Religion...

Remove all ads!

. . .is perhaps the most deplorable myth in history.

It has lead to over half of all major wars ever waged. It proliferates offensive and illiberal ideas - those of misogyny, homophoebia and elitism. Its survival is not dependant on intelligent thought and reason, but indoctrination. It is a block on our development as humans, and instead promotes medieval theology.

Look at the bipolarity of the world today. The major struggle is not between democracy and authoritarianism, or socialism and liberalism - but between religious thought. Attacks on those of desent from the Christian world are mirrored by those on people from the Islamic world. History is a precursor - see previous Jihads or Holy Wars such as the Crusades. As religion is not based on reason, neither are its wars, and thus the outcomes are usually prolonged and grotesque.

It promotes completely irrational concepts. The Catholic Church objects to the spread of condoms in Africa. American evangelicals oppose abortion, and thus infringe on individuals' choices of which they have no right. Islam promotes the oppresive Bhurka and the diminuative role of women in society. Many have a view on homosexuality which ignores rational evidence but promulgates ancient works of fiction. Saint Augustine of Hippo is perhaps the greatest sinner - amending religious doctrine to see sexual activity as a highly negative thing: several centuries after the writing of the Bible. His whim has affected the social doctrination of millions for millenia.

Religion is not a free choice, but traditionally inherited. People rarely (though occasionally, and for these people I possess much more respect) pick there religion by weighing up the options, or independent of biased sources. It is normally a result of family or national socialisation. Most people who thus profess to know a universal truth are only spouting what has previously been spouted to them - they are not the possessors of a great knowledge above their station.

It is the greatest obstacle we face.

---------------------------------------------------

This is not my work, I saw it on another forum and I agreed with it so whole-heartedly that I thought I'd paste it onto here and let some of you discuss it. I think I'm right in thinking that some people on here are religious. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

 

I definitely agree with this sentiment.

 

Barmy, your opening up (yet another) can of worms, here. The validity and value of religion has been argued on this board many, many times. But, if you insist, LET THE FLAMING BEGIN!!

As for wars, very few wars have actually been fought over religion. Usually religion is just a pretext, an excuse, that people use to hate others, take their land, etc. There may have been a few civil wars over religion, but just like the American Civil War wasn't really about slavery (that was one of the smaller topics at hand), the vast majority of 'religious' wars have really been about other things. This goes for the lords, the knights, and even the peasants.
As for the polarity today, if you really think it would go away without religion, your fooling yourself. There are plenty of faithful muslim people who have no problem with America, many of them love it. Thus, Islam probably has no inherant problems with America, but muslim extremists still bomb us. They only use religion as an excuse for their hate and fear.
As for the Roman Catholic Church, that's more like a large cult than a real religion. They follow whateveer the pope says and if anyone questions him, they're ungodly. Abortion has also been debated on this board many times, so I'll just sumarize. There has been no consensus. Nothing guarantees the mother the right to kill her own fetus, but there are many things that (debatably) gurantee the fetus protections. Homosexuality falls in a similar category. You (through him) say we opposed to it ignore rational evidence, but I have yet to see any rational evidence of any kind that actually says homosexuality is good.
As for the delusion that most people don't pick their religion, I don't know a single person in my church (of over 3000) that simply took their parents religion. I also know more than a few who went to church as children with their parents but left the church as soon as possible. The idea that people can be bought so easily is clearly faulty. People have free will and exercise it regularly.
The greatest problems we face today are the same ones we've been facing for millenia: greed, hate, fear, jelousy, lust, social perversion, perversion of justice. God is our only defence against many of these, and our greatest against the rest.

 

Easy. Whoever wrote that thing starts from two assumptions: that civilisation is nothing but problems and that religion is responsible for it. I can see a sad person dissatisfied with his life and trying to find a scapegoat. Most likely religion because of some inability to do whatever he damn well please because of moral concerns, which is most likely simply conscience speaking.

But instead of playing Freud on the person, let me take a walk on the arguments...

First, constructs like, "It has lead to over half of all major wars ever waged," are meant as quasi-scientific pronouncements and their pomposity is intended to intimidate all opposition and make people shut up. In fact, it's in a very obvious way far from anything scientific because it's immeasurable. The person pulled the "over half" estimate out of his err... nose.

