Atheists who don't hate religion

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Correct. If gods were necessary for religion, and gods do not exist, then religion could not exist. Since religion obviously does exist, you can either conclude that gods actually do exist, or that gods are not necessary for religion.

And so the whole house of cards is built on fraud. Lovely.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Yes, it's a given that nobody does only evil stuff or only good stuff. Sticking to one extreme tends not to work even in a D&D campaign, much less in real life. So, yes, you could also find good stuff that Pol Pot or Mao or Vlad The Impaler did. Yet, as I was saying, very few people would say you shouldn't despise Ted Bundy or the KKK just because they did SOME good stuff too. Unless the bad was the only way you could get the good, no, you don't have to take the good with the bad.

That would be assuming that religion is a monolithic entity that every single religious person practices the same exact way. Religion means different things to different people. When I hear of an abuse or atrocity committed in the name of a religion, I tend to blame the specific individuals involved, rather than broadbrush the entire faith. In keeping with the same standard, when a religion does good things, those specific individuals are the ones who deserve the credit.

And really, the same case as for religion could be made for the KKK. One could equally say that, no, see those who actually lynched blacks are just bad racists, not the good racists in the modern KKK. Or that it gives people a sense of community and purpose. (At least I would assume that having a common cause would provide a sense of community, even if that cause is frothing at the mouth about minorities.) Or that, see, as long as people keep it private, just doing their daily little equivalent of saying grace by swearing at <insert racial slur> at the dinner table, and teaching their children to do so, it's ok, right?

The analogy only works for religious denominations that were founded on the principles of group division, bigotry against others, and violence. While this is undeniably true for some, it's not true for every single one of them.

But in practice almost nobody would see it that way. You probably wouldn't think that someone teaching their children that them <insert racial slur> are a bunch of subhuman parasites and shouldn't be here anyway is a good thing. You could probably see how those would then grow up, go out in the world, and make unjust decisions based on that world model that was instilled into their head. You may not outright forbid people to talk racist nonsense in the privacy of their own home, but you wouldn't think I'm that unjustified in looking down upon those who do it, right?

I'm not asking you to respect them or agree with them. I'm asking you to understand why they believe what they do, and look beyond the labels they wear to hide their true motivations. Racism typically has economic motivations, for example.

But only for religion, I'm supposed to take that as just context, and just mentioning some good stuff is apparently enough to excuse everything else.

Not what I said at all. There are different kinds of religious people, and not all of them are bad. See, this is why labels suck. They prevent us from seeing the people behind them. Sure, I could go around and think of people as Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. Or I could see them as human.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I wanted to add, my OP was primarily a response to myself. To my old self. To the part of myself that still had good reason to hate / despise religion. I could make a very good case that I had objective reasons to feel contempt for religion. I live in Blue Law central. So I know why religion is a bad idea. I voted in the 2000 election and watched my candidate lose to one who attempted to force God into public policy, informing everything he did. So I saw the damage religion could do in the real world. I once was the victim of a violent crime, the only one in my life. My assailant believed God told her to do these things. So I know the consequences of belief. I remember 9/11 and watching the massive dust cloud from across the Hudson River. So I saw what religious extremism could drive people to do.

I have spent upwards of 10 years arguing alongside anti-theists of the kind I describe in the OP. It took me a while to realize they are not my friends, they are not my allies, and they are not beyond reproach simply by virtue of being atheists. I have atheist friends, but that's not the reason they're my friends. I have religious friends too. I was not attempting to create a strawman argument to better attack anti-theists. These are actual statements I've heard from other atheists, that I may once have agreed with, but don't anymore.


"Religion is a poison."

I disagree. Religion is more like a drug. It can be therapeutic to some people, but dangerous to others. If you abuse it, you can become a threat to yourself and others. If you overdose, you can easily die. It needs to be taken in the right amount. In an ideal world, nobody would need to depend on it, but things aren't perfect unfortunately.


"Religion needs to die off or disappear."

No, that's impractical and unrealistic. Religion needs to be reformed to better allow people to function within modern society and morality. This is already happening, even in religions like Islam. The moderates and liberals are not my enemy, they want the same thing I do. If there's anyone I dislike, it's the fundamentalists and extremists.


"Religion is a mental illness."

I disagree, and I find this offensive. People who practice religion don't necessarily have anything wrong with them. They are simply carrying on the same religion they were taught by their parents. Just as one's political beliefs tend to be the same as one's parents, so is one's religious beliefs. Yes, sometimes people change, and I'm all for people choosing out of their own free will.


"Religion is dangerous and violent."

