All Religion is Bad.

[Herzblut]

With one stupid statement he did irrepairable damage to the fight against HIV/AIDS.

You didn't get my point, did you? So, again, in simple words:

please provide evidence!

Herzblut

 

[andyandy]

I think I would base it on what you are threatening for non belief-- excommunication? stoning to death? Eternal suffering? Any of those are bad.

Also, I'd base it on how much the notion that "faith is a good way to know truth" is part of the doctrine... does it make people ignorant of scientific facts.

And the bigotry factor--does it tell you only believers can be moral or are saved or that you "need" belief?

All of this a forms of brainwashing and the more any religions do it, the worse they are. Also if they encourage members to spawn and or proselytize that's bad. Believers are religions way of making more believers.

If they get tax breaks or have power that's bad.

Sex with minors is bad--from polygamous Mormons to pedophiliac clergy. Extremes are worst. None are necessary. We will be more civilized when they are gone.

All fundamentalists get a 1-- but in their head they get a 10 for following the world of the supposed creator of a universe to a T. We need to tell young people that faith is a bad way to know the truth and sometimes the least trustworthy people are the people you trust the most.

the points you raise are certainly worthy of consideration with regards to assesing a religion - I wonder if any such analysis has actually been done, with the imposition of an arbitrary comparative framework - Judaism would be an interesting one to rate relative to a securalized Christian denomination like CofE.
(CofE is Church of England btw Herzblut)

The best are the middle eastern ones that don't seem to have much to do with supernaturalism... but they are still sexist. The men are the leaders and gain the powers and are the "enlightened masters"-- not women.

I think that the main positive eastern religions like Shintoism is their non-dogmatism - which circumvents religious judgmentalism, and creates a much more flexible and fluid religion which is adapted by the individual on a personal level. All the monotheistic faiths suffer considerably from their dogmatic constraints - and though liberalism does occur, it is normally after significant resistance. It's difficult to express in English with regards to Shintoist supernaturalism - it does exist, but perhaps best understood as the feeling one gets stood on top of a mountain or soaking in a Japanese hot spring as a "one-ness" with nature - which is why I think supernatural-naturalism whilst unwieldy is more appropriate. There is also a concept of death being a return to this one-ness - and Shinto ceremony and festivals serve as a social vehicle to venerate and remember ones' ancestors (you also see Buddhist festivals like Obon being used to fill the same role)
With regards to religious patriarchy - that is true, but i would regard this as a case of Shintoism representing society rather than have any leading influence - Japan is an exceptionally patriarchal society relative to western norms and you see the same male stacked power structures throughout all aspects of life. It is an interesting point to consider though - and might have some merit.

The best thing about religion is that we live in the age of the internet and former believers can share with others who have been through similar "indoctrination".

I think the internet is very much a double edged sword - on one hand it does indeed open up information and I think help secularize societies, but on the other hand it also allows pocket extremism to flourish - in the past crazies were isolated, now whatever one's belief or opinion you can find group membership and validation online....

 

[articulett]

I think the internet is very much a double edged sword - on one hand it does indeed open up information and I think help secularize societies, but on the other hand it also allows pocket extremism to flourish - in the past crazies were isolated, now whatever one's belief or opinion you can find group membership and validation online....

Well I agree with that. But I hope that it leads to people understanding that people have been deluding themselves and others and appealing to the supernatural for eons-- and that's why I think it's important to spread the message that faith is a bad way to know anything true. The actual truths are the same for everybody. Science aims to understand those truths. We cannot do so until we stop deferring to religion and pretending it's harmless. By not speaking out, we imply that we agree that faith is good. At least that's how it seemed to me as a kid. People spoke like all this stuff was true,
but no one seemed to be concerned that people believed different things and our supposed eternities were at stake. It's dangerous for humans to think that the the creator of the universe have revealed some higher truths to somebody... it makes for ready manipulation of trusting people. And I might point out that no such entity seems to care that people are killing people over who has the "Truth"... Not very benevolent. It's just madness. I want people to scoff at the notion of higher truths for the benefit of us all.

