• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

All Religion is Bad.

All religion is bad and causes harm

  • True

    Votes: 97 49.7%
  • False

    Votes: 98 50.3%

  • Total voters
    195
I guess I wasn't clear. Benefits that outweigh the harms do not eliminate the harms. So, by that standard, religion is ALWAYS bad, even if there are also minor benefits.

But then, everything would likely be 'bad' by those criteria. Even something that is 99% beneficial and 1% harmful. All sex would be 'bad.' All human activity would be 'bad.' Sunshine, which is necessary for all life would be 'bad' because sometimes it causes cancer. It is a classic reductio ad absurdum.
 
As I said, Arti, in a post specifically directed to you today, I wouldn't ever put you on ignore. More lies...

Note me trying very hard to sway people in the vote, too.

Nice talking to you again.

Oh... must of misread something... I thought when you said you were finished with me... that it meant you were going to put me on ignore--dratz

Ah well...

Say do you think all racism is bad and harmful...
ALL racism?... Even, say "ethnic pride"... which some might call racism...
If I say teaching your kid to be racist is child abuse--
will you start another strawman poll to prove how morally superior you are to yourself?
 
Last edited:
But the original question included the word 'all' without any caveats. Therefore a single exception to the rule is suficient to falsify the statement. 99.9% is not the same as 100%. I would probably have anwsered in the affirmative without the word 'all.'

Yeah... wasn't it cool how he forced your vote that way... using your own logic to back you into a corner... Even if you thought the harm way outweighed the good, you would have to say false. (I heard we learned some cool stuff from Nazi experimentation, so I guess I would have to vote false if some asked If everything Nazi was bad and harmful...)
 
Which is the precise reason I didn't vote at all. :D

Very diplomatic-- but the polls don't close till they close so if you ever feel the urge to vote... you just click your preferred choice at leisure... I wish I had thought of the planet X option first... damn... it WAS the right answer for such a loaded question...

Live and learn...

(I just want to state for the record, that I voted yes because I think TA is a bozoface-- but if I had to do it all again...I'd choose the write-in option of "planet X". )
 
You can say that all religion is bad and still have circumstances where it's the best of multiple bad options. Like the heroin example, heroin is still going to do bad things to his mind and body, but it's a negligible issue in context.
 
I guess I wasn't clear. Benefits that outweigh the harms do not eliminate the harms. So, by that standard, religion is ALWAYS bad, even if there are also minor benefits.

benefits that outweigh the harms do not eliminate the harms, so by that standard, capitalism is ALWAYS bad.

but hang on,

benefits that outweigh the harms do not eliminate the harms, so by that standard, communism is ALWAYS bad.

and indeed

benefits that outweigh the harms do not eliminate the harms, so by that standard, anything that is not utopian is ALWAYS bad.

This seems a strange argument.
 
...so I guess I would have to vote false if some asked If everything Nazi was bad and harmful...)

You're complaining about the use of "all"?

Uh, you do realise that was your own position, all religion is bad? I checked several times whether you meant "some", "most" or some other adjective, but it was you who insisted that all religion is bad. I tried to ensure that no ambiguity remained.

I'm just running the poll to see what everyone else thinks.

Don't be complaining about strawmen you yourself created. Looks like a majority agree with you.
 
I shall vote false, one cannot and should not say that religion is always bad. Many scientific observers, I suspect most, believe that the human propensity to religious faith in some way manifests an adaptation. In those circumstances talk of the evils of religion, though a popular theme on this forum, miss the point.

A sensible discussion must go "Beyond Good and Evil," to borrow Nietzsche's phrase, and look at how that adaptation arose, what it does and what the social effects of religious faith are and. Above all, they should consider the alternatives, "would it be possible to create a faithless society and, if so, would you want to live in it?"
 
Does all religion cause physical or mental harm? I don't know. That's a tough question because to answer it we'd actually have to survey all of religion (and there are a lot of them out there - particularly when you realise that for the purpose of this question every sect must be looked at individually because what differentiates it from it's sister sects might make the difference in averting any harm that you may have found in those sister sects). One counter-example is enough.

Of course, the other way to treat the question is to look at whatever it is that makes something a religion and ask, "Is this thing necessarily harmful"? I don't know.

But I have to profess only mild interest in this question. Certainly there is good that comes from religion. I was listening to someone, I think it was a lecture by Douglas Adams that I downloaded the other day, talking about a similar point. Sure, the framework of not just religion, but a lot of old ideas (his example was feng shui) is false. Nevertheless, sometimes there is actual knowledge contained within it that's not worth throwing away. So, is it possible that some religions have some use? Sure.

