What makes a religion "bad"?

[woelen]

It is very simple. Religion is bad in the eyes of the non-religious and it is the the most important there is in the eyes of religious people.

 

This essentially makes this entire discussion for me a non-discussion. You have your opinions on religion, and I have mine.

[Dak]

It is very simple. Religion is bad in the eyes of the non-religious and it is the the most important there is in the eyes of religious people.

 

not true. i've allready said my problem isn't with religon per se, rather just some commonly associated traits; many atheists are against religon, but many aren't; many would actually fight for the right of religos people to have freedom of religon.

 

similarly, for many people, religon takes a back-seat in their lifes, and is inportant but not the be-all and end-all.

 

i see that your trying to avoid a religon bashing thread, but please realise that broad generalisations such as the above are over-simplistic to the point of being untrue and somewhat prejudiced -- atheist != anti-religon any more than religon = mental fundie.

 

anecdotally, most atheists simply dont care one way or the other about religon.

 

This essentially makes this entire discussion for me a non-discussion. You have your opinions on religion, and I have mine.

 

then dont discuss it or, prefferably, share your oppinions -- maybe you'll modify other people's.

[GutZ]

It is very simple. Religion is bad in the eyes of the non-religious and it is the the most important there is in the eyes of religious people.

 

I pretty much agree. Nicely said.

[Phi for All]

Remember that this thread is talking about a religion being bad, not religion itself. A religion that kidnaps, tortures and sacrifices baby miniature poodles in weekly rites would be defensible under many of the definitions listed here.

 

Many attempts have been made to turn GD into the new Religion forum (I realize this thread was moved here), but this thread can run here as long as we're talking about parameters and definitions. It's my hope that we can transfer it somehow over to Theology Forums in the near future once we have it formatted and open for business. It's a good topic as long as we don't get into personal prejudices.

[woelen]

Phi, indeed, best would be to redirect this discussion to the theologyforums, but that is not yet possible. Closing it would be too heavy handed, hence the best (of sub-optimal choices) was to move it to GD .

[mike90]

It is very simple. Religion is bad in the eyes of the non-religious and it is the the most important there is in the eyes of religious people.

 

This essentially makes this entire discussion for me a non-discussion. You have your opinions on religion, and I have mine.

 

But this is not always the case Woelen. I myself am an atheist but I have nothing against religion and I fully support everyones right to beileve in whatever they choose. I don't think its religion itself anyone has an issue with, rather how religion is misused and taken out of context and the resulting problems.

 

 

It is of course your right to not be a part of this discussion if it's too personal a topic or you have no interest, but I for one would be interested in what you have to say. From what I've seen so far people are being careful to keep their posts to the topic at hand and to be civil.

 

The misuse of religion to the detriment of people is important to atheists, agnostics, and theists. Any possible solution to the problem will have to come from all sides as well.

[Skye]

Would you include the scientific method as a dangerous ideology if taken dogmatically?

Yes, I don't think the philosophy of science is a 'finished project', so the methodologies within it should open to debate.

[GutZ]

I think an atheist at some level believes religion is bad, and religious people believe that atheism is bad at some level. From a belief point of view, it's kinda of envitable. One must think that their belief (or lack of) is good (right), and therefore can't possibly believe the practically opposite is as good.

 

I haven't met a person that I've completely agree with, and in essense would believe it's a bad point of view. There are varying degrees of bad though, alot too trivial to even concern oneself with. For example, I am not much for complete freedom of speech, some people will say whatever is on their mind, which is fine unless it crosses the line based on my beliefs. As far as religion I might find that the lack of freedom within it is bad, but that most of the morals they hold are good. Same for me, People of faith might find my lack of devotion to "whomever" is a bad thing...and so on.

 

If you accept the fact that people are different, and you want to live peacifully with others regardless of belief then you have to add tolerance to that line, and the only way I can see a person, belief, system, etc being really bad is when the net outcome from that is swaying to the more bad side. Fundementally I think most of those are good.

 

[mike90]

Read -- http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/

 

Sigh. Just great. I spoke too soon I guess. This is precisely what we did NOT need. The link is to a site with a highly anti-religion bias. Pretty condescending and heavy handed stuff.

 

Just for what its worth, being an atheist and basically saying people who beileve in God are idiots is every bit as offensive as being religious and going up to someone and saying " Do you beileve in god? No? You know your going to burn in hell right?

 

 

Perhaps the problem is just people in general. No matter what the ideology or system of beilef there will be a small segment of people that are so arrogant, heavy handed, and a little too sure they are the ones who are always right to let anyone else have their own opinion.

