Are We Wrong To Hate Religions?

[ghstofmaxwll]

Are we wrong to hate religions? Afterall they do a lot of good, and many followers do become more selfless people. Would the world be a worst place without religions?

[Phi for All]

I think anyone who would make a blanket hate-statement about something as broad as "religions" is automatically wrong. While I can understand someone having a bone to pick with a certain religion, condemning "religions" is fallacious in the extreme.

 

We will need a psychological "hook" to allow this thread to remain open. Practical experience has led us to disallow threads that simply bash religion.

[ghstofmaxwll]

Huh? Are you retarded? Where did I say I hate religions?

[ecoli]

Huh? Are you retarded? Where did I say I hate religions?

 

Where did phi for all say that you hate religion?

 

Read carefully before responding, please.

[ghstofmaxwll]

I did! I didnt start the thread "to bash religion". I started the thread because I thought most of us here were above believing in superstitions, so therefore asked the question "Would we be better off if religion was not here?", or would we in fact be worse off?

[ecoli]

I did! I didnt start the thread "to bash religion". I started the thread because I thought most of us here were above believing in superstitions, so therefore asked the question "Would we better off if religion was not here?", or would we in fact be worse of?

yes, to which phi responded,

 

I think anyone who would make a blanket hate-statement about something as broad as "religions" is automatically wrong. While I can understand someone having a bone to pick with a certain religion, condemning "religions" is fallacious in the extreme.

 

We will need a psychological "hook" to allow this thread to remain open. Practical experience has led us to disallow threads that simply bash religion.

 

key words to pay attention to... he said "anyone". He did not say he was talking about you, but rather people who make broad statements of hate.

 

your generalizations were not that you hate religion, but that you said "we" hate religion. That is the generalization to which phi was warning against. You were not clear on who "we" is. Society, SFN, world populations, scientists?

[ghstofmaxwll]

Well to clarify: In general Atheists resent the corruption of young minds and basic indoctrination. As well as the dismissal of established science(like evolution) that religion involves.

[ydoaPs]

In general Atheists resent the corrupting of young minds and basic indoctrination.

Don't most people?

 

As well as the dismissal of established science(like evolution) that religion involves.

Religion involves dismissal of established science?

[iNow]

I think this could be an interesting discussion if everyone remained settled.

 

The point, as I see it, seems to be that most scientists are critical thinkers, and a growing number of those who enjoy science see religion as detrimental. This is not to say that no scientists are religious, just that recent numbers suggest that fewer are than were previously.

 

Perhaps another way to ask the same question, while simultaneously keeping the discussion mellow, would be:

 

What are some of the negative aspects of religion, and what are some of the positives?

[ghstofmaxwll]

Yeah, I guess I've been on Richard Dawkins Forums too long.

[Mr Skeptic]

Religion attracts a certain type of people, and generally gives them something positive to do (helping the poor, etc). If superstitious/easily manipulated people were left to themselves, they would form something like religion regardless, potentially under the leadership of someone with a dubious agenda. You might end up with some cults or other dangerous groups, instead of some people trying to help the poor.

[Phi for All]

Huh? Are you retarded? Where did I say I hate religions?

ghstofmaxwll, I think you suffer from an extreme case of egocentrism. Psychologically, egocentrics regard everything as revolving around themselves. This isn't the first time you've jumped on something I said that wasn't aimed at you and made it personal. You respond with personal attacks (Are you retarded?) [ummm, that was what *you* said, it wasn't a question aimed at you. I wanted to be perfectly clear on that].

 

Perhaps this egocentrism affects your opinion of "religions" as a whole. I would imagine many religious people (well, Christians mostly) would claim they have abandoned an egocentric approach in favor of a life dedicated to helping others and trying to achieve a more humble demeanor. I would say that a lot of the "good" you mention in your OP does seem to stem from a more selfless approach to life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope I put enough spacing between this paragraph and the last so that ghstofmaxwll doesn't think the rest of this is aimed solely at him/her. Did I? Hope so.

 

I find it hard to dislike (I don't really *hate* anyone) religious people who are basically kind-hearted. Extremism is to be avoided no matter what you're talking about and religion does have it's share, but I think the majority are fairly decent. Only creationists disregard established science that I've seen, and most of that is the stubborn refusal to accept that the Hebrew word for "day" has multiple meanings. Take away that and their insistence that the world is only 6000 years old and I could be roommates with one (for a semester, maybe).