 

[articulett]

I would say Marjoe Gortner was a victim of religion as child abuse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSdI8ag1k0A

and he showed exactly how he did it... and sucked others in when he became an adult. It's funny, but sad. People trust anything or anyone who associates themselves with god. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O0p4ZDnDoQ&mode=related&search=

And then there's the spectacle of Jesus camp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_EKHK1C2IE

Who do you think these kids will grow up to be? When you protect religion and vilify those who speak out or mischaracterize their arguments as applying equally to all-- you allow this stuff to perpetuate.

Changing the subject as to whether someone is saying ALL religions whenever they criticize religions is a dishonest tactic that covers for this crap and all other abuses in the name of a lie.

 

[The Atheist]

Changing the subject as to whether someone is saying ALL religions whenever they criticize religions is a dishonest tactic that covers for this crap and all other abuses in the name of a lie.

Must be the day for shifting goalposts.

Would you like me - for the third time - to post your comments where you agreed that all religion is bad?

Or would you prefer to now lie about what I have demonstrably proved that you said?

You don't anger me, you sicken me.

 

[articulett]

an apologist page count












15 times on one page.

If it quack like a duck...

I gave my definition; it is an opinion; others agree. Moreover, I might add, that "apologist" is much less offensive than what I've been called by said apologists. I stand by everything I have said.

 

[andyandy]

Who do you think these kids will grow up to be? When you protect religion and vilify those who speak out or mischaracterize their arguments as applying equally to all-- you allow this stuff to perpetuate.

Changing the subject as to whether someone is saying ALL religions whenever they criticize religions is a dishonest tactic that covers for this crap and all other abuses in the name of a lie.

was this addressed to me? It would be a gross misrepresentation if it was- which given your above post extolling the virtues of honesty would be somewhat ironic.
You've already misrepresented my position once on this thread - talking about me in derogatory terms when I wasn't even contributing to the thread, attributing a position to me which you knew was false. If you wish to lecture in honesty then please practice what you preach.

here is your last misrepresentation and my response. You have neither apologized nor tried to defend your opinion.

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"... .

One poster in a thread about dawkins said that Dawkins was in many ways like a God. My single question was 'In what way is he like a God?'

This is not a 'jibe' about anyone who 'says anything good about dawkins' - this is questioning dawkins being compared to a deity. I know you understand this as we have discussed this in a PM in which i have already made this very point. From my PM you will also be aware that I am a fan of dawkins;

I can accept that Dawkins has made massive positive contributions towards science and has certainly has apparently started a positive debate in America with regards to religion. As I have already said, I am a fan of his books and lectures. I'm reading the ancestor's tale right now. But all this qualification really should not be necessary. Whilst I agree with a good deal of what dawkins says, I don't agree with everything.

and so saying that I was criticising anyone who said anything good about dawkins is patently false - unless i should now criticise myself for holding that opinion. Why then so you think it necessary to misrepresent my position? I have already said

And I don't attack "anyone who likes Dawkins" because I like him myself - I simply don't agree with everything he says. Surely you can accept that he is not above criticism? Perhaps some people who attack him do so to defend their own religious beliefs but that doesn't mean that every criticism requires that the individual is an "apologist"

Were anyone to be described in the terms such as being in many ways like a god i would question what led an individual to that opinion. That could be dawkins, jimmy saville or the bloke at our local chippie.

I will ask again. Please stop knowingly misrepresnting my own and other people's opinions.

 

[articulett]

Andy, that wasn't addressed specifically to you. It was a general statement for those who attack people for criticizing religion rather than the abuses such people are criticizing by making it into an issue about whether ALL religions are ALL bad to ALL people; it's tangential.

Of course that is just my opinion. But I'm not alone in that opinion. I think you have misrepresented me far more than I have misrepresented you and said worse things about me as well. Calling you an "apologist" is not the same as calling someone a liar. But then again, Ted Haggard calls Dawkins a liar. Some people see their own traits in others perhaps. Apologist is an opinion. So is "abuse". Word meanings are also interpretive. And not everybody who says "religion is a lie" or "religion is harmful" is saying ALL religions. You have diverted conversations with this canard while avoiding commenting on what the person was actually saying--usually they were talking about something a lot more harmful than voicing an opinion about religion being bad. But you chose to go after their phrasing!

