Are We Wrong To Hate Religions?

[woelen]

It's a long time ago that I have posted here. Some of you may remember me from one year ago (or something like that) and the time that I have been very active on this forum, especially in the chemistry and also in the math sections.

 

I can only draw the conclusion from all my reading of the last few months that SFN has become the militant atheists platform, despite the effort of the moderators to make things different.

 

Is this a science forum? I more and more doubt this. I just want to express my sadness on how SFN has developed the last year. Less science, more extreme POV's.

 

The attitude and taste of this makes me sad. You take away the fun of being a scientist for many people. Do you really think YOU have the truth and all those religious people are retarded. I don't expect an answer, I only post this in the hope that some of you will reflect on what they write.

 

The attitude I see over here on SFN does harm to the image of science. I already have met a few people, who were scared away by what they have been reading over here. Not because of scientific contents (which unfortunately is slowly going to a lower level), but because of the arrogant attitude of "we all know what is best for the world, and all those religious persons are poor souls who still did not see the light".

 

What I am writing certainly does not apply to all of you. I especially want to tell this to the moderator team. But I simply could not resist to express my sad feelings which I have after lurking this forum for the past 8 months.

[iNow]

Do you really think YOU have the truth and all those religious people are retarded.

Appeal to Shame.

Appeal to Pity.

Strawman.

And... well, yes (except for the part about me having the truth, I only have a personal interpretation)... but maybe not "retarded," just at least misled to the point of limiting our society's advancement.

 

 

The attitude I see over here on SFN does harm to the image of science.

Science is not an image, nor does it have one per se. It's a method. That's it.

 

 

But I simply could not resist to express my sad feelings which I have after lurking this forum for the past 8 months.

You are free to believe whatever you want. You can put your faith wherever you want. Why are you so hurt that total strangers don't agree with your personal choices? Why are you so insecure in your faith that you have to express the harm done to you by faceless individuals who feel otherwise?

 

 

I am not saddened in my atheism because you don't support it. What's the difference between you and I? I am comfortable with my approach to world and don't need it validated by others. I am confident that the decision I have made is the intelligent one, and is not based on unfounded belief or faith. You apparently don't share the same comfort in your own belief system that I do with mine.

[Reaper]

I can only draw the conclusion from all my reading of the last few months that SFN has become the militant atheists platform, despite the effort of the moderators to make things different.

 

Is this a science forum? I more and more doubt this. I just want to express my sadness on how SFN has developed the last year. Less science, more extreme POV's.

 

How so?

 

The attitude and taste of this makes me sad. You take away the fun of being a scientist for many people. Do you really think YOU have the truth and all those religious people are retarded. I don't expect an answer, I only post this in the hope that some of you will reflect on what they write.

 

I don't think any of us here claim that, other than saying that religion and everything else isn't provable by any means.

 

but because of the arrogant attitude of "we all know what is best for the world, and all those religious persons are poor souls who still did not see the light".

 

Well, that's not really different from any other religion, especially that of the Abrahamic religions. From my observations, atheists generally do not damn non-believers to hell.

[Dak]

The lack of evidence for a god makes it empirically, and thus scientifically, true that there isn't a god, just as is the case for everything else

 

Is that true? I'd hav thought that the 'hypothesys' would predict that both the existance and non-existance of god would result in no evidence; hence, empirically, a lack of evidence can not be thought of as empirically supporting the rejection of the hypothesys?

 

iow: empiricism/science cannot, strictly speaking, comment on god (of the 'i shalt not revealeth mine presence' variety). hence the stance that science may be best thought of as agnostic, tho i'm not entirely sure that's the correct term for a disipline that completely and utterly ignores the possibility that god exists due to it's incapability to descide and it's lack of need to make a descision?

 

I can only draw the conclusion from all my reading of the last few months that SFN has become the militant atheists platform, despite the effort of the moderators to make things different.

 

what militant atheists? even ydoaps has calmed down...

 

nice to see you back btw, hope you stay -- afaict, the maths and chemistry sections are completely free of religious discussion.

 

-----

 

and i still think we need the p&r forum back to sandbox these kind of discussions. they're starting to pop up more frequently about the place.

[ydoaPs]

It's a long time ago that I have posted here. Some of you may remember me from one year ago (or something like that) and the time that I have been very active on this forum, especially in the chemistry and also in the math sections.