Second, sentences like, "It proliferates offensive and illiberal ideas," are obviously ideological and the use of big words like "proliferates" in conjunction with such creations as "illiberal" is intented to lend credit to the "illiberal" thing. Also, the conjunction between "offensive" and "illiberal" is intended to suggest that whatever is not liberal is wrong. It's easy to see that the author is some kind of grief-stricken liberal warring with religion, which is his own internal fight much more than he would realise. What is "offensive", besides? Not fitting his clear, predefined world of liberal ideas? That's the kind of dogmatism people criticise religions for.

Or, "those of misogyny, homophoebia and elitism." Obviously, the person has never read the New Testament and compared it with the historical reality of the Middle East and generally the world in the first century after Christ. Christianity was the force to tell men to treat their slaves well and see women as equally human beings as they were. But some liberals will see that as an affirmation of slavery and unequal rights of women. So, according to that person, should current world problems like famine, terrorism, discrimination here and there etc be solved by... what? Mass slaughter (for which religion is blamed, incidentally) or mostly vain preaching against the prevailing ideologies (ditto)?

"It is a block on our development as humans," any evidence? Or, "and instead promotes medieval theology," does the author really think that the moral teaching of Christianity is mediaeval? What world does he live in and what books does he read? Christianity predates middle ages by a couple of centuries and the Ten Commandments, as well as most of the associated moral teaching, comes from the ancient times. Of course, he would say, "See! It's even older than I said! It proves my point!" In fact, it only shows that the author should read more before starting to write.

In my view, the author is in a particularly sheepish kind of denial because he tends to criticise religious figures and religious people for whatever choice they make, even if it's a 0/1 choice.

"Its survival is not dependant on intelligent thought and reason, but indoctrination," could be said about ideologies such as the one the author is preaching. He doesn't have a piece of proof for his statements, which he's attempting to disguise as science. If that's not indoctrination... Besides, liberals simply love to usurp intelligent and reason, naively believing that if everyone would only like to think intelligently and autonomously, he would think like they do. So whoever disagrees with liberals is a drone of mediaeval powers, yadda yadda.

"The major struggle is not between democracy and authoritarianism, or socialism and liberalism - but between religious thought." What did fascism or communism have to do with religion? Do opponents of Islamistic fundamentalism in the West really defend Christian ideals or is that "not Islamic, so Christian" kind of thinking? Is communist China a theocracy? Was Saddam a religious dictator? What about Korea or Vietnam?

"History is a precursor - see previous Jihads or Holy Wars such as the Crusades," Jihad means "holy war". The author is trying to mask his shortage of knowledge all the time in that article. Besides, in the previous paragraph and before, I showed that person's historical preparation and attitude well enough, I trust.

"As religion is not based on reason, neither are its wars, and thus the outcomes are usually prolonged and grotesque," isn't that the case with all wars? Wars aren't exactly declared by the clergy but by secular rulers. The crusades were reaction to Islamic expansion, as well as the problems with access to holy places for Christian pilgrims. So long as there was no Islamic sabre-rattling, there was no crusading. Did the author even take the pain of reading up a bit on the history of post-Roman Middle East, notably the rise of Islam and the constant siege of the Byzantine empire? After the battle of Manzikert in 1024 between the Byzantines and the Seljuks, it was clear the Byzantine empire would collapse without internal help in a matter of time. Be it decades or centuries. A force of mercenaries, unless you prefer to call it military aid, was all that the Emperor Alexios needed or wanted. The social problem of lack of room for expansion in Europe was what contributed to the pretaste of European colonialism that actually took place instead.

"It promotes completely irrational concepts," in whose view? Does liberal equate rational? " The Catholic Church objects to the spread of condoms in Africa," so? Are condoms so complete and always working ways of preventing AIDS? Whoever knows he has AIDS and decides to have sex with someone who doesn't have, consciously and willingly accepts at least a couple percent chance of inflicting a lethal disease on the partner. If the chance is 3%, it takes 33 intercourses to be almost sure of the chance coming true. A month or two or three of life together achieves that. The Catholic Church is opposed to taking such chances and it's opposed to premarital sex in general, as well as anticonception, which are two reasons why condoms seem to be so indispensable.