But it's all about opinions. Science is about the facts that are the same for everybody. Religion often keeps people from learning these facts because they have a vested interest in belief. This poll is all about ignoring this so TA can prove some silly point that doesn't even mean anything as far as I can tell since nobody ever said All religion is bad and harmful... that was Mijo's extrapolation and yours and TA's. TA pulled up quotes, and they don't say what he is claiming they say. Moreover, quayak's quote is in direct response to TA's accusations that he WAS saying ALL religions. That's just blatant dishonesty as far as I'm concerned. This whole silly poll started with a derail by Mijo and continued by you and TA-- neither on topic... both addressed at quayak and I --neither of us once said what you all misrepresented us as saying.

Nobody said "ALL religions" despite Mijo's semantic dance to somehow prove we must have meant "all" --and even if we had said "all"-- who cares? That wasn't the topic! That would be an OPINION about the topic. Opinions are not the same as the lies about the factual nature of reality that religions lie about. Either you don't get that; or you don't want to get that. You insulted qayak rather than the misdeeds of those he was talking about. Smoke and mirrors.

You get upset when I call people an apologist--well others get upset when they can't criticize religion without people coming in with this tangent that not ALL religions are bad. Who cares if not all are bad? None are true. There is no evidence that they are necessary. Religions are the direct cause of many harms--although nobody will say that their religion is. They promote the notion that faith is a good way to know things. They promote scientific ignorance--all of them, as far as I can tell. And religious people aren't more moral by any measurement except the one in their heads.

And I know you keep saying that you disagree with Dawkins on some things... but you never say what they are. And you have to admit, most people whom you would call an apologist would do something similar, would they not? His quotes are all over the web. If you disagree with something, there should be no problem bringing up the quote. Instead people paraphrase and give a caricature of him or post a link like Mijo did where he seems much less "strident" than this image others seem to have--less strident and making more sense than Mijo to me. Maybe you just can't see yourself through my eyes. But how do you think a "true apologist" would be different?

And, btw, I respect Dawkins the same way I respect Randi, and I resent being accused of worshiping anybody. I have no masters, gurus, or saviors. And I would and have reacted the same way when someone is accusing me of worshiping Randi. I'd put Sagan and Feynman on that list too. They add to real factual important understanding. Those who criticize them never seem to offer anything of similar value as far as I can see.

 

[andyandy]

ok - i see you've just edited the bit i replied to...so I'll edit my response. Probably just as well.

Andy, that wasn't addressed specifically to you

ok - apologies

And I know you keep saying that you disagree with Dawkins on some things... but you never say what they are.

I did say in the PM that I sent to you

And you're right about the criticisms of Dawkins pailing into insignificance relative to the harm that religion can do - from Islamic fundamentalists to YEC there is a lot that needs to be said, and dawkins certainly plays a role in that. He seems to have found great resonance within America, perhaps with the silent minority who have suffered at the religious majority's hands for far too long - and this is a good thing.
But he is not above criticism nor should he be. And neither should any criticism mean that therefore one agrees with religion or fundamentalism. I dislike his use of rhetoric eg. "Chamberlain apologists," and agree with Wilson that he could provide an excellent insight into religion through merging his interest in religion with his scientific insight in evolutionary biology. His response, effectively "it's my book, who are you to tell me what to put in it?" is fair enough from his perspective, but if we simply leave it at that then no one can offer criticism of any author without the same accusation hurled back.
I agree that there are big lies that need to be addressed - I am grateful that Dawkins has gone someway to addressing them, especially in the States. But he is not above criticism nor should he be. You may disagree with that criticism but you don't need to take it so personally as if it were an endorsement for fundamentalism.

