Crusades against religion

[Vexen]

I am not religious by any means ( although raised Roman Catholic since I was born in Italy ) and have no need for it, But some people do, as it gives their lives purpose and guidance.

 

This is a very important statements, religion is an opiate and a crutch. Edited December 12, 2014 by Vexen

[Ophiolite]

This is a very important statements, religion is an opiate and a crutch.

You imply that people without religion have no need of opiates or crutches. If that is your intent then I challenge it. There are few persons who do not have some belief, or perception that allows them to function in a hostile universe.

[Ten oz]

The notion that Atheists are crusading against religion by being open about their beliefs doesn't make any sense. It is religious people who claim those with different beliefs than their own will forever burn in a sea of fire. Atheists are not the ones pushing their beliefs on people by forcing women to cover up, doing all they can to block the LGBT community from various rights, blowing up abortion clinics, and so on. Atheists do not campaign for unsupported science like creationism to be taught in public schools or attempt to force their history into any curriculum. Nothing Richard Dawkins says ultimately has any personal impact on the lives of religious people. Religion still gets its tax free status (here in the USA), the prodoniment religion in most countries still dictates the nation holiday schedule, still influence government, etc, etc, etc.

Here is the states Christians get their 10 commandments displays, get their nativity scenes, public schools have million of school children organizing Christmas events, get their tax free status, get the ears of politicians, yet put themselves up on a cross any time someone vioces an opposing point of view. Religion claiming to be under attack from atheists is as empty a chargen as saying rich people are under attack by poor people.

[delboy]

Most are there because they care for their fellow human beings, that we are all on some level interconnected and that only together we can survive and achieve. This is something Religion teaches us

Religion has taught these things. But I think it's very important to recognise the difference between morality and religion. Morality can teach these things perfectly well without religion. In fact atheistic morality can certainly teach them far better since it is able to very quickly move with the times.

If religion respects science it would realise it cannot exist because there is no scientific evidence for it's core beliefs.

If decisions are made in the modern world based on writings from 2000 years ago, which have largely been proven wrong, then what hope is there that these decisions are good ones. A religious morality is on decidedly dodgy ground.

[Robittybob1]

Religion has taught these things. But I think it's very important to recognise the difference between morality and religion. Morality can teach these things perfectly well without religion. In fact atheistic morality can certainly teach them far better since it is able to very quickly move with the times.

If religion respects science it would realise it cannot exist because there is no scientific evidence for it's core beliefs.

If decisions are made in the modern world based on writings from 2000 years ago, which have largely been proven wrong, then what hope is there that these decisions are good ones. A religious morality is on decidedly dodgy ground.

What do you mean proven wrong? All I see is a lot of doubt and very little proof.

[delboy]

What do you mean proven wrong? All I see is a lot of doubt and very little proof.

There are plenty of things that science comes as close to proving wrong as you can get - the world isn't 10,000 years old, it wasn't created in 7 days, things do evolve, the world isn't the centre of the universe etc etc.

[MigL]

I agree with all you, religion is a crutch, not everyone needs one but a person with a broken leg certainly does. Do you think it wise to ridicule that person and dismiss or take away his crutch ? Ophiolite obviously doesn't, and neither do I.

 

And I agree Delboy, morality could now replace Religion, and for a lot of people, myself included, it has.

Do you think it could have in previous eras, like 1000 yrs ago ? Or do you think the 'fear' that religion instills was a suitable means of achieving morality in those days ?

 

As I said for a lot of people Religion is no longer needed, for others it is.

[Ophiolite]

Building on MigL's comments, I am always amazed and a little saddened, by those critics of religion who fail to acknowledge the vital role that religion played for millenia in helping foster unity within societies. I don't doubt that it also contributed to enmity between societies, but arguably those societies would not have grown in the first place without the moral structure and common world view created by religion.

 

Please note, I am building on MigL's comments, not asserting that he will necessarily agree with mine.

[iNow]

Yes, some people need crutches. Yes, religion has served that role for millions of our fellow humans, has done so for centuries, and continues to do so today.

 

Can we not stipulate those points while also illuminating in parallel that this crutch has numerous flaws and/or negative downstream consequences, that it is often found lacking when attempting to adequately support the weight of most existential and cultural angst in our modern age, and that even remedial levels of scrutiny makes clear that better walking aids and adaptations clearly exist?

[Vexen]

Building on MigL's comments, I am always amazed and a little saddened, by those critics of religion who fail to acknowledge the vital role that religion played for millenia in helping foster unity within societies. I don't doubt that it also contributed to enmity between societies, but arguably those societies would not have grown in the first place without the moral structure and common world view created by religion.

 

Please note, I am building on MigL's comments, not asserting that he will necessarily agree with mine.

Especially in poor and impoverish communities where despair is a common emotion. To who does the weak minded and impoverished go when facing constant unhappiness? Faith in God for a better future is the only hope these people have. The secular community consists mainly middle and upper class people. None of whom face the daily challenges of the lower class. They have no idea what hardship these people face and rarely willing to help. Edited December 13, 2014 by Vexen

[iNow]

^Citation needed

[StringJunky]

^Citation needed

Will this do? There does seem to be an inverse correlation between wealth and religiosity from this:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_religion

[Vexen]

Will this do? There does seem to be an inverse correlation between wealth and religiosity from this:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_religion

Wow.