No, this is a generalization. If someone commits an atrocity in the name of religion, I prefer to blame that specific person. If the majority of people with religious faith were dangerous and violent, then you and I would not be alive today.


"Religion is based on a sack of lies."

Yes and no. Most religions are based on some kind of mythology, and no mythology is literally true. Most religions are based on some kind of belief in that for which there is no evidence. However, all religions touch on the truth at some points, otherwise humans wouldn't have kept them for so long. One could argue that you don't need religion to discover these truths, and I agree.


In other words, religion is a complex issue, and I was doing myself a disservice by adopting a black-and-white view of it.

 

[Kopji]

Hello Frozenwolf,
Your OP is well stated. (My post will probably not be nearly as well stated.)

Being raised 'an unholy apostate destined to the eternal scourges of a fiery pit', I have some experience with ideas and beliefs that divide people and what does not. The matter of "theist or non-theist" is not all that divisive and I find much common ground with believers in a deity. Also, it seems like it is not so much the WHAT of belief, but the HOW it is practiced that causes most friction.

That said, I do challenge believers to consider that there are some ideas promulgated by religion over the eons that contribute to the persistence of violent problems in the world and help make them unsolvable:

Authority instead of reason
Heresy instead of dialectic
A claim to influence reward and/or punishment beyond this life
Certitude of knowledge rather than probability
Acceptable sacrifice of certain classes of people to serve a 'greater cause'

(I just added that last one for tweakiness)

There are probably more points but it is getting late and this is just the internet.

 

[dann]

It's the same religion that supports the right wing in keeping the inequality there in the first place, and was even more so historically.

There seem to be an awful lot of right-wing libertarians, too! As bad as creationists are, at least they don't tend to be social-darwinists!
(It's good that you don't have to choose between the two ideologies: Your genes made you an inferior loser or God works in mysterious ways, in this case making you an impoverished SOB.)

The more secular countries don't need them so much in the first place, because there's a more organized way of taking care of the poor and infirm in the first place.

The "organized way of taking care of the poor" etc. is what makes the countries more secular.

 

[arthwollipot]

Not what I said at all. There are different kinds of religious people, and not all of them are bad. See, this is why labels suck. They prevent us from seeing the people behind them. Sure, I could go around and think of people as Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. Or I could see them as human.

On the one hand I see religious paedophiles, hatemongers and terrorists. On the other I see people who are compassionate and kind, and whose lives are enriched by their religion.

I just can't put them in the same box.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

My own personal take on 'the problem with religion' is not so much the religion itself but rather that it supports the establishment of powerful authorities. Whenever that happens it poses issues.

Whenever you have authorities you have an unhealthy concentration of power - now sometimes good people will use that power to do good and sometimes bad people will use that power to do bad. It seems though that generally that kind of power seems to attract people who would tend to do bad with it, and furthermore they are able to use the authority to get other people to follow them and convince them to do bad things also.

Its not exclusive to religion - you can get political authorities as we see in North Korea, Nazi Germany etc, you can get authorities in other man made structures such as corporations. And we can see in these too that when someone gets too much power things go wrong. I don't know whether its too much power corrupting or whether its simply that people who would do bad things seek out power to allow them to do so.

Religion is a somewhat special case in that the ultimate authority is generally purported to be a supernatural infallible being with power over everything. Not only that but it seeks to have influence and control over every aspect of life and for everyone - not just the followers of the religion. Its incredibly powerful.

Even if there was a God I think there would still be a case against religion; the fact that all their God claims are based on nothing but hot air simply makes it worse.

 

[HansMustermann]

"Religion is a poison."

I disagree. Religion is more like a drug. It can be therapeutic to some people, but dangerous to others. If you abuse it, you can become a threat to yourself and others. If you overdose, you can easily die. It needs to be taken in the right amount. In an ideal world, nobody would need to depend on it, but things aren't perfect unfortunately.

But even for medicine, we don't just take any bad with any good. If there are less poisonous ways to deal with an illness, a doctor has even a duty to not cause extra harm.

As I was saying, we don't use mercury fumigations any more, once we have antibiotics. Or even among modern medicines, there's a reason you don't get antivirals for a flu: they cause more harm than the flu. Or there's a reason depressed people aren't told to start smoking, even though it's known that nicotine actually has an antidepressant effect.

"Religion needs to die off or disappear."

No, that's impractical and unrealistic. Religion needs to be reformed to better allow people to function within modern society and morality. This is already happening, even in religions like Islam. The moderates and liberals are not my enemy, they want the same thing I do. If there's anyone I dislike, it's the fundamentalists and extremists.