I have discussed this in much greater length in dawkins threads in the past, really the strange thing that I find is that one should have to justify not agreeing competely with an author on a book - were i to say i enjoyed Fabric of the Cosmos but thought it would have provided a greater insight with the inclusion of some more mathematical forumlae, I don't suppose anyone would give two hoots. Equally with Dawkins, that I dislike his use of rhetoric

Scientists divide into two schools of thought over the best tactics with which to face the threat. The Neville Chamberlain 'appeasement' school focuses on the battle for evolution. Consequently, its members identify fundamentalism as the enemy, and they bend over backwards to appease 'moderate' or 'sensible' religion (not a difficult task, for bishops and theologians despise fundamentalists as much as scientists do). Scientists of the Winston Churchill school, by contrast, see the fight for evolution as only one battle in a larger war: a looming war between supernaturalism on the one side and rationality on the other. For them, bishops and theologians belong with creationists in the supernatural camp, and are not to be appeased.

should hardly be especially noteworthy. Any JREfer posting such a paragrapgh would have Godwin shouted at them so loud their ears would be ringing for days....

 

[The Atheist]

Nobody said "ALL religions"

Jesus Christ.

12 pages of argument on this subject and this subject alone.

I have copied and copied and copied your own precise words where you stated that.

As Andy is busily pointing out, the number of times you cry "dishonesty" while lying through your teeth is laughable.

My entire argument with you has been because I would not say that all religion is bad and you and qayak [sic] both classed me a "religious apologist" as a result. And you keep denying you said something which you demonsrably did!

As I said earlier, sickening.

I guess you feel that by repeating that single lie time after time that somehow you'll escape from your own words.

The bad news is that I will keep calling you on it.

You can retire gracefully and by next week nobody will even remember what all the fuss was about. But you won't. I hesitate to tell you that you're destroying any shred of respectability and credibility you had left, because I'm quite happy for you to keep bowling it over, so keep right on posting.

 

[Wolfman]

And not everybody who says "religion is a lie" or "religion is harmful" is saying ALL religions.

Sorry...I've avoided this debate thus far because I knew before it started how it would degenerate in pretty much the exact way that has occurred here. However, I can't leave this statement alone.

Please...if someone says, "religion is a lie" or "religion is harmful", with no modifiers (ie. "some religions", "Christian religions", etc.), then exactly what do they mean? It seems the ultimate in sophistry to me to make arguments like that, sweeping generalities that encompass every religion, then when someone objects with specific examples, say, "Oh, well we don't necessarily mean all religions."

If you are referring only to specific religions, then state which religions those are. Don't lump them all together. And if you do make such statements -- which by any reasonable interpretation mean all religions -- then don't get upset when people actually call you on it.

It is a fairly established, acknowledged fact that within these forums, none of us claim to be mind readers. Most of us consider mind reading to be quite impossible. So if you say, "religion is a lie", or "religion is harmful", I am entirely incapable of somehow reading your mind to realize that you do not actually mean what your words actually say. I have this rather crazy tendency to actually assume the stated meaning of what someone has written is the meaning that they intend.

Or, perhaps, from this point onwards, every time you or your ilk make statements of fact, I should insert all sort of unstated assumptions. As follows:

You say, "Religion is harmful", I assume you actually mean only some religions are harmful, others are not.

You say, "I like pasta", I assume you actually mean you like spaghetti, but don't like raviolli.

You say, "I know what I'm talking about", I assume you mean that you only know some of the things you are talking about, and fake the rest.

 

[Hokulele]

OK, after reading the rest of the food fight here, I think I can finally vote. Yeah, I know, you are all thrilled with this.

Using qayak's definition of religion as requiring a belief in the supernatural, I will say that all religion is bad. Sure, there have been good actions taken by religious people and religious organizations, but the good actions do not require a supernatural cause. The same good actions, good organizations, and good art can come from other philosophical causes. I cannot see how a belief in the supernatural can ever be classified as "not bad".

 

[Wolfman]

Ok, Hokster...would like some clarifications. You've stated that you believe that a belief in the supernatural cannot be classified as "not bad". You've stated that you don't accept examples of religion causing people to do good things.

But you haven't explained exactly why it is "bad".

Is it because it is a false belief? Is a belief which is false, by definition, "bad"? I'm sure there must be some things you believe that, if we had enough knowledge, would prove to be wrong (in that I believe no human being has 100% correct comprehension of our universe); does that mean that those beliefs are "bad" (or, to put it in your words, cannot be classified as "not bad")?

