All Religion is Bad.

[The Atheist]

Which, articulet, is why I think this poll is flawed - Atheist, you seem to by trying to make a semantic point with the poll, but I don't think anyone has been arguing what you're claiming they're arguing.
(edit: this post was written before post 71, consider the above responding to post 70)

Sorry, but that's clearly wrong, which is why the poll is worded as is. As you see from the above post - and I repeat again - that I left no room for error. You can go and read the posts if you don't like the selection above. I asked and had it confirmed that the premise was implicitly: all religion is bad and causes harm.

No strawmen here. The poll response shows that the view is quite widespread.

 

[articulett]

Irony, indeed, TA-- thanks for making my case for me. Every time anyone tried to say anything bad about religion you turned it an argument against them rather than the thing they were calling bad.

To me this just makes the case for you being an apologist all the more obvious. You kept making the commenter the bad guy pretending they said ALL while totally ignoring the egregious acts they were commenting on. Moreover, you insulted new posters who were voicing their bad experiences with religion on a thread that was actually supposed to be about Dawkins and his response to Sloan. You and andyandy both made jibes about anyone who said anything good about dawkins and then made an attack on Gayak and accused him of saying "all religions are bad and cause harm"... and your first quote of him above was in direct response to that accusation. And that was after Mijo stalked him and brought up the "all" issue from a whole other post-- never mentioned the OP--just kept pretending Gayak said all religions are bad and harmful. Do you ever get a clue?

It's like you are your own worst enemy and don't see it.

 

[Herzblut]

Just wanted to say, I'm genuinely surprised at the response to the "murder is bad" question. Now i have to do some thinking.
My own reaction if someone said "Murder is bad" would be that they think murder is usually bad. Start questioning them about out of the ordinary situations and they'll probably agree that it isn't always bad. That or they'll define murder to be those occasions when it isn't bad. (for instance "executions" aren't murder).

Yes, but as you already pointed out executions are technically excluded from being murder. This doesn't hamper the categorical imperative of "Murder is bad".

This imperative is embedded in the German penal law insofar as it includes that a murderer will always be punished according to the maximum penalty that is legally possible, without any distinction. There is no such thing as "a murderer will be punished from ... to ...." in our law. All other law systems I know include at least the threat of maximum penalty. "Murder is bad" - even "is worst" - is imperative.

You might ask yourself which ethics this absolute normative judgment (dogma) is derived from.

Herzblut

 

[articulett]

On the other hand, if one is trying to suggest that most of the time, in the real world, when religion is taught to children, it is in practice child abuse, then saying "religion is child abuse" would get that across rather well.

I don't agree that the above statement is true, but then I wasn't really taught much religion as I child.

Is it justifiable to "religion is child abuse" when you really mean what I said above? Moreover, will most people who honestly listen to you understand that that's what you mean?
I don't know the answer to either question. I don't even know if, for example, that's what Dawkins means when he says it, though I would guess that if specifically challenged he'd admit that it is.

Regardless of all that, however, it's certainly a more effective way of making the point than adding various qualifiers, though they may make the statement closer to the truth.

To make a further point that I'm not sure what I think about, but I think is worth discussing - what if I said, "Murder is bad".
Would you equate that with "All murder is bad"?
If not, why not, and why do those reasons not apply to "religion is bad" or "religion is child abuse"? (Preferably let's talk about the former because it's the subject of this thread).

I could make a poll asking do you think all murder is bad and harmful-- and then point out all could include, wars, euthanasia, abortion, capital punishment, killing animals, defense killings, suicide, etc. That's what it feels like. If every time someone said "Murder is wrong" the apologists rushed in to accuse them of being against euthanasia, war, etc. and then derailed the thread to discuss the egregiousness of the person's comment rather than murder. That's what TA did to Gayak.

He derails thread after thread with these kind of strawmen... tangential... to prove some wild point that only he seems to be understanding as far as I can tell in an everlasting quest to win some point or other in some contest that nobody else seems to care about.