It's nice to see you posting again. I was actually wondering where you've been yesterday. I hope you stick around.

 

 

I can only draw the conclusion from all my reading of the last few months that SFN has become the militant atheists platform, despite the effort of the moderators to make things different.

I'm afraid I don't quite share that view. Yes, there are some strong atheists here, but there are also a fare share of theists and weak atheists. It may not be as much of SFN being a "militant atheist platform" as much as it is extremists tending to be noticed more.

 

Is this a science forum? I more and more doubt this. I just want to express my sadness on how SFN has developed the last year. Less science, more extreme POV's.

Could you please provide a few examples?

 

The attitude and taste of this makes me sad. You take away the fun of being a scientist for many people.

I'm not really sure what you mean. People being able to voice their differing opinions takes away the fun of being a scientist? I think it only adds to the fun. Seeing other people's ideas and discussing them is a big part of what I like about SFN. Discussing/debating ideas helps you see how people thing and I find that interesting. Or, maybe I'm just misunderstanding you; it wouldn't be the first time.

 

Do you really think YOU have the truth

Do you?

 

nice to see you back btw, hope you stay -- afaict, the maths and chemistry sections are completely free of religious discussion.

Indeed

[doG]

I can only draw the conclusion from all my reading of the last few months that SFN has become the militant atheists platform, despite the effort of the moderators to make things different.

 

I think they just post more. Squeaky doors get more attention than quiet ones...

[ParanoiA]

What I am writing certainly does not apply to all of you. I especially want to tell this to the moderator team. But I simply could not resist to express my sad feelings which I have after lurking this forum for the past 8 months.

 

I'm glad you included this part because some of us have tried to be respectful of theism, yet consistent that science simply has an untestable hypothesis concerning god.

 

I don't have any history with you, I'm kinda new, but I have read some of your posts in other sections and really look forward to you sticking around.

 

However, I was mistaken in my definition of "null hypothesis", thinking that it meant God as a concept was unclassifiable and therefore outside of science. I see that it really means that it makes no difference or has no effect on any conclusions and I agree that God doesn't fit into *that* classification.

 

Yeah, I looked it up and it has nothing to do with what I was trying to say. I apologize, that was stupid.

 

I thought there was a term for an untestable hypothesis - even if it was untestable due to technical limitations which could plausibly be available in the potentially infinite future. Whatever that is, that's what I'm talking about. Lucaspa's bit on this is great, I advise anyone to look up one of those threads.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I can only draw the conclusion from all my reading of the last few months that SFN has become the militant atheists platform, despite the effort of the moderators to make things different.

Could you provide examples? If SFN is projecting this image, it's something we'd like to stop. We've already banned most religious discussion and this discussion is walking a fine line.

 

What I am writing certainly does not apply to all of you. I especially want to tell this to the moderator team. But I simply could not resist to express my sad feelings which I have after lurking this forum for the past 8 months.

 

We welcome any input and our policy of stopping religious threads will continue. I'll take a good look at this thread and any others and see if there's something going on that needs to change.

[gcol]

SFN has become "the militant atheists platform"...... a perhaps understandable overreaction, surely? If there are such people, they appear to be a threatened minority. Why should they feel threatened. Could it be because the main aim of militant theists is to convert non-believers? It is surely normal behaviour for threatened minorities to join together as 'brothers in adversity'.

 

Is there anyone who does not see the influence of religion in politics, philosophy, science and the human condition in general. Is it another 'truth which dare not speak its name'?

 

If the merest mention of religious influence were to be censored from any discussion here, then perhaps the forum should be renamed homework help.

 

To some people, politics has become a religion. Should that be a taboo subject also.

 

Why is religion such a popular subject? Could it simply be that it is, as part of the great meaning of life, the universe and everything question, something that exercises the minds of most young and enquiring students. Should such healthy enquiry be actively discouraged?

 

Granted, the normal social rules of politeness and consideration should be adhered to, and when breached, should be heavily quashed.

 

Just how far should a broadminded, adult and far-reaching forum go in bending over backwards to protect the over-sensitivity of a minority. Perhaps their faith is not as strong as they maintain, and it might not stand in the cut and thrust of genuine two-way debate.

