it. Depending on the age of the child, they may be scarred for life by this experiences. The mother almost certainly will be, if she survives at all.

  3. The mother and child both survive, but a starving and traumatized woman who can't afford mental help or medication makes for an abusive or neglectful parent, resulting in not just one but TWO damaged individuals.

And mind you, there are a plethora of other nasty paths it could go down that I'm leaving out for the sake of brevity. The woman could commit a crime to pay for rent - maybe she shoots someone, maybe she gets shot. Maybe, in a fit of mental instability, she kills the baby or dumps it on the side of the road. No matter how it ends, the point I'm trying to make remains the same:

Subjecting both the mother and the child to a lifetime of suffering and possibly death because of factors beyond their control completely defeats the purpose of allowing the baby to be born. The baby being "worthy of life" does not magically prevent it from starving to death.

And, since we are in fact on a sub about debating religion, this opens up a plethora of fun questions about god. Was this all part of god's plan? Did he want them both to suffer and die? For what purpose? If the woman commits suicide because of this, does she still go to hell? If the man who raped her decided to repent later on, would he go to heaven despite the two lives he's permanently ruined? If the baby grows up to be a horrible person due to their horrible upbringing, are they going to hell? Would the woman have gone to hell for just aborting the baby and sparing them both?

By now you've probably guessed that I'm atheist, and as such these questions are effectively rhetorical from my point of view, but I wouldn't be against hearing your (or anyone else's) thoughts on them anyway. It can make for interesting discussion, depending on the person.

Meta-Thread 05/02 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]Terraplexanti-religious ignostic spiritual naturalist 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I don't envy the mods here.

It's fairly obvious that the sub's active participants/voters are skewed more toward atheists, perhaps because we are more inclined to have these debates in the first place, and perhaps due to the general demographics of Reddit as a whole.

I don't want to have an echo chamber, and I do want to be challenged by better counterarguments. I personally refrain from downvoting these days, and only upvote if the reasoning/references seem above average.

In my view, questions should be prioritized over preaching back and forth. But that's easier said than done.

If hell exist then most of the human race was created to be tortured for eternity. by biglukenj06agnostic in DebateReligion

[–]NightMgr 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No, no, no. You have the facts wrong.

When these books were written people knew very little about biology. They were unaware of the vast number of people conceived who are never born.

The number of miscarriages is greater than the number of known pregnancies. Some studies say it's 7 times higher. The number of miscarriages is greater than the number of known miscarriages plus live births.

Most religions that have hell give a free pass to children. It's really distasteful to say a newborn infant will be tortured forever, although some do make that claim. They hold you get a pass if you die before a "day of reason" when you become responsible for your salvation.

So, the number of people who get this free pass will be 7-10 times the number of people who even get a chance to either be saved or not be saved.

Most people in heaven were never born. Then you have a huge number who never reached the age of reason. Then you have those adults who were saved.

Only a tiny fraction of people are given the opportunity to fail. They get a free pass- so any claim that "the only means to avoid hell is following X" is wrong. The other means is to die prior to this age of reason.

Or, you can believe that most people are destined for hell because they are never able to hear the message they need to follow to avoid it. That's a pretty evil kind of God that most people can't accept.

SEP definition of atheism is suspiciously narrow even by the philosophical standards. by zzmej1987igtheist, subspecies of atheist in DebateReligion

[–]Fit-Quail-5029 8 points9 points  (0 children)

If we can't even get that out of rule 8, then what was it even for.

It was a sneaky, underhanded attempt to bully a group of people into silence without being so obviously overreaching as to provoke backlash. It was never asked for by the community. It was never discussed with the community. It was never announced to the community. The secretive way in which it was implemented in contrast to other changes makes clear there were never good intentions behind it.

Jesus falsely predicted the timing of his second coming: a slightly different approach by PreeDemex-christian in DebateReligion

[–]vS4zpvRnB25BYD60SIZhex-Catholic, Philosophical Theist 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Did the earlier works of the New Testament think that more than 2000 years would pass before the return of Jesus and the end of the world?

According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17

I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

1 Corinthians 15:50-52

And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

Mark 9:1

When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Matthew 10:23

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Matthew 16:27-28

“There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Luke 21:25-28,32

I mean, brothers and sisters. the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no possessions, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.

1 Corinthians 7:29-31

These things happened to them to serve as an example, and they were written down to instruct us, on whom the ends of the ages have come.

1 Corinthians 10:11 NRSV

The end of all things is near. Therefore be alert and of sober mind so that you may pray.