However, one thing that I will unequivocally say is bad (not necessarily harmful, but bad nevertheless) is the idea of faith as a way of knowing something. It's simply false. The idea that because you believe it, it's valid or true, or whatever, and that there is no further evidence required, is wrong. And I think that leads not just to religious ideas (many of which are harmful) but also bad politics, bad policy, bad business, etc.

The idea that we can know something simply because we or someone else assert it, and that no further investigation is required, is not only false, it's arrogant. It does disservice to the beauty of the natural world, which requires real work to uncover.
 
You're complaining about the use of "all"?

Uh, you do realise that was your own position, all religion is bad? I checked several times whether you meant "some", "most" or some other adjective, but it was you who insisted that all religion is bad. I tried to ensure that no ambiguity remained.

I'm just running the poll to see what everyone else thinks.

Don't be complaining about strawmen you yourself created. Looks like a majority agree with you.

Liar. Nobody said "all". Anytime anybody said anything bad about religion... the ALL was presumed so instead of talking about the harmful act, Mijo and You pretended everyone said all and started rushing to defend religion in general and ignoring the bad act being discussed. You do this every time. All apologists do. The hear "all" when nobody says all... even though you don't hear all when someone says racism is bad... Mijo doesn't need APA reports to let people ask if locking kids in cages is child abuse. That's the whole point.

You have a kneejerk defense of religion... that's why you loaded your question that way. Mijo turned into ALL. But most apologists do. It's the way they take the focus off religion in general. They pretend that somebody is calling every religion bad if they say "religion is x"-- it's like you guys overgeneralize and then set up your damn strawman-- anything to avoid the issue. That's what religion does--it makes everybody defer to it and "respect" it and protect it or pretend it's mostly good or necessary for something or has some higher truths...

A person could totally agree with Gayak's right to say "who says religion isn't child abuse?"--particularly after egregious examples of such-- but instead you pretended Gayak said "all religions are harmful and bad". And then you made this your poll to prove your point that ALL religions are not harmful and bad even though Gayak nor anyone else said it. They said religion is a lie or "who said religion isn't child abuse?" or "religion harms kids"-- Not ALL. Mijo and you played semantic games to hear "all" and change the subject to make the commenter worse than what he was commenting on, you simpleton.

And then, when you were losing your silly poll, you went over to the other thread and declared yourself morally superior to those who voted yes to your inanely worded strawman poll.

You apologists are so dishonest and semantically obtuse.
 
Last edited:
Does all religion cause physical or mental harm? I don't know. That's a tough question because to answer it we'd actually have to survey all of religion (and there are a lot of them out there - particularly when you realise that for the purpose of this question every sect must be looked at individually because what differentiates it from it's sister sects might make the difference in averting any harm that you may have found in those sister sects). One counter-example is enough.

Of course, the other way to treat the question is to look at whatever it is that makes something a religion and ask, "Is this thing necessarily harmful"? I don't know.

But I have to profess only mild interest in this question. Certainly there is good that comes from religion. I was listening to someone, I think it was a lecture by Douglas Adams that I downloaded the other day, talking about a similar point. Sure, the framework of not just religion, but a lot of old ideas (his example was feng shui) is false. Nevertheless, sometimes there is actual knowledge contained within it that's not worth throwing away. So, is it possible that some religions have some use? Sure.

However, one thing that I will unequivocally say is bad (not necessarily harmful, but bad nevertheless) is the idea of faith as a way of knowing something. It's simply false. The idea that because you believe it, it's valid or true, or whatever, and that there is no further evidence required, is wrong. And I think that leads not just to religious ideas (many of which are harmful) but also bad politics, bad policy, bad business, etc.

The idea that we can know something simply because we or someone else assert it, and that no further investigation is required, is not only false, it's arrogant. It does disservice to the beauty of the natural world, which requires real work to uncover.

I agree. And that is what this silly poll is about. Whenever people tried to say just that-- it turned into a fake argument about whether someone can say that all religion is bad. It always does. It does with Dawkins, Pharyngula, Sam Harris, etc. Everytime you dare to critique religion, faith, or god -- the apologists come out of the woodwork and demonize you. It's the old smoke and mirrors to avoid discussing the actual point of whatever comment someone made.