 

 

So the question really is how can we teach tolerance to all people? It seems like humankind will always find a reason to hate anyone thats even a little different. Race, sexual preference, income level, religion, it doesn't matter humans will always find a way to disagree and fight about something

 

So heres the question: is there any workable way to fix this human flaw or are we pretty much doomed to endless warfare because of it?

[gib65]

Would you include the scientific method as a dangerous ideology if taken dogmatically?

 

Well, if it was taken dogmatically, then yes. But I don't think it is dogmatic, generally. I actually think a dogmatic science is an oxymoron. The scientific method is taught as a rational means for acquiring knowledge about the physical world. It is presented as a sound method because of it makes logical and practical sense and it has a long history of working. But if someone refuses to believe in it or practice it, it doesn't reinforce itself upon that person. It just offers the method for those who choose to use it. We don't have science police breaking into every laboratory to make sure our fellow scientists are applying the method properly. It may not accept alternative methods that conflict with it, but this isn't dogma since it can defend its reasons for not accepting alternative methods with rational argument.

 

Furthermore, dogma is most dangerous when it is used in a political context - that is, when it is used to control the lives and beliefs of the population at large. I mean, you could have some sorry Joe Shmoe who sits in his basement all day dwelling over some belief that he holds dogmatically (i.e. he refuses to listen to reason and constantly insists his beliefs are correct), but usually such a person could be left to wallow in his own issues. If he gets really psycho, he might do some harm to others for not accepting his beliefs, and then I'd say he's dangerous.

 

In short, if the scientific method was followed dogmatically, then it could become dangerous, but since it's not followed dogmatically, it's not dangerous at all - in fact, I think it's the best thing that's happened to humanity since the dawning of philosophy in the ancient greek world.

[Phi for All]

Sigh. Just great. I spoke too soon I guess. This is precisely what we did NOT need. The link is to a site with a highly anti-religion bias. Pretty condescending and heavy handed stuff.

Having the words "truth" and "manifesto" in the link got that particular post deleted. You're right, we don't need it.

So the question really is how can we teach tolerance to all people? It seems like humankind will always find a reason to hate anyone thats even a little different. Race, sexual preference, income level, religion, it doesn't matter humans will always find a way to disagree and fight about something

When "immortal souls" and "eternity are on the line, some people feel justified and will insist others are just plain wrong. Tolerance is accepting that what is right for you may not be right for everybody. And that is often at odds with what your religion is teaching you.

So heres the question: is there any workable way to fix this human flaw or are we pretty much doomed to endless warfare because of it?

Show me anything that isn't a physiological requirement where everyone agrees. If it involves opinion or faith it involves diversity. I don't think this is a "fix it" issue so much as a "overcome the obstacle it presents to you" issue.

[YT2095]

I thought we`de Banished this Rot that causes such an unpleasant stench on this site once.

 

how very Very Disappointing

[gib65]

Sigh. Just great. I spoke too soon I guess. This is precisely what we did NOT need. The link is to a site with a highly anti-religion bias. Pretty condescending and heavy handed stuff.

 

Just for what its worth, being an atheist and basically saying people who beileve in God are idiots is every bit as offensive as being religious and going up to someone and saying " Do you beileve in god? No? You know your going to burn in hell right?

 

 

Perhaps the problem is just people in general. No matter what the ideology or system of beilef there will be a small segment of people that are so arrogant, heavy handed, and a little too sure they are the ones who are always right to let anyone else have their own opinion.

 

 

So the question really is how can we teach tolerance to all people? It seems like humankind will always find a reason to hate anyone thats even a little different. Race, sexual preference, income level, religion, it doesn't matter humans will always find a way to disagree and fight about something

 

So heres the question: is there any workable way to fix this human flaw or are we pretty much doomed to endless warfare because of it?

 

Mike,

 

I think you underestimate the problem. I agree that the world is full of fanatics of all stripes, and it matters very little what ideology they are obsessed over. But the real danger is when these individuals find themselves in a society which is all too willing to listen to their views and heed their every word. It may not be a society of fanatics on the whole, but when their sentiments and values are already leaning to one side (the side the fanatic is on), and without social institutions that allow for freedom of expression and the right to challenge authority by non-violent means, then this creates ample opportunities for the fanatics to climb into positions of power.