[Ten oz]

Religious people in the United States are the overwhelming majority. They have the most influence and power. It does not make sense to post about them (religious people) as if they were a weak minority downtrodden by powerful atheists. If there were a "crusade" against religion it certianly isn't a success one.

 

"The majority of Americans (73%) identify themselves as Christians and about 20% have no religious affiliation.[1] According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) of 2008, 76% of the American adult population identified themselves as Christians, with 51% professing attendance at a variety of churches that could be considered Protestant or unaffiliated, and 25% professing Catholic beliefs.[3][4] The same survey says that other religions (including, for example, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism) collectively make up about 4% of the adult population, another 15% of the adult population claim no religious affiliation, and 5.2% said they did not know, or they refused to reply."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

 

I think some of the attitude that drive the ideas associated with this discussion come from Christian tradition itself. As a matter of theology Christians have a concept of historical oppression or disrespect. Their god being often offended by people worshiping false idols and denying his will. Their messiahs like Moses and Jesus being mistreated prophets persecuted by the ruling class. It seems pitying their circumstance is part of the tradition of their faith. It is seen during the founding of the United States. Protestant felt downtrodden by the Church of England and set up their own communities for "freedom". Of course that moral ideal of freedom did not extend to natives and blacks. It was themselves there were felt pity for. Such repeated itself in the early years of the Mormorm church as they broke laws and killed innocent people while demanding freedom to found their own Zion. In recent years Christian fanatics like David Koresh painted himself a victim. Being the underdog and needing to push back and fight is an ongoing theme within the Christianity. So often repeated and expressed it feels like a real thing. In truth Christains are the majority. Christians are the ruling class.

[StringJunky]

Religious people in the United States are the overwhelming majority. They have the most influence and power. It does not make sense to post about them (religious people) as if they were a weak minority downtrodden by powerful atheists. If there were a "crusade" against religion it certianly isn't a success one.

I was going to say that the US seems to be quite an anomaly amongst the general trend globally.

[iNow]

Will this do?

Thank you. That certainly helps for the first assertion, but not the subsequent claims.

 

As a refresher:

 

"The secular community consists mainly middle and upper class people. None of whom face the daily challenges of the lower class. They have no idea what hardship these people face and rarely willing to help. "

 

Evidence is counter to those claims, as demonstrated clearly here: http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Secular_charities

Edited December 13, 2014 by iNow

[StringJunky]

As a refresher, those claims were:

"The secular community consists mainly middle and upper class people. None of whom face the daily challenges of the lower class. They have no idea what hardship these people face and rarely willing to help. "

 

Evidence is counter to those claims, as demonstrated clearly here: http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Secular_charities

Yes, on that point it's not relevant.

[dimreepr]

In one respect science and religion is one and the same thing, in that, they both seek to explain the world around them.

 

Sure science takes the high ground because it builds on evinced truth rather than believed truth.

 

But does it really matter how a truth is discerned if it makes a better world?

[Ten oz]

Thank you. That certainly helps for the first assertion, but not the subsequent claims.

As a refresher:

"The secular community consists mainly middle and upper class people. None of whom face the daily challenges of the lower class. They have no idea what hardship these people face and rarely willing to help. "

Evidence is counter to those claims, as demonstrated clearly here: http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Secular_charities

This speaks some to my point about there being somewhat of a tradition within old testament based religions of feeling downtroddened. There are imagined hardships they are constantly having to battling through. It is not a theme I have noticed in eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddism.

[MigL]

One seeks to explain the workings, The other seeks to explain purpose, dimreepr.

 

I'm not saying there is a 'crusade' against religion Tenoz, quite the contrary, I'm saying one is not needed.

Edited December 13, 2014 by MigL

[Ten oz]

In one respect science and religion is one and the same thing, in that, they both seek to explain the world around them.

 

Sure science takes the high ground because it builds on evinced truth rather than believed truth.

 

But does it really matter how a truth is discerned if it makes a better world?

 

I do not agree that religion seeks to explain things. History has shown that religions are willing to rewrite and flat out lie about history, discoveries, and work to keep people ill informed. Many religions start at conclusions and work to ensure everything supports those conclusions. They are not seeking to explain the world around them. They are seeking to influence and shape the world around them.

[dimreepr]

Religions, did start with the intention to explain our world; history has since shown that explanation to be false.

 

I wonder if science, held to its current explanation, would be any different given such a large expanse of time?

[Vexen]

Religions, did start with the intention to explain our world; history has since shown that explanation to be false.

God: The failed hypothesis

[dimreepr]

God: The failed hypothesis

 

And just how many failed hypothesis does science produce?

[delboy]

And I agree Delboy, morality could now replace Religion, and for a lot of people, myself included, it has.

Do you think it could have in previous eras, like 1000 yrs ago ? Or do you think the 'fear' that religion instills was a suitable means of achieving morality in those days ?

I think religion on balance was good thing back then. It worked so it outweighed the downsides.

I'm not saying there is a 'crusade' against religion Tenoz, quite the contrary, I'm saying one is not needed.

What about the many wars that have religion as a major part of the underlying cause? Is that a good reason to get rid of religion?

I just feel that if decisions are made based on untruths written in a very old book then there's something wrong.