Most ideals are unrealistic and will never happen. Racism will never die either, realistically speaking. Neither will sexism. Nor will a bunch of other -isms. But we can still dream of a world where they'll finally <bleep> off and die, can't we?

Besides, moderates are still taught magical thinking, are still taught counterfactual things, and are still taught that essentially bending logic EVEN WORSE than the literalists is ok as long as you get the conclusion you wanted. Etc. And that's just in the logical thinking category.

Sorry, from the viewpoint of someone who wishes that people would make decisions based on rational thinking, rather than magical or wishful thinking, having a group that's even more irrational but it's at least tame... doesn't really do much, you know?

"Religion is a mental illness."

I disagree, and I find this offensive. People who practice religion don't necessarily have anything wrong with them. They are simply carrying on the same religion they were taught by their parents. Just as one's political beliefs tend to be the same as one's parents, so is one's religious beliefs. Yes, sometimes people change, and I'm all for people choosing out of their own free will.

I wouldn't say "mental illness" per se, but I'm one of those (including a bunch of psychologists) who find it telling that the DSM has to have an explicit exemption for religion when it defines delusions. Because, really, there is no way to define a delusion without religion qualifying. You have to pull an "except for religious beliefs" out of the ass.

Furthermore, a lot of apologetics and rationalizations fit textbook delusions associated with schizophrenia. Like reference delusions are pretty common in apologetics.

Now I wouldn't say religion is a mental illness per se, but it sure teaches people to act like they were mentally ill, and to excuse those who ARE mentally ill. It provides a big crowd as cover for those who genuinely are (religious) nuts.

"Religion is dangerous and violent."

No, this is a generalization. If someone commits an atrocity in the name of religion, I prefer to blame that specific person. If the majority of people with religious faith were dangerous and violent, then you and I would not be alive today.

Again, most KKK members never lynched anyone either. And generally, most neo-nazis never beat up an immigrant. Hell even the old thugee followers of Kali, not all of them actually went and murdered someone. Yet nobody would deny that such ideologies are dangerous BECAUSE they produce that small number of people who do go and do something about it.

Besides, personally I wouldn't even group it like that. Even the non-violent are still taught to think illogically, which seems to me dangerous enough by itself.

"Religion is based on a sack of lies."

Yes and no. Most religions are based on some kind of mythology, and no mythology is literally true. Most religions are based on some kind of belief in that for which there is no evidence. However, all religions touch on the truth at some points, otherwise humans wouldn't have kept them for so long. One could argue that you don't need religion to discover these truths, and I agree.

BS. People are perfectly capable of believing stuff to be true, that was even written as a work of fiction in the first place. E.g., Sherlock Holmes. Or where we know the original story, which was fiction to start with, and none of the relevant elements were preserved. E.g., Robin Hood. Etc.

 

[David Mo]

Hate or indignation

Hate is not a moral emotion. Indignation is it. Moral indignation against some human deeds may lead us to hate some thing or person. It is inevitable. But you ought to control this hate to be fair.

But aiming our moral indignation against some so abstract thing as “religion” is not easy (except for fanatics and fundamentalist individuals -and some atheists can be so). Religions have many diverse facets to provoke a single emotion. But in a general sense I think the religion is more pernicious than beneficial for human relations. For example:

I am able to admire some religious persons and their deeds. But I cannot respect the religion that inspires them, because the same religion has a pernicious effect over many other people. And here happens an amazing thing: when I intend to discuss the moral or factual principles of their beliefs these moral religious persons become non friendly and hostile. They have untouchable principles.

I think that a society with no untouchable principles (or a minimal quantity or them) is better than a society with untouchable principles. I think the way to improve the political and moral basis of a society is to discuss what have to be done with a minimal set of restrictions (and mainly methodical restrictions, if possible). The religious conscience, even in the best of the religious men, is a closed place that pretends to be a kind of sancta sanctorum. I don’t think that holy places are good for moral discussions.

And this is a reason (I have more) why I think the religion is a bad thing. Of course, this not implies that a hypothetical end of the religions will be the end of all the evils of mankind. Evil is multiform.

 

[HansMustermann]

Actually, "hate" is a more ambiguous word, and like most words, it has more than one meaning. E.g., I could say, "I hate brussels sprouts" without meaning I'm indignant at them, nor fear them, nor plot their brutal demise. It's just a statement of dislike.

Which is why I called it an equivocation when the OP proceeds to navel gaze, based on somehow just knowing that such statements mean some projection of fear.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So yet again my opinion is reinforced, an atheist is only not "hateful" as long as he remains totally 100% passive, meek, and properly genuflective toward religion. You must never state your honest opinion and if asked directly you are only allowed to profess said opinion buffered by a healthy portion of apologetics.