 

As with anything in this world, there are always good and bad involved (and even that changes with your POV). The rigidity of religion has always turned me off even though I have my spiritual beliefs. That's really the point though; they're *my* spiritual beliefs and I don't require anyone else to follow along in order to be acceptable. Perhaps that's where organized religion and egocentrism collide; people who don't want to follow often find themselves leading a congregation of one. That sure doesn't bug me at all but an egocentric would probably hate those who were trying to urge them to get in line.

 

Perhaps another way to ask the same question, while simultaneously keeping the discussion mellow, would be:

 

What are some of the negative aspects of religion, and what are some of the positives?

I appreciate the attempt to calm troubled waters, but my earlier point (you know, the completely misinterpreted one?) was that we don't discuss religion here because of problems in the past. Discussing a psychological aspect of how people view religion is perfectly acceptable in *this* subforum, however. My admonition was aimed at those I knew were going to post after me and I wanted to avoid the typical religion-bashing devolution we've come to expect from religious discussions.

[ghstofmaxwll]

Im British.

[Phi for All]

Im British.

Ah! Right then, carry on.

[ydoaPs]

I appreciate the attempt to calm troubled waters, but my earlier point (you know, the completely misinterpreted one?) was that we don't discuss religion here because of problems in the past. Discussing a psychological aspect of how people view religion is perfectly acceptable in *this* subforum, however. My admonition was aimed at those I knew were going to post after me and I wanted to avoid the typical religion-bashing devolution we've come to expect from religious discussions.

I don't think that was the entire problem. As I have said before, I think there is another part to the problem we had and this part is often overlooked.

 

The problem with this site's religion forum was not just the "politically correct, accepted majority here at SFN, which clearly believes that religion is a bad influence on society, and that it must be attacked"(as Pangloss would say) but also people who get too emotional any time anything even close to what could be perceived as challenging religion comes up(almost bordering a martyr complex). Both sides are the problem; not just the religion bashers. It is almost as if each side is a parasitic meme using the other as one of their hosts; the more the religion bashers bash religion, the more the martyrs cry persecution and the more the martyrs cry persecution, the more the bashers think the martyrs are messed up in the head.

 

Both extremes are present here and neither, imo, are mature enough to post about religion.

 

That is why religion on SFN has yet to succeed. If we are to bring it back, the list of users unable to access the religion forum due to a lack of maturity would most likely take out the majority of the users interested in the forum, so it may be best for those wanting to post about religion to find a separate religion forum.

 

But, then again, I may just be crazy.

[foodchain]

Well following along with Dawkins blind watch maker I don’t see animism really as anything shocking to have exist. That being said I do generally hate religion as in a blanket statement. I see it really as nothing more then a stagnation towards people ever coming to grips with reality. I mean think about it, for say the bible, you do what the book says and then when you die you go to the forever happy place... I mean I don’t want to sound retarded but that pretty much does.

 

I think our past president here in the states, Clinton I think stated that some people simply need religion because they are pushed over the edge easily. I am not sure though if he was the one that said that. Such being said again I have found my way through life without religion. I have no criminal record, I have no illegitimate children, I have no drug addictions, in fact I basically wanted to spend my life furthering understanding of the natural world since I can remember.

 

I think the reality again is that blind watch maker concept and the human reaction to existence which we hardly understand that fosters religion. I do hate how it combats and advancement basically of the human condition and retards the minds of millions of young people to the point in which they would be suicide bombers or worse, vote for the GOP with people like bush saying god told him to invade a country, these people control armies and nukes and international peace to a large extent, they should be marginalized and then done away with in a peaceful and civil fashion before they get us all killed, article of evidence the history of religion and the millions upon millions of dead in its wake, the non stop attack on anything intellectual, the constant strive for governmental control thus law and influence. They are also prime I think in keeping humanity and life on general in the trajectory of heading towards GW. If you want to act now, the best thing you can do is spread dinosaurs all over the landscape, heck even get a dino t-shirt with a t-rex pursuing Jesus or Allah or whatever…

 

If religion had its way you would be lucky to have a vocabulary large enough to read whatever the current instruction manual of religious communism allowed, of course subject to the ruling elite monkey(funny how that works out).

[Phi for All]

But, then again, I may just be crazy.