By the way, Dawkins didn't say that religion is childabuse... it's actually a misquote of what he said and it was illustrated with some pretty powerful examples--But the apologists ignore the examples and demonize him as though he said he wanted to lock people in jail for inflicting religion on their kids. It's really weird... Mijo even linked someone else that was describing an abusive religious experience on Dawkins website that had the title Religion's Real Child Abuse http://richarddawkins.net/article,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins and they used this to make the strawman that Dawkins is saying all religion is bad and harmful.

They demonize everybody just so long as you don't have to discuss the sacred cow. (And, by sacred cow, I mean no offense to your avatar...) Of course, it helps to know who the apologists are so you can use your words very carefully around them lest they derail a thread to assert that you are more immoral and wrong than whatever the topic you are discussing was.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Religous, theological arguments are the very foundations of intellectual debate in this world. So are arguments made by Atheists. Why, for God's (ho ho) sake can we not tolerate each other and our intellectual debates?

I like to listen to Hamza Yusuf, a great Muslim preacher, who makes me think about a lot of things I never thought of before, things that make me better live my life. Does that mean I am a believer? No.

I beg of you all, open your mind to all information. All debates. All theological arguments, regardless if it came from a crazy guy on the street or a fictional God.

I'd agree that it tends to get a bit dodgy when somebody has blind faith that their God really does exist, but c'mon folks, this argument that all religion is bad is always elitist and really, really annoying.

I often find many Atheists immensly frustrating. I want to grab them by the shoulders and go, 'You are not that great you moronic arrogant tub of crap!'. There are intellectual religous people and dumb ignorant atheists. There are intellectual atheists and dumb ignorant believers.

Advice, fellow non-believers, do not presume there is absolutely 100% no God, ever ever ever. Let's try and get rid of 'isms' eh?
Let's criticise religion, let's make sure we are never intimidated by pointing out that believing in something with no proof is irrational. But let's not elevate ourselves to a higher standing at the same time! It seems incapable of a vast majority of atheists to not do this.

I, personally, do not think there is a God, but we owe it to ourselves never to become arrogant, ignorant, pricks like famous Atheist Penn Gillette. Who acts exactly like a fundamentalist.

The best thing we can do in this society is just turn to each other, regardless if they be scientists or believers, atheists or fundamentalists, and realise, WE ARE NOT THAT GREAT.

 

[Gregoire]

Welcome to JREF, Gregoire!

Just a few quick questions - bear with me here.

1. Are you an atheist?
2. Were you in the Army?
3. Did you train at Ft. Sill, OK, in the summer of '90?
4. Do you remember Waco Hill?

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome.

I am sorry to tell you I was never in the Army, so I guess I am not the person you are thinking of. I did apply to West Point way back when I was
17, but was disqualified from any military service because of a heart murmur.

 

[Z]

Thanks for the welcome.

I am sorry to tell you I was never in the Army, so I guess I am not the person you are thinking of. I did apply to West Point way back when I was
17, but was disqualified from any military service because of a heart murmur.

Ok, maybe a different, distant member of the family... If I could just remember his first name...

 

[Tanstaafl]

Well, darn. That's what I get for being good and not reading the spoiler.

The new name would be quite a conversation piece.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Again, when someone uses a collective noun without qualification, they describing all of the collective noun.

I've asked this twice before and gotten no response:

Do the people who think that say "religion is bad" doesn't implicitly mean "all religion is bad" think that Michael Savage is making any distinctions within "liberalism" when he says "liberalism is a metal disorder"? After all, he doesn't say "all liberalism is a mental disoroder".

 

[Darth Rotor]

because that is not a position I can state, I am changing my name to

The Religious Apologist

Don't you dare, mate, or I'll never grill you a blue steak!

If you choose to change, the new name should be

The Kiltless Atheist

DR

 

[Faithkills]

I'd like to see evidence of

-atheist charities
(and no, not just charities that have no religious goals, I mean actually promoting atheism)

Atheists just give because it's the right thing to do. They don't do it for the acclamation like religions and corporations do. Yet anyway.

-non-religion being the center of any culture

It is arguably the center of US culture. People want the sop of religion but when it comes down to it, the U.S. cultural religion has always been success. Let's pray it continues to be so.

-beautiful and inspiring atheist works of art

You don't see much acanine art either. There is just art that doesn't feature dogs.