"American evangelicals oppose abortion, and thus infringe on individuals' choices of which they have no right," WTF? So when abolitionist opposed slavery, they infringed on slavers' property rights, of which they had no right? Abortion is the killing of a human foetus, which is a separate being from the pregnant woman. As such, it's not an internal organ and therefore the matter is not of the woman's own choice. Liberty in the good old understanding of the founders of the movement was far from freedom from consequences of one's action. It was freedom to take action and to take the consequences. The freedom not to be pregnant is the freedom not to have sex. Not the freedom to cover condom failure with allowance for the extermination of the foetus resulting from intercourse. What's next? Is infant or children euthanasia the sole choice of the parents, as well, on which the society has no claim?

"Many have a view on homosexuality which ignores rational evidence but promulgates ancient works of fiction," and what is rational evidence? A wondrous illumination that hey, homosexuality is so cool and liberal and all?

"Saint Augustine of Hippo is perhaps the greatest sinner - amending religious doctrine to see sexual activity as a highly negative thing: several centuries after the writing of the Bible. His whim has affected the social doctrination of millions for millenia."

I don't know after whom the author is repeating, but I doubt he's ever read more than one sentence in a row of what St Augustine ever wrote. Let alone the Bible or the works of other Church Fathers. St Augustine didn't write anything about sex that wasn't there in the Bible or in the works of other Church Fathers. The author's ignorance doesn't cease to astonish me. Ban on adultery, premarital sex, contraception and abortion... all is in the Bible already.

"Religion is not a free choice, but traditionally inherited, " Oh yes, and Saint Augustine was born Catholic. As were the Apostles, you know. There are swarms of people who have changed religions in their lives, including from atheism. Many Catholics are converts.

"People rarely (though occasionally, and for these people I possess much more respect) pick there religion by weighing up the options, or independent of biased sources," and what is unbiased sources? Comparisons drawn by atheists, liberals or whomever? What is weighing up options? Choosing what tenets you like, what you don't, and picking up a religion that matches your lifestyle, conveniently altering the beliefs which don't suit you? That's the sort of thing the author criticises St Augustine for allegedly doing.

"Most people who thus profess to know a universal truth are only spouting what has previously been spouted to them - they are not the possessors of a great knowledge above their station," this is more true than the author could experience and I'm not talking about the people he's talking about, I think.

"It is the greatest obstacle we face," we? Let the man talk for himself, so to say.

 

John Steinbeck on religion:

"And it is a strange thing that most of the feeling we call religious, most of the mystical outcrying which is one of the most prized and used and desired reactions of our species, is really the understanding and the attempt to say that man is related to the whole thing, known and unknowable. This is a simple thing to say, but the profound feeling of it made a Jesus, a St. Augustine, a St. Francis, a Roger Bacon, a Charles Darwin, and an Einstein. Each of them in his own tempo and with his own voice discovered and reaffirmed with astonishment the knowledge that all things are one thing and that one thing is all things -- plankton, a shimmering phosphorescence on the sea and the spinning planets and an expanding universe, all bound together by the elastic string of time. It is advisable to look from the tide pool to the stars and then back to the tide pool again."

-- From The Log from The Sea of Cortez

 

Hmmm... While I do not doubt that there are tens of thousands of people on the planet that are currently practicing a religion that was unknown to them as a child, I'd say the vast majority of people actually DO practice the same religion as their parents did.

In the area where I grew up, there wasn't much ethnic diversity, and pretty much everyone I knew was Christian. Moreover, a very high percentage of the Christians were Catholic. I think if most people looked at different religions and picked the one that sounded best to them, that there's no way we'd see such a concentration of Chritianity in virtually everyone in my hometown, and more specifically Catholic as a significant portion of them.

To say that you have a 3000 member church and NONE of them are practicing the relgion of their parents is truly shocking. Just like so many other traditions, religion is another part of culture that is passed down through the family. I think it is far more common to believe what your parents believe than to go your own way (in terms of religion).

I was raised Catholic. My wife was raised Catholic. Everyone from either of our families that practice religion still practice Catholicism. Granted, not everyone is as devout as everyone else. It ranges from extremely devout (like my wife's parents) who say the rosary and go to church every day, to people like my wife and I who are only nominally Catholic. We basically go to church for funerals and weddings, and that's about it. However, if most people would convert to other religions, why don't we have any Buddists, or Hindis, or Taoists in the family? Or better yet, why don't we have any Christians of a denomination different from Catholicism?