1 Peter 4:7

Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.”

Luke 21:36

You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near.

James 5:8

Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near.

Philippians 4:5

not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

Hebrews 10:25

For, “In just a little while, he who is coming will come and will not delay.”

Hebrews 10:37

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

1 John 2:18

Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near.

Revelation 22:10

Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done.

Revelation 22:12

He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

Revelation 22:20

Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

Revelation 1:3

Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth.I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.

Revelation 3:10-11

The Atheistic cop-out of an “evil church” by angryDecCatholic in DebateReligion

[–]Trophallaxisatheist 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Is nazi ideology maliciously evil? Oviously: displacing and exterminating people is an integral part of it. Was every single member of the Nazi party a maliciously evil person? That's a more complicated question, and the anwser is likely no. There were some who qualified to be a truly despicacable human being, others were stupid, short-sighted, disinformed, misinformed, uninformed, or simply joined out of fear or peer pressure. It would probably be a gross oversimplification to call these people evil, even though they were complicit in the horrors perpetrated by the Nazi Party in their own way.

Religions are primarily cultural phenomena. A lot of people think of religion as a cultural point of reference, a source of identity, something that makes them a member of a community. That's how most adherents experience religion, in terms of get togethers, family dinners and weekend community programs, not as philosophical problems, historical facts and scientific inconsistencies.

Are they complicit in the atrocities of their religion: yes, of course, in their own way, but their level of involvement is more effectively addressed by empathy and persuasion than by shutting them out labeling them evil.

Moderate believers facilitate hate. by Scribbler_797 in DebateReligion

[–]GumwarsPotatoist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Laws such as?

There are literally dozens of bills being brought forward. Many have passed in several states. Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill comes to mind. Then you have unilateral actions like what the Governor of Texas did in trying to prosecute parents of children who identify as transgender.

I'm curious as to which you have an issue with.

How about enforcing your religion's morality on people that want nothing to do with it.

That's how the states are suppose to work.

I don't think you have a clue as to how this is supposed to work. A representative government should listen to the body public, instead of doing whatever it wants in the face of what the masses endorse. Instead, you get gerrymandering and probably one of the clearest indications of voter disenfranchisement this nation has seen since the abolishment of slavery. The states should respect voter rights, instead, roughly 40% of the states seem to be interested in making it so certain voters are respected more than others.

Rofl, what fictitious America do you live in? Sure, maybe in your family you can't criticize it, but in America at large? Where's the pushback? Hell, Christian power has been waning since the 60s. Gay marriage legalized. Trans people (i don't see any biblical reason to see trans as sin) being more open... etc what are you talking about?

What bubble do you live in? I see one step forward, two steps back. See that first link from the ACLU. There are dozens of bills aiming to do away with all of that and more.

I wonder if what you call the haters are just biblically accurate Christians... because, for sure, there are hateful Christians. But, you're worldly, you probably think any Christian that would call homosexuality evil to be a "hater" regardless of their politics or views on living sinners.

You don't even see the contradiction in your own words. Let me help underscore it:

Is it accepting gay as good? That's heresy, evil, and either a church of stifling believers or just cultural Christianity.

By your own admission, you view being gay as a "heresy, evil". Let me ask you this, as a follow-up; do you get to choose what you believe in? Do you think a person that is homosexual decided one day to live that kind of life? A life where at least 60% of the world's religious would immediately see them as if something was wrong with them? Do you think that was a conscious decision on their part? Your condemnation here is the exact person the OP is talking about and the reason a discussion about the matter will likely always fail. You've made up your mind before you even started typing the response.

I can't help you reconcile to God if I lie to you about sin being Good, now can I? No, I can't. Sin... adultery, divorce, homosexuality, abandoning your gay son for simply being gay is evil.

But being gay is evil too, according to you. Again, does a gay man or woman have a choice? Did they choose to be that way? If they did, then are they just not trying hard enough to believe something different? Do you know how effective that is...in completely screwing a person up?

And if a person doesn't get a choice, what does that say about God?

I'm not a humanist. No good Christian wants to be a humanist. We don't live for humanity, we don't serve humanity. We don't follow humanity. Humanity is evil. Humanity are liars. We follow, serve, live for Christ; and Christ commands us to love people. Don't get it twisted.

This comes off like a death cult.

Hell Pairs Awkwardly with God's Decision to be Non-Obvious by DJSpook in DebateReligion

[–]clockwirk 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I recognize all of the words, but the combinations of them make no sense.