In any case there is plenty of art by atheists and while visual art isn't always conducive to atheistic themes certainly music and literary art are, and there are many examples of that.

 

[Faithkills]

However, I am not the one who has classified Buddhism, etc., as religions. Most governments, census takers, and other classification systems regard these as religions. If you want to focus on faith and gods, word the poll that way. If you want to focus on philosophy and lifestyles, hmm, I'm not sure what to say.

In many countries, especially in the U.S. organizations want to be classified as religion so they can avoid taxes.

All religions require faith and a blind belief in some sort of extra-mundane entity/force/sbrubble. Also, they all require a dogmatic acceptance of metaphysical claims (science also has metaphysical claims, but they are debatable and even "observable" at some degree). Buddhism does not escape that rule.

That's it for me. If they don't try to subvert the perception of truth then I don't really have a problem.

If it asks you to believe something without evidence, to me that's religion, and that's always bad for the participant. Sometimes the power thus derived may be utilized to good things, but for the most part they merely utilize that power to perpetuate the system, and too often to attempt to eradicate others.

There is no benefit derived from religion that could not be obtained without asking people to believe lies. As for charity some of the most heavy lifting is done by organizations like the Peace Corps or MSF. Less religious countries have higher metrics of well being all across the board.

Is it a religion? Does it ask people to believe things without evidence?

If it quacks..

 

[The Atheist]

Arti, I'm pleased to see that you still live by that old adage, "Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it."

...just kept pretending that Gayak said all religions are bad and harmful.

Unbelievable. You saw him say it in the thread and I copied it in here. Maybe if he'd written it in blood you may believe it.

Talk about a "skeptic" not accepting the evidence of her eyes, reading plain English!

That's what TA did to Gayak.

He derails thread after thread with these kind of strawmen...

And thanks for franking the impression everyone has of your ignorance - I pointed out to you a while ago, you can't even get your cheerleader's name right twelve months later - IT'S QAYAK.

I am dead-set lmao. You lie, you bluster and you cannot even learn the difference between a "g" and a "q".

Genius.

And you're so funny, contradicting yourself all the way through this thread. I bet you add to your fan club considerably with it.

You need to learn what a "strawman" is. That's when I make up something. Again, as I repeatedly point out to you - there's nothing made up here; QAYAK repeated his statement quite clearly and unequivocally: all religion is bad.

But the real humour in the situation is that you have been whining about "not really meaning all religion is bad" yourself, yet you voted "true" and defend the position!



Sorry, Arti, but I've met some really slow people during my life. You, however, take the biscuit.

Don't you dare, mate, or I'll never grill you a blue steak!

If you choose to change, the new name should be

The Kiltless Atheist

DR

Tight go at the moment, 38 apiece right now!

Kiltless? Hmmm. I think my weak Sassenach blood wouldn't be tough enough for that in winter - maybe in the summer!

Want pics?

Are you surprised at the total? Have to confess I am. Gave it every chance, wording the OP and title as I did - guaranteed to scare off the "Falses" who will think it's just another religion beat-up and stay away.

 

[The Atheist]

Religous, theological arguments are the very foundations of intellectual debate in this world. So are arguments made by Atheists. Why, for God's (ho ho) sake can we not tolerate each other and our intellectual debates?

I like to listen to Hamza Yusuf, a great Muslim preacher, who makes me think about a lot of things I never thought of before, things that make me better live my life. Does that mean I am a believer? No.

I beg of you all, open your mind to all information. All debates. All theological arguments, regardless if it came from a crazy guy on the street or a fictional God.

I'd agree that it tends to get a bit dodgy when somebody has blind faith that their God really does exist, but c'mon folks, this argument that all religion is bad is always elitist and really, really annoying.

I often find many Atheists immensly frustrating. I want to grab them by the shoulders and go, 'You are not that great you moronic arrogant tub of crap!'. There are intellectual religous people and dumb ignorant atheists. There are intellectual atheists and dumb ignorant believers.