As Dawkins said a Christian is an extremist when they bomb an abortion clinic, a Muslim an extremist when they fly a plane into abuilding, an atheist becomes an extremist when they state what they are and what they think without their lower lip quivering.

 

[Leumas]

Actually, "hate" is a more ambiguous word, and like most words, it has more than one meaning. E.g., I could say, "I hate brussels sprouts" without meaning I'm indignant at them, nor fear them, nor plot their brutal demise. It's just a statement of dislike.

Which is why I called it an equivocation when the OP proceeds to navel gaze, based on somehow just knowing that such statements mean some projection of fear.

I do not know about that... when I was young I contemplated many hours over exactly that...

But what is funny, is that now in my wiser days (??) I actually like them.... go figure.

 

[HansMustermann]

I do not know about that... when I was young I contemplated many hours over exactly that...

But what is funny, is that now in my wiser days (??) I actually like them.... go figure.

Yes, well, it's actually rather known that the taste buds work differently at different ages. Brussels sprouts in particular will taste the more bitter, the younger you are.

Still, nevertheless, some of us can use the "dislike" meaning of "hate" for those.

I for one pretty much grew up on far nastier tasting antibiotics, and if you want a bigger horror, picture getting an infection that's resistant to everything but streptomycin when barely more than a baby. Injections with that actually cause necrosis of nearby tissue, and hurt about as much as that sounds. It feels like being branded. A couple of times a day. My first memories of being on this world are of HOWLING at various landmarks along the way to the hospital to get those injections, which I had learned very quickly to associate with the fact that it's going to hurt like the seven hells next, if I see those. So, uh, yeah, getting some bitter food wasn't half as bad as getting some far more bitter pills, which in turn still beat the streptomycin experience. I didn't spend much time plotting the brutal demise of my food

 

[Orphia Nay]

I'd be a liar if I said I didn't hate religion.

Religion causes men to mutilate babies' genitals, to rape and murder women, to neglect their children's medical needs, to take out their sexual frustrations on children, to kill other men for their religion, and the list goes on.

Just because religion also does good does not mean I forgive religion for the unforgivably hateful deeds it has done, and continues to do.

Again, I'd be a liar if I said I didn't hate religion. I hate religion.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

But even for medicine, we don't just take any bad with any good. If there are less poisonous ways to deal with an illness, a doctor has even a duty to not cause extra harm.

As I was saying, we don't use mercury fumigations any more, once we have antibiotics. Or even among modern medicines, there's a reason you don't get antivirals for a flu: they cause more harm than the flu. Or there's a reason depressed people aren't told to start smoking, even though it's known that nicotine actually has an antidepressant effect.

Not all religion is equivalent to the most toxic drugs or most dangerous treatments. There are newer, safer forms being developed, to keep with the analogy.

Most ideals are unrealistic and will never happen. Racism will never die either, realistically speaking. Neither will sexism. Nor will a bunch of other -isms. But we can still dream of a world where they'll finally <bleep> off and die, can't we?

Not all religion is hateful or bigoted. Some sects are, some sects aren't.

Besides, moderates are still taught magical thinking, are still taught counterfactual things, and are still taught that essentially bending logic EVEN WORSE than the literalists is ok as long as you get the conclusion you wanted. Etc. And that's just in the logical thinking category.

Sorry, from the viewpoint of someone who wishes that people would make decisions based on rational thinking, rather than magical or wishful thinking, having a group that's even more irrational but it's at least tame... doesn't really do much, you know?

Getting rid of religion isn't the cure-all solution to irrational thinking. There are plenty of other sources of magical and wishful thinking. I'm not saying I agree with the counter-factual things the moderates are taught, but why should I go out of my way to attack or condemn them if they're not causing any harm?

I wouldn't say "mental illness" per se, but I'm one of those (including a bunch of psychologists) who find it telling that the DSM has to have an explicit exemption for religion when it defines delusions. Because, really, there is no way to define a delusion without religion qualifying. You have to pull an "except for religious beliefs" out of the ass.

Furthermore, a lot of apologetics and rationalizations fit textbook delusions associated with schizophrenia. Like reference delusions are pretty common in apologetics.

Now I wouldn't say religion is a mental illness per se, but it sure teaches people to act like they were mentally ill, and to excuse those who ARE mentally ill. It provides a big crowd as cover for those who genuinely are (religious) nuts.

So, armchair psychoanalysis is inappropriate when applied to atheists, but perfectly appropriate when applied to theists?