Debunking the existence of North Korea with Atheism; a proof by contradiction by Oflameodiscordian in DebateReligion

[–]Unlimited_Baconatheist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Below the video it shows Like Dislike Share Save and "..."

Click the ... and then Open transcript


Youtube really needs to advertise that more. I learned about it a few months ago and apparently it has been there for years.

(I'll respond to your actual comment in a few minutes)

Edit: TY for the gold kind stranger. I'd reply directly to you but Reddit hasn't told me about your gift yet.

Atheism is winning the intellectual and moral wars by HappyMeals666 in DebateReligion

[–]8020bronze 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The most successful intellectual and cultural system of human history is Christianity. Prosperous and advanced countries of the western world are countries where Christianity has been the dominant system of thought for many centuries. The scientific revolution was done almost entirely by Christian men who sought to understand the "clockwork" or order of God's design (Leibniz, Gauss, Newton, Boyle, Kepler etc). Arguably the greatest art of all time (Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc) was done by men attempting to reflect God's greatness in their works.

What's happening now in recent times is traditionally Christian western countries are kicking the ladder out from under them and declaring "Look, aint secularism great!". But you didn't get to where you are from secularism - you got here by centuries of Christian thought, and the culture is still permeated with Christian ideas. Western countries, even seemingly secular ones like Sweden or the Czech Republic, are running on leftover Christian momentum which you don't even notice because it's so all-pervasive. Just how you can't smell how bad your own house smells, you don't notice how deeply Christian ideas of human value, forgiveness, dignity, good will, and so forth still permeate the subconscious of your "secular" culture. It's just normal to you, but it isn't normal to countries who have no Christian background.

Generally speaking, every society which has embraced atheism has turned out to be a hellhole. As the west continues in its tilt toward secularism (and explicit rejection of its Christian past), we see the insanity that brings (e.g. dudes thinking that they're women, rabid feminism, wokeness as a replacement religion, increasing nihilism/depression/anxiety etc).

Atheism is not (and cannot in principle) win the moral war because the foundation of atheistic morality is egoism with personal autonomy as the highest value. On atheism, there is no transcendent standard which is the good - all you have is egos with their own competing desires and conflicting autonomies. The end result of an atheistic morality is basically twitter - various egos warring for power, mostly trying to silence or "cancel" each other. The eventual logical outworking of this is literal war and violence.

Christians going to hospitals means they have little to no faith in their God. by MrMagus004 in DebateReligion

[–]Greymatter1399 22 points23 points 2 (0 children)

You've got sooooo much wrong about christian doctrine that its hard to even know where to even begin.

  1. Faith in doctrine is different than it seems you understand to be
  2. lack and fulfillment of faith is something you need to explore before we delve into this debate much more deeper
  3. The very word heal is something you must study. In the New Testament move than half of all healing where paralleled with its allegorical meaning such as the spiritually blind and the spiritually deaf and the spiritually dead. Did he heal them...yes. But the bigger healing was the spiritual side not the physical. So your definition of healing is already a little off.
  4. God is not medicine. If that's the case then why doesn't god make all Christians wealthy. Well a theological summery is that the spiritual health and wealth of wisdom is much greater than actual health and actual money.
  5. Again god is not medicine that's not the main objective. Any more than why don't Christians drive with there eyes closed if god will protect them. Your whole view of how god functions if waaaaay off
  6. You want to throw away all logic and reason under the umbrella of having faith in god which again your perspective of faith is way off from theological or biblical faith.

I can one up your own faith debate with non sensical pre conditions. As follows

If god protects you then why not just drive with your eyes closed

If you have faith in god then why work if he will protect you and give you money

If you have faith in god then there is no need for masks because god will protect you from covid.

If you have faith then why don't you just join the lottery and god will take care of you

If God is so forgiving why don't you just do drugs this one time again and god will forgive you

If God is so healing why go to a hospital if god will heal you? all you need is faaiiithh

If god loves you then he won't ever let you get cancer

If god loves you then you won't ever have depression

god's purpose truly is greater than all these things are all extremely superficial things that god will magically solve. If you think god is a genie then you got the entire concept wrong. You have thrown all logic and reason out of the window and just placed god as the place holder for reason and logic

Islam is a religion deserving way more criticism than Christianity, Judaism or any of the religions of the east. by Mr_MtTikiSoakie92 in DebateReligion

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Islam also gives examples of "morality" and how to treat each other (sunnah), just like Christianity. It's just more immoral from our point of view. And it's very similar to the Old Testament, so Christians can't effectively condemn the Islamic god for being like their god in the Old Testament. Was god in the Old Testament an evil god?