No, I think you're exactly right. Intolerance for the opinions of others (and since there are no facts, it's *all* opinion) is nowhere more prevalent than in religious discussions. And both sides are to blame.

 

I've said it before: science and religion can get along as long as one isn't used against the other.

 

Scientists: stop asking for proof, there is none.

Believers: stop trying to argue that science is misinterpreting the facts, they aren't.

 

'kay?

 

Anything after this could actually be pretty interesting.

[ydoaPs]

What are some of the negative aspects of religion, and what are some of the positives?

I'm not sure there is a meaningful answer for religion in general. After all, some religions are a great source for inspiration with almost no negative consequences in the real world and others teach objectively terrible thing. Then there is a whole host of religions filling the spectrum between.

 

Here is a good blog entry on the subject.

[Sisyphus]

Even if you could make a coherent statement about religion as a whole, you'd get a dozen people flaming you for using a different definition of "religion" than they use. Discussions like this are hopeless unless you drastically narrow your focus.

[GrandMasterK]

In my 8th grade history class, the teacher had a friend come in one day to talk about (as far as I could tell) strange ways history of science, philosophy and religion mingle. He was very direct and frank, which to some could be perceived as rude or disrespectful. We entered a part of the discussion that basically insisted that most people's opinions were premeditated through disconnected thoughts that don't find their source from anything rational/logical (bad wording on my part). Nobody really knew what he was talking about and neither did I and probably still don't have a proper concept of his ideas.

 

So this guy asks "Who here is christian? Raise your hand." About 6 or 7 go up in the room. Then he asks "Who here is an atheist? Raise your hand." Everyone else in the room's hand goes up (about 2/3 of the class). After a pensive moment, he asked the christians to raise their hands again. So then he pointed a girl out in the back who's hand was raised. He said "You, recite a verse from the bible". She asked what he meant and he just repeated himself "give us a line from the bible, any line, go!". After 2 minutes of embarassing contemplation she said she didn't know. He pointed out one of the guys who raised his hand this time and he didn't any either. Moved on to the next person and the next person. There were alot of "I've read, I just.....I can't think of any right now".

 

At this time he asked all the atheists in the room to raise their hands. He then proceeded to go through all of them, asking them if they could recite a line from the bible, including myself. I had nothing, I had never read the bible or memorized anything I've heard about it. Only one person could. A goth looking girl of sorts, wore black clothes most of the time, had that rebel behavior, rings and bracelets and piercings, heavy metal band shirts, all that. Acted much older then she was (13) and was probably one of the brightest people at our school in hindsight, though her grades were some of the worst. So she went on and on about her rather well thought out reasoning of why God does not exist. Half way through she seemed to switch gears while elaborating on her ideas and revealed herself to be a satanist. A satanist claiming to be an atheist. So this guy asked her some questions she didn't know how to answer. Where the idea of Satan came from without God and how her ideologies don't tie into each other. They went on for awhile with her getting frustrated and feeling beaten because she had never given thought to something that seems like it should of been obvious. She also revealed in the discussion that her study of the bible was dictated on a feeling of hate.

 

So after making the entire class feel like fools, he asked us to give our reasons of why God doesn't exist. Your typical answers "it's too farfetched", "my sister died in a car accident when she was little", "the world is too evil", "there's no science in any of it", "I need proof of supernatural occurances" and all that. Then he asked us to give reasons why God does exist. A silent room. Then he asked us "What is it about the world that could of led a room full of kids who's completely nurtured thirteen years on this planet to the conclusion of whether or not a God exists? What knowledge have you gained? What experiences have you had?." Those questions seem like they fell into the mind of everyone. I asked myself those questions and after fighting the truth I accepted the fact that what inspired me to reject the idea of a God was doubt. Nothing more, just doubt, aroused by nothing but the sake of the very emotion that is doubt. It's almost a fad isn't it?

 

I wish I could remember it more clearly and word it better. There really is no moral to the story. I just thought it would be an interesting little tale that makes you think about what inspires people to make the decisions they do and what was it based on? Questions you can only really ask yourself as it is very difficult to get to the truth of someone else's processing. After all, nobody likes the idea that they are wrong when it comes to their own philosophies.

 

P.S. That teacher was gone by the time I started going to high school as a freshman, I never heard accurately if he quit or was fired but I can take a guess.....

[JaKiri]

He's twisting the burden of proof there, somewhat. There's some blind faith from both sides, but from the sound of it he was trying too hard to present both sides as incorrect.