 

I also wanted to say, to everyone, that I feel bad for starting this thread. I had seen religious debates on SFN before and saw that they were pretty popular, so I thought I'd start my own. I should have taken notice that SFN had gone through some changes and if I looked more carefully, I would have seen that the "philosophy and religion" forum had been archived and closed. Also, I was an absolute bone head for posting this in the "philosophy of science" forum. I don't know why I did that. I think I was too eager to start this thread and I didn't pay attention to what forum I was currently viewing. I'll definitely be paying more attention in the future.

 

So in any case, my apologies to everyone. That being said, I hope this thread can continue. I'll understand if the mods want to shut it down for whatever reason, but it seems to be going along smoothly so far. I think we've seen some good and interesting - and civilized - posts being made, and I think it would be good for it to continue.

[mike90]

To gib: so how do we create these social institutions with the entire world already as polarized as it is?

 

to Phi: But it does it not become a problem that we have to fix when it causes so much worldwide strife? the problem isn't the obstacle it presents to you or I, but rather the obstacle it presents in countries where people still die by the millions because of it. and when I say " it" I absolutely do NOT mean religion exclusively but rather intolerance of any kind.

[YT2095]

and how about: a Place for everything, and Everything in it`s place?

 

SI-UNS FOR-UMZ!!!!!! no no no, baaad place for this!

[mike90]

Well the conversation doesn't really seem to be about religion per se so I'm unsure if the Mods are unhappy about this? People have largely been civil and the thread has remained open so I assumed it was alright to continue the discussion? I have no wish to offend anybody

[gib65]

To gib: so how do we create these social institutions with the entire world already as polarized as it is?

 

Slowly but surely. That's honestly the best answer I can give.

[YT2095]

*Sigh*

 

there Are Religions out there that fit perfectly into the ideal that you`ve outlined (although I know of ony one), I use the plural because there maybe be others of which I`m unaware.

 

I REALLY hope the new Theology Forum gets online soon though, as all these things can be discussed over there, leaving this site PURE science.

[In My Memory]

Gib65,

But what I wonder is what makes a religion "bad"? A lot of people hold the view that religion itself is bad - plain and simple. One must defining "religion" first before making such a bold claim, of course, but I guess what the view boils down to is that any kind of ideology that is meant to be taken dogmatically is a dangerous thing. Fair enough. But is this equivalent to "religion" proper?

 

Can you have a religion that is open to scientific advancement, or the freedom of speech, or the right to question authority? Would this kind of religion be "bad"? I guess my view is that religion, overall, is not inherently bad, but the ideas it espouses may be. For example, a religion that demands blind obedience or that says suffering is good is dangerous. On the other hand, a religion that says one should meditation once a day or that one should help others in need might be good. What do others think?

I'm pretty sure whatever makes a religion good or bad is circumstantial, whether it affects beings in a harmful way or not.

 

If there was a religion that allowed questioning authority, science to come before faith, and democratic feedoms, then I guess religion wouldnt really be "bad" at all. For instance, if someones bible says "homosexuality is an abomination to to God; the penalty for homosexuality is death", yet it allowed for questioning authority, you could actually ask "but God, how is the act of homosexuality morally different from heterosexuality?" without being labeled a heretic and burned at the stake; thats a good thing in general.

 

To me, the thing that makes religion so bad is that it absolutely destroys morality. "Gods will" cannot form the basis for any moral rule, but people invoke the will of God to justify anything and everything no matter how horrible, repugnant, morally inexplicable, or morally inconsistent. As of right now, religious fundamentalists are campaigning all over the world to abolish human cloning, because it fails to respect the dignity of human life; they dont say a word about respecting the dignity of any of the 10s of billions of non-human lives destroyed for profit, because they dont have souls. And that kind of mindset is a problem, because its based on precisely nothing, the claim that humans have souls is spurious at best (and even more spurious as to how anyone can know that people have souls and that animals dont, or what test one can use to determine which being has a soul or not)... its not a form of morality, its ignorance and superstition dressed up as the will of God, and its absolutely offensive to any serious conception of morality.

[herme3]

Just for what its worth, being an atheist and basically saying people who beileve in God are idiots is every bit as offensive as being religious and going up to someone and saying " Do you beileve in god? No? You know your going to burn in hell right?

 

I don't think it's right to call people who believe in God "idiots" or insult them just to be mean. However, they should have to provide evidence of why they believe that. What I really don't understand is how somebody who talks to an imaginary friend might end up in a mental institution, while it is perfectly acceptable to pray to God without providing any evidence of his existence.