 

Let's not have any flaming on this thread. Needless to say, the moderators will be watching very closely.

 

I don't believe that there is rational evidence that says homosexuality is bad, and condemning something wothout evidence of it being bad is wrong. I mean, should we condemn everything that hasn't been proven to be absolutely beneficial?

 

@ NOG and Chev,

I'm quite shocked by your point of view. As you say the author works under assumptions, you seem to do the same. You work under the assumption that abortion and homosexuality (this especially) is wrong.
Surely, in this day and age, we can accept homosexuality as part of society. It's not something they get any choice about, it's purely a personal taste. They can't help it, and shouldn't 'have' to help it, and certainly shouldn't have to prove that is is 'good' (in the words of NOG).
And if a woman can't have the choice to abort a pregnancy that she thinks will ruin her life, what does she have a choice about? People make mistakes, and should be able to correct those mistakes and shape their lives as they see fit.

Everyone should be able to choose how to live their own life.

 

Amen.

 

Chanos, I was kind of joking, thus the .

Deepfae, I don't assume these things are bad. I believe they are, but that is another issue. The article criticises religion for claiming they are bad, while itself claiming there is scientific or rational evidence they are good, which there isn't.

Barmy, the choices are to live with the consequences of an act, or to not do the act at all. Homosexuals can, in fact, choose. Sexual preferences are completely socialized. People don't 'relize' they are gay, they become gay. The same is true of rapists, murderers, thiefs, and barbers. Some are bad, some are not. It is up to society to choose.
As for the abortion choice, she can choose not to have sex in the first place. Everytime you have sex, you risk pregnancy. If you take the risk, you must be ready to live with the consequences.

Aldeth, I actually meant that they all chose christianity for themselves, and demonstrate a deep understanding of the Word. You don't have to change to exercise free will, you can choose to agree with your parents, just as long as you choose.
This brings up an interesting topic, though: that of socialization. If you were raised by your parents, you were raised in their moral view, and likely base your own on theirs. That is to say, even if you do disagree somewhat, you will not likely disagree totally. That being said, you must understand that what you take from your parents is less what they say and more what they do. Abusive 'christian' parents may easily spawn a satanist, but kind, loving christian parents will likely not.
If, then, we are a product of our parents moral beliefs, however changed, is it not likely that we will follow a religion similar, if not the same, to theirs? If we do, is it not still our choice? Should we ignore the movings of our spirit just to be different? Or are we failing to choose simply because we accept those moral beliefs we were raised in? What is morality? There is no scientific standard for morality, and philosophers and psychologists have struggled for ages to understand it.
The leading arguement is that what is moral is what leads to the betterment of society. What is betterment? If a young man sacrifices his life to save his aging mother, is he not praised? He makes front page news and will likely have many good words spoken about him, but he sacrificed his life, that of a virile, productive, and possibly intelligent young man who could contribute greatly to society, in exchange for that of an old woman, who is infirm, retired, and will only live another decade or two (in this example). She has no chance of making the kind of social contributions he could have, yet the exchange is praised as a brave and good thing, a MORAL thing.
Obvioulsy morality is not so simple a thing, and thus religious choice is not either. It is no coincidence that religion, the domanent factor in moral beliefs world-wide, is just as unscientific as morality itself. Don't mistake my words, though. Neither morality nor religion (usually) deny science. They mearly speak to those things that science can never answer.
What is truely good? What is truely valuable? What makes life worth while? Is life worth while?
I leave you to your thoughts.