[Phi for All]

I think many people hold their spirituality to be a sacred thing, something that can't be sullied or criticized because faith is all about conviction and surety without evidence. This type of person is offended when others offer differing (or even radically opposing) opinions.

 

It's a strange dichotomy that pairs those people, who are often the most vocal at defending their beliefs, with people who oppose those beliefs. The sacred belief-holder seemingly can't let a criticism go unchallenged but is then offended even more as the discussion goes along.

 

Oddly enough, the admonition to, "stay out of the discussion if it offends you" isn't enough and instead some choose to simply leave the whole forum like woelen did. We even archived the whole P&R subforum and stopped anyone from posting new threads in it. But what brings woelen back? A religious discussion. It's like a bad traffic accident, you just can't stop yourself from glancing over as you drive by, even though you know it's nothing you really want to see.

 

I'm not being critical for it's own sake, woelen, you know that. I hope I don't offend you with this observation and like the others, I hope you will stay and share your chemistry knowledge with the rest of the community. I just think it's odd that you come back into the same controversy that caused you to leave, saying that we've become worse since we dropped the P&R section. Odd.

 

Odd, odd, odd.

[YT2095]

Perhaps their faith is not as strong as they maintain, and it might not stand in the cut and thrust of genuine two-way debate.

 

well, as a Christian myself, and also a Scientist, both to me are unshakable, yes I`m in the minority, but I am for many other things too.

do I care? no:cool: do I fret or fuss? no:cool:

 

is it Ever in conflict for me? no:cool:

 

do I care what You believe in? yes, but only to the degree that I would avoid trying to deliberately offend you, other than that, No

[gcol]

do I care what You believe in? yes, but only to the degree that I would avoid trying to deliberately offend you, other than that, No

 

Can't argue with that, but the minority I meant were the militant atheists.

[John Cuthber]

I don't hate religions particularly; I just dislike things that seem to lie to me.

[YT2095]

you must hate quite a few things then! television adverts I expect would be the main target I assume?

 

meh, naah scrap that, just general everyday Life is packed with lies as it is, I don`t think I`d select out religion specifically unless I had some Other motive to do so?

[gcol]

I don't hate religions particularly; I just dislike things that seem to lie to me.

 

Unmarried with no children, then!! (just joking, of course, I think...)

[Sayonara]

That is surely because many "official" scientists are religious, and they steer clear of arguing about things which are not scientifically provable. Personally, I am suspicious of the scientifc reasoning of religious scientists. I wonder if they have the courage of their scientific convictions.

When Lockheed stated that science has no opinion on god, what he meant is that there is currently no scientific basis or stance for predicting the existence or non-existence of a god. The personal beliefs of the people exercising the scientific method should methodologically be irrelevant to that outcome.

 

 

BTW everyone... this thread started badly and has not improved much. It has once or twice veered towards the kind of threads that made us close P&R. If you are not going to add value to the discussion, consider whether or not it is really worth bumping the thread.

[losfomot]

I don't see anything wrong with discussions of this sort. If someone reads the discussion and disagrees with some point(s), then give us your argument. But someone coming and saying something like 'it's wrong to discuss this, you should be ashamed' Seems a little like censorship. Obviously it is a topic that interests that person or he wouldn't be reading it. I am not saying that there should be an 'anything goes' policy... obviously a poster who posts in a vulgar or hateful manner should be warned and then banned if he continues.

 

Anyway, I am an agnostic/borderline atheist myself, and I have a Christian friend with whom I constantly have arguments about the existence of god. He is (apparently) unflinching in his faith, and it annoys me, but then I think about the strength his belief gives him and his family. It is a comfort to them to know that if any of them dies, they will be up in heaven waiting to be reunited. It allays their fears to some extent (even if some of us believe that their fears are being falsely allayed). Do I really want to be responsible for taking that away from him or anyone else? No. IF anything, I am a bit jealous... unfortunately (blind) Faith remains something that I just don't understand.

[Phi for All]

I don't see anything wrong with discussions of this sort. If someone reads the discussion and disagrees with some point(s), then give us your argument. But someone coming and saying something like 'it's wrong to discuss this, you should be ashamed' Seems a little like censorship.