 

That may have been the point, quite often if you want to teach you argue for effect, rather than necessarily what you believe.

[foodchain]

He's twisting the burden of proof there, somewhat. There's some blind faith from both sides, but from the sound of it he was trying too hard to present both sides as incorrect.

 

That may have been the point, quite often if you want to teach you argue for effect, rather than necessarily what you believe.

 

I don’t know. The history of religion would basically have it in any recorded sense as basically pagan. What I mean by pagan is basically in China for instance religion was different depending on the house you currently were visiting. It was pretty much the same the world over before more large scale or organized religions came about. This subsequently on its own lead to the extinction of many other religions and in many cases this came by means of violence. Science on its own as a field continues to bear the burden of constant attack from various religious sects and I cant really find one that is free from causing human misery to be honest.

 

I don’t lump individual spirituality into the mix, nor am I trying to attack a persons concept of something like that. I know such questions cant move currently beyond the realm of faith. Its just the point that an entire generation, like say during Martin Luther’s rain in Europe can pour its actions collectively into something like that, its why you get crusades and jihads I think. I mean the world is what it is, you could go swimming in a lake and die from an amoeba eating your brain basically... This is where I think religion came into play, as its a something of a reaction by our species over time to the environment and surely has elements of nature and nurture at play.

 

I mean there is one recorded moment from the crusades I think in which the slowly going mad armies conducting the crusades basically approached of course in he form of a person all normal and stuff with the question about all the death and destruction. The clergy then promptly basically used the I talk to god or this is gods will to resolve the issue. So it was by itself an enabler and really continues to be for death on a quite massive scale. I don’t see how anyone could be taken wrong for disagreeing with such a reality.

 

I mean you have spokes people for the worlds main religions talking about how they are all about peace, but then you have reality. Its like all those intelligent people that state what Iraq is, and then of course you have reality.

 

Personally also I do not see how science could be a religion really. Last time I checked a molecular biology class does not deliver a sermon on why its wrong to covet thy neighbors wife. It might describe a possible mechanism on why its occurs> :D but it does not delve into any "moral" jargon.

 

One thing I do know is that organized religion has made a point about combating empirical understanding. This should be alarming to any rational person. I mean you do know some whackjobs built a creation museum down in the south of America that shows carnivorous dinosaurs at peace with homo sapiens right? I mean what would they do to any textbook of natural sciences if actually allowed to? The earth I think would be flat and the center of the universe and only 2007 years old overnight, at least that’s my opinion.

[JaKiri]

Personally also I do not see how science could be a religion really. Last time I checked a molecular biology class does not deliver a sermon on why its wrong to covet thy neighbors wife. It might describe a possible mechanism on why its occurs> :D but it does not delve into any "moral" jargon.

 

For most of the young atheists in his classroom, the glory of science would almost certainly not have been routed in reading on the scientific methodolgy that got us the evidence, or the evidence itself. It's certainly not based on reading the bible, as the quote shows.

 

Quite often in classrooms, science is presented as mystical truths from on high. To use an example given by Feynman when he made a talk on the topic of science education, "What makes a dog move? Energy makes it move!"

 

That's not science, it's not teaching people about the world or how we reached that conclusion.

[foodchain]

For most of the young atheists in his classroom, the glory of science would almost certainly not have been routed in reading on the scientific methodolgy that got us the evidence, or the evidence itself. It's certainly not based on reading the bible, as the quote shows.

 

Quite often in classrooms, science is presented as mystical truths from on high. To use an example given by Feynman when he made a talk on the topic of science education, "What makes a dog move? Energy makes it move!"

 

That's not science, it's not teaching people about the world or how we reached that conclusion.

 

 

 

And I agree with you. Though for the sake of brevity in my reply I would have to think such may be a product of being human possibly? I mean how many people can with 100% accuracy explain why they even used the words they chose in a sentence? Or the thoughts used for the matter?

 

So basically if you were again to take a molecular biology class a possible scenario is a joke or pun made on human nature, but in reality such as eyesight there is a grain of truth to it, but as you state its hardly the exact reason on why science may claim something. You also do learn that though as you go along. I mean I am not going to call myself a giant amino acid complex, but its a possible joke I guess;)

[T man831]

hating other religions is wrong... how ever accepting them as being week minded, or lesser, i think is normal.