 

NOG, your definition of morality seems to me like Utilitarianism. That is, that the moral thing to do is whatever has the greatest beneficial effect on society. I however, do not agree with this philospohy. You gave the example of a man who sacrifices himself to save his mother, yet wastes the his potential to lead a prosperous life of contibutingto society. By Utilitarian logic, saving his mother by sacrificing himself would be immoral, because it would in the end benefit society less. However I would reason that that man would live with a lot of guilt for the rest of his life if he stood there and watched his mother die, knowing that he could of saved her. Perhaps he wcould be firm enough in his belief that letting her die and saving himself would be the "moral" thing to do, but most people have strong enough feelings for their parents that they would suffer such guilt (assumin g of course, that in this hypothetical example the man and his mother have a normal relationship).
Rather than taking a Utilitarian standpoint, I agree with a moral philosophy that has been around for a long time. It has been phrased differently across the years: Confucious phrased it as (at least according to the western translation): "Do not do unto others as you would have them not do unto you." Wiccans phrase it as: "And it harm none,do what you will." I basically summerize it as: Do what you want, so long as it doesn't harm another.

 

I hope you realise how ridiculous that sounds mate. I can only presume you can never been laid.

And people don't 'choose' to be gay. And comparing homosexuals to murderers and rapists?... You need to get out more pal .

 

NOG:

Even if religion is not the core reason for a war, it is often the weapon used to manipulate people into it. As much as there are different manipulation tools to use in religion's place, they are not quite as efficient.

Do you know all of those 3000 people personally? Were *all* of them raised into some other religion or as atheists? Even if it so, consider the Muslim societies we hear so much about on the news. In those places it's not as simple as leaving the church or converting.

The point about homosexuality and the "rational evidence" approach is not to prove that it is "good" or "beneficial" so much as "not harmful." I've never come across any rational evidence stating it is harmful or that you actually go to hell for it.

chev:

Maybe this is somewhat in the eye of the beholder, but I understand these "liberal" ideas to mean things that are only considered bad because a religious text says so. Things like homosexuality or being an atheist, that in themselves are harming nobody. Attempting to ban something that harms nobody - it does seem like an offensive thing to me.

Having read the New Testament somewhat, Jesus seems to have a certain disdain for peoples neighboring Israel. Also consider the mentality of "belive or you'll go to hell."

Homophobia, no need to comment.

I haven't found much in the New Testament to support that idea of treating women as equals. Women are mostly ignored as far as I remember. I don't suppose anyone cares to toss a chapter and verse for a taster?

Note that the thread is not titled "Christianity" but "Religion." Just look at some Muslim societies and you'll see some rather medieval going.

Hasn't it been argued countless times before in other threads, by religious people, that religion is not about proof, logic and facts but faith and emotion?

Islamic sabre-rattling falls under the category of "religion" quite nicely. The crusades and Byzantine, whoever started those conflicts, they were strongly religion-based.

So what is the solution? Tell the people not to have sex? Oh right, that's what they've been doing. And it works really well.

Isn't that what Christians have been doing with the Old Testament for ages? Picking and choosing?

What exactly is wrong with choosing a religion that suits you? What is the alternative - just pick one (no no, not the one your parents had, of course ) and follow it unquestioningly? Is there a third option I'm not aware of?

Edit: If I've said stuff already said, it's because I was pretty slow writing this. A lot of people got ahead of me.

 

Oh, BTA, come on. 'If you don't want kids, don't have sex, dont abort!'. That is such a ridiculously naive thing to say, it hardly warrants battling. It beats itself without anyones help.

And making homosexuality out to be a defect similar to murder and rape and to be judged on the same terms? You deem that worth wasting peoples time arguing?

 

I want to have Barmy Army's children.

 

Actually, that is probably the only thing on either side that I agree with. Sex->children, therefore if you don't want children so badly, don't risk it by having sex! That said, there are numerous methods of contraception (including the "morning after" pill), so go nuts if you want to but do it responsibly or suffer the consequences.

My take on religion is fairly simple: it's necessary for some people. I can see the comfort in believing in a higher power (I do myself, sort of), and the grouping of like-minded people provides yet more comfort and a sense of belonging. It can be incredibly helpful in people's lives, throughout their lives, but every silver lining has a cloud (and vice-versa). Unfortunately, the cloud only rains occasionally, storing up all the icky moisture until there's enough to dump on the peoples of the world. So while the silver lining shines all the time, the rain is much more noticeable in its concentration. As for whether it really breaks even or produces a profit or loss when all is said and done...I can't know that. Noone can.

 

Phew. I was wondering what the world was coming to when Barmy Army started using the word "bipolarity".

Actually, NOG has a point here about people using religion to their own ends.

Um, no, but they're better than nothing.

 

/me applauds