We didn't say it's wrong to discuss it, we said our history with religious topics was not good. Discussing religion in a science forum almost always devolved into "God is omnipotent vs Show me the evidence" stalemates that caused harsh feelings. It took up half the Staff's time policing that one subforum.

 

We decided to close it and discourage discussions that invite non-scientific speculation. We've talked about bringing it back with severe restrictions but so far no one is sold on the solutions.

[Fred56]

Religion is arguably an institution that gets hijacked (because it is an institution of 'believers' who have a leader or two ready-made), often by men with quite different goals than 'peace and love everywhere'.

 

Guatama Buddha left strict instructions not to ever build or carve any likeness or image of himself. Christ was also quite plain about this issue. Hindu traditions and the overall religious theme (which has evolved over at least as long as European 'traditions'), I think represent almost the pantheon of religious themes, but the (evolved) undercurrent or tradition has a strong sense of the same, individual sense of godhood that are common to the others (if you're still with me here).

[gcol]

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?

 

This thread having got a bit heated, I revisited the OP to get a clue as to why.

 

It poses two questions and one statement. The first question is not debatable as it stands, because it makes the assumption that we all hate religion, which is arguably untrue. I know no-one who professes hatred for religions. Distrust and wariness, possibly.

 

The statement seems reasonably true.

 

The second question is fair to ask as a general philosophy question. If I wanted to debate it though, in a reasonable and thoughtful way, I would go to a philosophy forum and not a science forum.

 

So I dont see why all the fur and feathers began to fly.

[YT2095]

I don`t Quite see it like that, the question:"Would the world be a worst place without religions?"

 

I would have 2 answers for, the Theist parts says, in some ways Yes and in some ways No.

 

the Scientist part says that it would be impossible to determine (for too many reasons to list), it would need to be something that had to be Played out in order to find out (an Experiment if you like).

 

so I guess Both in way come to the same conclusion

 

and I`m ignoring the Semantic problems that arise form the question itself also, that would be part of the (too many to list).

[Eureko]

I don´t agree 100% with you. We can not determinate exactly how good or how bad could the world be with no religion, but actually we can experiment and even make models and hypothetizy making predictions, so we could, at least, get a qualitative scenarium of a world with no religion. Even so, I don´t know if this world would be a better one or not with no religion.

Also we should notice that when we say a "better" or "worst" world, we are saying it under the effect of a religious morality since our concept of good and bad (even that if nowadays we could dishtingish it from a pure religious one) is very linked to religion, and it has its rooth in it. So, maybe we could say a world would be better with no religion if we have had a non religious history and education (another morality), who could know in this case?

So, I am not qualified to answer in this case, and maybe nobody could.

But even this, and apart of this discussion I think that NOWADAYS and in WESTERN countries the life would be better with no religious.

[iNow]

Also we should notice that when we say a "better" or "worst" world, we are saying it under the effect of a religious morality since our concept of good and bad (even that if nowadays we could dishtingish it from a pure religious one) is very linked to religion, and it has its rooth in it.

Overall, I agree with your post, but not the point above. Morality is not rooted in religion, it is rooted in society itself. The social interactions and cross cultural code of conduct of our ancestors are what defined morality. It is only later that these morals got refined and woven into the fabric of religious teachings. Religion is not the root of morality, it is just one interpretation and delivery mechanism for it.

[YT2095]

Humans Like Wolves/dogs and other mammals are essentially Pack animals, we look after our own "Pack", and of course with that comes a sense of Morality and loyalty, and of course over time it has been of greater benefit to be this way and so evolution selects out the most successful methodology, and deletes the rest.

[Eureko]

Overall, I agree with your post, but not the point above. Morality is not rooted in religion, it is rooted in society itself. The social interactions and cross cultural code of conduct of our ancestors are what defined morality. It is only later that these morals got refined and woven into the fabric of religious teachings. Religion is not the root of morality, it is just one interpretation and delivery mechanism for it.

 

Yes, I understand this and I think you are in reason. I got exceded when saying that morality has its roots in religion, maybe I could say it softer, yes. What I ment is that morality has been created through historical process, and it is the product of all our past, and since we have had such a religious influence in the past, our culture, morality, customs, way of being in society... etc has have had a strong religious bases.

Of course I can be wrong, and maybe the morality that religion offers us is the product of the people that created religion and its bases by this time. This sounds much more logical, of course. Is it what you ment?