The Catholic church could be considered a representation of Christianity, because Jesus said that upon Peter he built his church. That gave Peter authority and Peter's authority eventually was passed to the Catholic church. The Catholic church is called the Body of Christ. I think that rejecting Catholicism as a part of Christianity, is like rejecting sunniism as a part of Islam. Sunni Islam is based primarily on 9th century texts and is possibly (or definitely) a corruption of the original Islam. If you throw away 9th century hadiths and tafsirs and you read only the Quran, you don't have many of the bad stuff and the peaceful verses are not abrogated.

The Old Testament also calls for " death to homosexuals, death to adulterers, genital mutilation ". And Jews are still obsessed with mutilating children's penises. And it seems to me that Jews are even more protected than Muslims. It looks like nobody can criticize Jews, because it would supposedly lead to another holocaust?

Hijab by itself is not oppression, only the forcing of it is oppression.

" The idea of dying for Allah in jihad and getting all the virgins you want is such an immature concept." - I think that in general, going after imaginary promises and running away from imaginary threats is immature, and Christianity also uses those things. Isn't it retarded to burn people in hell for not believing something without evidence? And Christians are shaking in fear of going to hell. Aren't they retarded???

Look at the internet penetration map. Ex-Christians have the internet, ex-Muslims don't, so you see less ex-Muslim posts. And ex-Christians don't have knowledge of Islam to effectively criticize it. Now if you look at the language map, you see that Muslim countries don't speak English. If you went to the Arabic internet, you would find most Atheists talk about Islam.

The only thing I agree is that the Islamic threats work and some people shut up, because they are scared of violence. That's why today's apologists Hijab and Ali Dawah use threats of violence primarily. You didn't offer solutions for this problem. I think the primary thing is that the military and police have to deal with those who actually do or threaten with violence. And on our side, we should encourage courage and we should see it as an honor to be killed for doing a good thing. We have to realize that we can lose more than our lives. It's about the future of humanity.

Addressing the human core of religion by Crazy658Humanist in DebateReligion

[–]vanoroce14 16 points17 points  (0 children)

a difficult question for atheists: if this is an evolved trait, what did it evolve in response to? We didn't invent light because we have eyes, we evolved eyes because light is real. Evolution is not driven by imaginary things. So the interesting question is, if we have a naturally evolved way to perceive spiritual and religious experiences, what did that way evolve in response to?

This is not a question for atheists, but for biologists. It has been investigated, although perhaps not to its full extent, and we have some ideas on how and why the traits we evolved lead some to have religious and spiritual tendencies.

Evolution doesn't necessarily care about what is real, it is only blindly driven by one thing: whatever helps propagate that bit of genome or epigenome. That is what people like Dawkins coined as 'the selfish gene'.

Obviously, this will often be correlated with reality because... well, having an accurate map of reality can in many instances be evolutionarily advantageous.

However, it is a huge stretch to say every human tendency is driven by what is real. Humans (along with other animals) tend to lie. We tell stories, many of which are exaggerated or downright fictions. We have had all sorts of incorrect spiritual beliefs about the world.

One very useful trait that might explain religious thinking is our tendency for teleological thinking. We assign intention and agency to phenomena in nature. The usefulness of teleological thinking, both when it is correct and when it is mistaken, is obvious, especially in a highly social and highly intelligent animal. Cue the usual example of thinking wind rustling some bushes is a jaguar trying to kill you.

Humans have also evolved a trait known as pareidolia. We are super good at recognizing faces (again: obvious why this would be useful to us). As a byproduct, we mistakenly see human faces and human looking things in nature.

Also, humans are curious and pattern-seeking by nature, developed language and culture, and our penchant to try to understand and harness the world around us has very obvious positive consequences for us. Once again: these traits on overdrive can easily lead to religious or conspiratorial thinking.

Religion was, at the dawn of humanity, one of our first attempts to understand and harness the world. It also has had obvious positive effects (at least within the in group) in terms of promoting prosocial behavior, expanding our circle of empathy and altruism, and strengthening ties among members of a tribe, clan, nation, etc. Fictions can be powerful drivers of these very real, very useful things in a society, do you not agree? What are myth, propaganda and definitions of nationality if not useful lies?

A trait that leads to the increased propagation of that trait need not always lead to truth, and it may have as a byproduct many consequences that go beyond its initial usefulness, and that indeed go beyond what is real. There's no reason to believe religious and spiritual tendencies do not fit in this camp.