Again, most KKK members never lynched anyone either. And generally, most neo-nazis never beat up an immigrant. Hell even the old thugee followers of Kali, not all of them actually went and murdered someone. Yet nobody would deny that such ideologies are dangerous BECAUSE they produce that small number of people who do go and do something about it.

Again, you're taking the most violent religious sects and generalizing their beliefs and behaviors over the rest.

Besides, personally I wouldn't even group it like that. Even the non-violent are still taught to think illogically, which seems to me dangerous enough by itself.

To which I say, pick your battles. I see the actual terrorists, fanatics, and murderers as the highest priority.

BS. People are perfectly capable of believing stuff to be true, that was even written as a work of fiction in the first place. E.g., Sherlock Holmes. Or where we know the original story, which was fiction to start with, and none of the relevant elements were preserved. E.g., Robin Hood. Etc.

How does that contradict anything I said?

Actually, "hate" is a more ambiguous word, and like most words, it has more than one meaning. E.g., I could say, "I hate brussels sprouts" without meaning I'm indignant at them, nor fear them, nor plot their brutal demise. It's just a statement of dislike.

Which is why I called it an equivocation when the OP proceeds to navel gaze, based on somehow just knowing that such statements mean some projection of fear.

I explained exactly what I meant and which definition I was using. I also explained exactly what kinds of people I was referring to.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

So yet again my opinion is reinforced, an atheist is only not "hateful" as long as he remains totally 100% passive, meek, and properly genuflective toward religion. You must never state your honest opinion and if asked directly you are only allowed to profess said opinion buffered by a healthy portion of apologetics.

As Dawkins said a Christian is an extremist when they bomb an abortion clinic, a Muslim an extremist when they fly a plane into abuilding, an atheist becomes an extremist when they state what they are and what they think without their lower lip quivering.

You're bifurcating the issue and creating a strawman. I thought I made it perfectly clear that these are my subjective opinions, and this is what atheism means to me based on my own experiences and past beliefs. I said that I will not tolerate abuses of religion or atrocities committed in the name of religion. I have been heavily critical of organized religion in the past. I'm typically one of the first to challenge the supernatural or any beliefs without evidence. However, I can do this without prejudice or stereotyping, or the assumption that I'm right just because I'm an atheist.

When I meet someone, I don't need to know what their religious beliefs are to determine whether or not I trust them, and I don't need to judge them based on their beliefs. I don't need to separate people into us vs. them. Most of all, I don't need to live my life constantly worrying about what evils religious people will unleash on the world next.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I'd be a liar if I said I didn't hate religion.

Religion causes men to mutilate babies' genitals, to rape and murder women, to neglect their children's medical needs, to take out their sexual frustrations on children, to kill other men for their religion, and the list goes on.

Just because religion also does good does not mean I forgive religion for the unforgivably hateful deeds it has done, and continues to do.

Again, I'd be a liar if I said I didn't hate religion. I hate religion.

Ask yourself though. Is religion the root cause of those things, or the justification? Would people still do these things if you removed religion from the equation?

I'm perfectly willing to accept the fact that religion itself doesn't directly accomplish any good, given that it's often the secondary motivation / reinforcing factor for people's pre-existing morals. However, I would have to apply that same logic to the bad things religion is blamed for as well.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes it is absolutely unreasonable to blame religion for the things religion does.

If someone kills a gay guy specifically because his existence offends the giant invisible sky wizard it is just soooooo unreasonable to actually suggest his belief in the giant invisible sky wizard had anything to do with it.

There's not stereotyping people... and then there is bending over backwards to pretend that nothing is a factor in anything anyone does.

 

[HansMustermann]

I explained exactly what I meant and which definition I was using. I also explained exactly what kinds of people I was referring to.

Yes, well, you explained how YOU choose to understand "I hate all religions." Did you ask THEM exactly what degree of hate do they mean?

 

[David Mo]

Actually, "hate" is a more ambiguous word, and like most words, it has more than one meaning. E.g., I could say, "I hate brussels sprouts" without meaning I'm indignant at them, nor fear them, nor plot their brutal demise. It's just a statement of dislike.

You are right. "Hate" is an ambiguous word. In some sense hate and indignation are similar. Both are kinds of emotional aversion pointed to a thing or a person. Hate is usually considered more intense and unthinking, but indignation can be also intense if not controlled. I see the difference in that indignation is a specifically emotional response to some thing we consider unfair. This is why “hate” has a negative connotation and “moral indignation” is a positive word.

PS: Perhaps is more accurate to say that "hate " and "moral indignation" are vague concepts. I. e., it is not ever clear when one begins and the other ends .