 

Think about it this way. People who believe in a strict translation of The Bible say that the universe is only around 10,000 years old, while there is enough scientific evidence to prove otherwise. It seems perfectly reasonable to suggest that these people need psychiatric help if you are really sincere about it, and not just making fun of them. If fundamental Christianity was only a small minority, it would be absolutely absurd to suggest that the universe is only 10,000 years old. This minority of Christians would be asked to explain dinosaur fossils, the ability to see objects that are billions of light-years away, and all the other evidence that suggests an older universe. The only reason fundamental Christians aren't forced to explain any of this is because they are not a small minority.

 

If the majority of the population were atheists, a Christian would have to do a lot of explaining. If a Christian started praying in public, people would ask him who he was talking to. If the Christian said that he was praying to God, he would be expected to give some evidence of God's existence. Otherwise, he would likely be treated the same way as someone who talks to an imaginary friend.

 

My whole point here is that your religion will only be accepted if it's a major part of society, and I don't consider this to be true freedom of religion. If you decided to start talking to your own god, people will think you are crazy. If we really had freedom of religion in society, people wouldn't be put into mental institutions for hearing voices in their heads, or speaking to shadows on the wall. If we expected everyone to provide evidence for their beliefs, it would be acceptable to say that Christians need psychiatric help unless they could provide scientific evidence for their beliefs.

[woelen]

Herme3, again, I get an unpleasant smell from your post. You seem very frustrated about your past. You think you are free now, but in reality you imprison yourself in your own frustration and negative feelings about the past and besides that, you imprison yourself in your selfmade lonelyness. Whom is to blame for that? YOU!

 

Think twice, you cut away everything of value to you. I remember the thread you started a while ago, where you mentioned you did not need anyone anymore, and you would be happy alone in your own little world. No more contact with college mates, no more contact with your friends. You are cutting off again a possible source of contacts, and I say this, not to annoy you, but only because I see a trend in how you develop. Look at yourself in the past 6 months and how you developed.

 

This may sound very harsh towards you, but it is not meant like that. I just write this as a warning.

 

Whatever direction you choose to go, please do not evangelize your new "freedom" over here, I also already mentioned that in the other thread, you just started.

PS: I'm writing this particular message as "woelen" and not as SFN-moderator, so please do not understand this as a threat to take moderator action. Just to make things 100% clear.

[Phi for All]

and how about: a Place for everything, and Everything in it`s place?

 

SI-UNS FOR-UMZ!!!!!! no no no, baaad place for this!

Chill out, chili-man, I'd like to transfer this whole thread over to TF when we're up and running. This is NOT the God Discussion forum but a little venting of spiritual steam should be overlooked while we get our act packed up and on the road.

 

Btw, that's not how you spell siunce. :D :D

[mike90]

Herme I really don't think you mean any harm, but you should be careful how you word things. Having a faith in God is just that... faith. Faith by definition does not require proof and as has been stated many times before there is no scientific way to prove or disprove God, so theres not really any "evidence" to begin with. Your church did not work for you and thats fine. If thats the case you may be happier without it, to each their own.

 

But remember theres no discernible difference between attacking someone for beileving in God or attacking them for not beileving in God. You did not like someone dictacting to you how to live your life. See where I'm going with this?

[gib65]

Hi IMM,

 

Both you and Bascule seem to have possessed avatars What happened?!?!

 

herme3,

 

I have no idea what your past is like or what kind of posts you've made in the last 6 months (maybe I'll do a search), so I'm just going to comment on your post as is.

 

You started out sounding like you thought Christians or any religious person aught to be confined to a mental asylum. But then near the end, I got a different impression. It started sounding like you're saying no one should be confined simply for having different beliefs from the mainstream.

 

Two thoughts come to mind: 1) Having beliefs that one cannot prove is not the mark of insanity. More often than not, the most sane person is the one who adapts to his/her own culture's views. So if Christian thought is the mainstream thought of the age, you will find the typical sane person subscribing to Christianity. But when Christianity gives way to a new scientific era, the typical sane person becomes more open to a scientific view. I don't want to say the sane person adopts a scientific view because our culture isn't exactly like that - our culture exercises freedom of belief, which means the sane person, in our culture, recognizes that he/she has the freedom to choose one belief system over another.

 

2) I think society is moving away from the view of insanity as "someone who believes in 'crazy' ideas without proof". I think we're starting to recognize that what warrants institutionalizing someone for mental illnesses the most is if they are doing harm to others or themselves, or in some way cannot function in society. This actually ties directly into the point I was making in my OP - when is a religion simply different or even "weird" and when is it dangerous?

[LivinLiberal]

2 cents worth. Human institutions, almost all human institutions look good on paper. It is the "Human's" involvement that corrupts the goals of institutions!