Is it because religion has caused people to do bad things? If that's the argument, how can you summarily dismiss 'good' acts inspired by religious belief, but accept 'bad' acts inspired by religious belief?

It is hard for me to debate with you, or engage in a discussion, when you don't give actual reasons for your conclusion.

To me, even accepting your statement as is, there's a world of difference between "can't be classified as not bad" and "being classified as bad". You assume a black/white model of diametrically opposed opposites, with no middle ground.

I, on the other hand, would argue for a third category -- neutral. Its not "good", but its not "bad" either. A Buddhist (that is, a Buddhist who does believe in the supernatural, we'll avoid 'atheist Buddhists' for present) has beliefs that you and I, as atheists, believe are wrong. But those beliefs do not cause him to hurt others, force his beliefs on others, deny the rights of others, etc. They do not hurt him, and they do not hurt anyone else.

Is it "good" that he has such beliefs? That is a philosophical question for which I believe no really quantitative answer is possible. Is it "bad" that he has such beliefs? I'd say the same thing.

I would tend to measure "good" and "bad" in terms of A) how beliefs affect the individual and B) how beliefs affect people around you. And I would argue that beliefs that result in a net "positive" result (ie. they benefit yourself, and they benefit people around you), regardless of whether or not they are factually verifiable or true, are "good" (I'd like to see an argument that net positive results are bad). Likewise, I'd argue that beliefs that result in a net "negative" result (ie. they hurt you, or they hurt people around you), are "bad".

And then there are those beliefs that just don't make much difference one way or another -- a category that would apply to quite a number of theists and atheists alike.

I've explained how I reach my determination of what beliefs are "good", and what beliefs are "bad" (and what beliefs are "neutral", for that matter)...would appreciate a similar explanation of your own position

 

[Wolfman]

Once upon a time, there were two twin brothers. Physically, they appeared exactly the same; but mentally, they had diametrically opposed beliefs.

The first brother believed in a fictitious god, one that did not exist. There were numerous rules and laws that this man was told he should follow, because this fictitious god had supposedly said that this is what people should do. Those laws said things like, "treat others with love", "share what you have with those who have less", and "take one day each week to worship me". He followed those laws as best he could. In some cases, it led to helping others; in other cases, it helped nobody, but didn't hurt anybody either. His beliefs were 100% wrong, with no factual or logical justification, held in blind faith. When others tried to convince him otherwise, he refused to even listen. He just did what his erroneous beliefs told him to do.

The second brother believed in no god whatsoever. He believed in the superiority of logic, and of science. A leader in his country arose who pointed out how other countries had abused and mistreated them. He had tons of facts and figures, 100% verifiable and indisputable facts. This leader called for people of his nation to rise up and punish those who had abused them. This brother looked at all the information. There was no appeal to a mythical god, no appeal to supernatural forces. It was all based on 100% facts, 100% truth. Weighing all of the information, he made the rational, logical decision that what their leader said was true, and it was time for them to punish those who had abused them for so long.

So...which one had the "good" beliefs, and which one had the "bad" beliefs?

 

[Hokulele]

I've explained how I reach my determination of what beliefs are "good", and what beliefs are "bad" (and what beliefs are "neutral", for that matter)...would appreciate a similar explanation of your own position

I know, my argument is clearly not perfect, but that is more a fault of how this OP and the accompanying poll are constructed. I completely agree with just about all of your post (and am work, so can't comment more fully just yet), but TA already excluded all of the middle (neutral), so if my only choices are "true" or "false" for "all religion is bad", and if I accept the fact that "religion" requires a belief in the supernatural (as opposed to beliefs which are simply factually wrong), I say "True, all religion is bad." I can then console myself with the thought that I am only saying supernatural belief is bad, but the philosophical constructs inherent within the religion (non-supernatural stuff) are the "good" part.

(By now, this is mostly just to piss off TA for playing semantic games with a serious subject.)

 

[Wolfman]

...and before someone inevitably misunderstands my previous post and attempts to claim that I'm saying something ridiculous like "religious people do good things" and "atheists do bad things", that's not my point at all. My point is that theists and atheists alike do good things, and do bad things. Atheists are no less inclined to "evil" than theists are. And are no less inclined to charity and altruism, also.