Advice, fellow non-believers, do not presume there is absolutely 100% no God, ever ever ever. Let's try and get rid of 'isms' eh?
Let's criticise religion, let's make sure we are never intimidated by pointing out that believing in something with no proof is irrational. But let's not elevate ourselves to a higher standing at the same time! It seems incapable of a vast majority of atheists to not do this.

I, personally, do not think there is a God, but we owe it to ourselves never to become arrogant, ignorant, pricks like famous Atheist Penn Gillette. Who acts exactly like a fundamentalist.

The best thing we can do in this society is just turn to each other, regardless if they be scientists or believers, atheists or fundamentalists, and realise, WE ARE NOT THAT GREAT.

Cheers - very well put.

(But then I'm an apologist, so I would say that)

 

[slingblade]

My willingness to see as many facets as I can of any issue prevents me from answering a yes-or-no as posed. I feel that to come down on one side or another will automatically preclude me from accepting new evidence or new lines of thought.

I feel most things present ambiguity: everything I can think of has the potential to be both good and bad, depending on circumstance.

I've said it before on these boards and I'll say it again: it is not so much the religion per se that bugs. It's the mind-set in general that allows it. I find myself concerned that a mind willing to believe in magic and miracles doesn't think very well in other aspects of life. Of course, I'm talking about myself, but I'm fairly certain I'm not unique.

I wasted most of my life waiting for God to rescue me, for God to put it all right, for God to fix my problems.

I wasted most of my life.

That makes something quite primal within me sit on its haunches and howl in utter despair.

Can religion hurt people? Oh, very yes. Does it always hurt all people? I don't know; I don't know all people.

 

[Faithkills]

Advice, fellow non-believers, do not presume there is absolutely 100% no God, ever ever ever. Let's try and get rid of 'isms' eh?
Let's criticise religion, let's make sure we are never intimidated by pointing out that believing in something with no proof is irrational. But let's not elevate ourselves to a higher standing at the same time! It seems incapable of a vast majority of atheists to not do this.

No, as you said, it's rational versus irrational. If one points out it's irrational they get their panties in a bunch. If you point out that it's a societal problem with so many people being made irrational they really get their panties in a bunch.

Unlike believers I don't mind what silly delusions people want to have individually, as long as they were given some choice (which most children are not). But at a macro level the actors making use of the power derived from all these deluded people do harm me by causing all sorts of political actions that are wrong or dangerous.

Bush is in power because of the religious right. I do not think for one moment that this cocaine snorting overgrown frat boy has any real piety. But the believers empower him nevertheless. They go to church and their leaders tell them what a fine moral man W is for protecting innocent stem cells and promoting religious causes and finding clever ways to funnel govt funds into 'faith based' activities.

And they vote.

It's not about elevating one side and demeaning another side. You act like nothing is at stake but ego.

Is xtianity as destructive as islam? No, not right now.

Is wicca less destructive than xtianity? Sure.

Are all religions equally bad? No. But it's pretty easy to draw correlations between the relative power of religion and their harm. That kind of power is going to be used, by someone.

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett-

How would you respond to someone who said "liberalism is a mental disorder" and made it very clear that they meant "all liberalism is a mental disorder"?

 

[The Atheist]

Bush is in power because of the religious right.

Patently false.

He's in power because 50%[ish] of Americans can't be arsed voting. That the majority of the population allows the minority religious right to choose the government is the majority's fault, not the religious right.

 

[Faithkills]

Patently and obviously true.

The effect is the same. They vote in greater numbers. Period. Religion is very effective in providing votes.

We're aren't discussing what doesn't work we are discussing what does. The xtian right can and does wield tremendous power in the U.S.

He is in power because of the religious right.

I can't believe you would even argue this. Don't you value your credibility at all?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Patently and obviously true.

The effect is the same. They vote in greater numbers. Period. Religion is very effective in providing votes.

We're aren't discussing what doesn't work we are discussing what does. The xtian right can and does wield tremendous power in the U.S.

He is in power because of the religious right.

I can't believe you would even argue this. Don't you value your credibility at all?

Of course the Religious Right elected Bush because they are the ones who voted. However, if there is a silent majority who could have overruled the Religious Right had they voted, Bush's presidencies are equally their fault for not doing what they could have to prevent Bush from being elected.