I suppose I could do the reverse dishonesty and say that if someone sticks up for religion that they endorse female genital mutilations, deaths from lack of blood transfusion, pedophiliac priests, suicide bombers, threatening kids with hell, ignorance in the name of creationism, etc. But that would be as silly as this poll.

TA made this poll based on a strawman...

He's trying to prove some point, but I'm not sure what-- he's involved in a contest that seems to primarily be taking place in his head. If most people put false, he'll feel like he's won or proven some point or something. If most people put true, he'll feel he's more moral than the majority. Neither make sense, so it's funny when he says that "I'm winning..." This isn't my silly poll and he's trying to prove some point or other to Gayak--but who knows what it is.
 
Last edited:
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)

Anyway, moving on, I just wanted to make a minor addition to the point I made above:
Say that we find that such and such a religion is useful in some way. What then? Should we encourage people to continue to believe the entire ediface? Does this vindicate faith?
I don't think so. I think that questioning the relgion, and it's claims, is still entirely valid and useful. Those within it should do so. Those without as well. Hopefully, by doing so, the false and harmful ideas might be pruned away, and the useful, beneficial, real stored cultural knowledge will be what remains.

But that supposes giving up the idea of faith as a way of knowing.

And, as I said earlier, I think this applies to everything - not just religion.
 
Last edited:
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)

Anyway, moving on, I just wanted to make a minor addition to the point I made above:
Say that we find that such and such a religion is useful in some way. What then? Should we encourage people to continue to believe the entire ediface? Does this vindicate faith?
I don't think so. I think that questioning the relgion, and it's claims, is still entirely valid and useful. Those within it should do so. Those without as well. Hopefully, by doing so, the false and harmful ideas might be pruned away, and the useful, beneficial, real stored cultural knowledge will be what remains.

But that supposes giving up the idea of faith as a way of knowing.

And, as I said earlier, I think this applies to everything - not just religion.

If someone said "Religion makes people ignorant and fearful" or "religion is child abuse" would you conclude that the person was saying "all religions are bad and harmful"? That' really what the question should be. Because every time anyone says religions are bad... if you don't specify exactly-- people bring up this ALL issue and derail the discussion as though someone said "all"... and then you can never discuss the egregious acts of religionists, because you spend all your time defending the strawman where you've suddenly been vilified for stating an opinion.

And nuttiest thing is that the people who do this the most are so "blind" to it--they are the first to declare that they see no evidence of religion getting special status and deference.
 
Last edited:
If someone says

Religion is child abuse

Then yes that does imply that they think all religion is bad and harmful.

if the implication is distinct from that, then one could simply say

some religion can be child abuse

or

some religion is child abuse

and this would prevent any ambiguity.
 
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).
 
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).

It is an interesting point - and as always with the interpretation of the implied meaning of sentences never likely to reach any absolute conclusions....but i'd say that the relative distaste expressed does govern the implication - If one was to say "murder is bad" then that would still to me imply "I think that all murder is bad" - for if this is not what someone meant then i would have expected them to qualify it to avoid confusion. But an even stronger implication that one thinks that all murder is bad would be "murder is abhorrent" - the strength of conviction seems to make any ambiguity less likely.
And as in the case of religion - "religion is child abuse" employs a very powerful and emotive negative descriptor, so that possible ambiguity is much reduced.
 
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.
You have to say at least "teaching religion" or, even better, "current teaching of religion".

what if I said, "Murder is bad".
Would you equate that with "All murder is bad"?
Yes.

Herzblut
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies Andyandy and Herzblut. Can't write too much, have to run off, but I'll probably be back tomorrow.

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).

That's not to say that you're wrong. But it does make me wonder - is there anything about which you would say, "this is bad"? in those unqualified terms? Because I'm having a hard time thinking of a time that that sentence would be valid unless the qualifications were implied.
 
Nobody said "all".

As usual, demonstrably wrong:

Religion is a lie. It is all made up with not a shred of evidence to support it. All Lies = All Bad.

Along with qayak's position, which is quite unequivocal, this is just a small selection of your posts:

I'm just saying that it definitely causes harm and it isn't true...

Of course not...I just am not going to condone the censure of those who speak out against religion nor pretend that religion is good for something when we know full well it isn't true and it is manipulative.

And I am all for anyone spreading the idea that FAITH is a bad way to know anything true.

Amd just for the irony value:

I would never expect anyone just to take my word for something.
 

Back
Top Bottom