My contention is with the claim, apparently assumed by some here, that because something is "wrong", it is "bad". I'm an atheist. I do think that belief in any god, any supernatural being, is "wrong". But it is not therefore implicitly "bad".

I would far rather be surrounded by a bunch of theists doing good things, than a bunch of atheists doing bad things. The thing that people who make these arguments seem to miss out on is that even "concrete, verifiable" facts can be twisted and manipulated to make any moral argument you please. Just as theistic beliefs can be twisted and manipulated to make any moral judgment you please.

I welcome arguments that a net "good" result from "wrong" theistic beliefs is "bad"; whereas a net "bad" result from "correct" atheistic beliefs is "good".

 

[Hokulele]

Weighing all of the information, he made the rational, logical decision that what their leader said was true, and it was time for them to punish those who had abused them for so long.

Why would it necessarily follow that simply because the facts of the abuse are correct, punishment is required? This brother could still act in a "good" fashion by taking actions to address the previous abuse without resorting to punishment.

 

[Wolfman]

Why would it necessarily follow that simply because the facts of the abuse are correct, punishment is required? This brother could still act in a "good" fashion by taking actions to address the previous abuse without resorting to punishment.

Hokster -- thank you very much, that was exactly the point I was hoping someone would raise One of the common complaints about "theists" is the way that they can twist and interpret their "scriptures" any way they want, in order to justify any action they want to take.

The thing that such people ignore is that moral judgments cannot be scientifically or quantifiably determined. Atheists are just as capable of taking 100% true information, and twisting and interpreting it in order to reach a wide range of possible moral conclusions.

Yes, the atheist brother could have looked at this information and chosen peace. And he could have looked at this information and chosen war and revenge. There is nothing implicit in his being an atheist, or in the factuality of the information he has, that dictates what is the "scientifically correct choice". It is a moral choice.

And the fact that he makes the decision based on true facts in no way renders it superior to or inferior to a decision made by a theist based on false beliefs.

--snip--
but TA already excluded all of the middle (neutral), so if my only choices are "true" or "false" for "all religion is bad", and if I accept the fact that "religion" requires a belief in the supernatural (as opposed to beliefs which are simply factually wrong), I say "True, all religion is bad."
--snip--

Well, obviously, i disagree with the way that TA set up the poll. I think it leads to a discussion that includes only extreme positions, which automatically lends itself to use of exaggeration and polarization of respective positions.

ETA: I made some fairly major changes to my initial post, when I realized I'd made some errors myself; I hope that nobody is responding to the former comments, if so, my apologies for the confusion.

 

[qayak]

If you can find anything other than that opinion, then you may accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. Quotes from any thread will be fine - other than obvious parodies.

Your intellectual dishonesty has to do with the your claim on a public list you received e-mails from other members which make derogatory statements about Articulett and then refusing to disclose what they actually said or who they were so your statements can be checked.

It would be like me stating that I have received 100 PM's that say they beleive religion is all bad and adding those to the numbers in the poll, means that the "true" side wins. No, sorry, I can't send you the PM's or tell you who they are, that would be breaking a confidence. You will just have to take my word for it. Nice little poll though, too bad you lost.

In the meantime, maybe you'd like to address the conflict between your two statements as posted above? What was that about intellectual dishonesty?

The conflict is in your mind. In order to address it you will have to seek professional help. Perhaps getting some reading comprehension help from a kindergarten teacher. Perhaps some psychological help for your delusions. I don't know exactly, you will have to figure it out.

 

[qayak]

Is there a religion that is good? Can anyone name one?

Apparently not. Of course, they are not all bad . . . we just don't know of a good one. It would seem to me a simple matter to find one but . . .

Shintoism might be, the way it is practiced today. I wonder if anyone realizing that there religion doesn't make the good list will discard it for Shintoism.

Silly question! Of course they won't. Because if they do, they will be out of the favoured group and won't make it to heaven. It is amazing what evils one will apologize for in order to protect their everlasting soul.