Religion Voted "The New Social Evil"
This was quite odd.
Religion Voted "The New Social Evil"
What a load of crap. There is nothing new about religion.
Nor is religious persecution new in the grand scheme of things -- but relative to recent history in the U.S.A. at least, religious persecution seems to have become the new, hip thing to do.
I know many people, who are religious and follow the Bible, who believe that the bible itself says to stay away from churches. They believe that churches go against the bible by putting a regular person in a position of authority in interpreting the bible. They say the bible is meant to be interpreted by the soul, and everyone will naturally see it differently. They believe that churches are where satan is, as warned in the bible, and that religious persecution is the result. They also claim that the Koran, Kabala, and bible are pretty much the same at the chore. I couldn't say because I have not read any of them, being skeptical that they are "written by god".
I say if you choose to have faith in a higher power, then try and find it yourself rather than having faith in a person who puts himself on a pedistool and claims an authority by proclaiming to be closer to god. That is the basis of pretty much every cult, someone claims to be closer to god and the sheep follow.
Jesus specifically goes on a rampage against "temples" in the New Testament and says that you should pray by yourself, away from sight, so that you can just speak to God yourself instead of doing like a lot of Evangelicals do these days, that is pray in public and publicly announce how much they love God, but then go and start wars, molest kids, or whatever. Not cool.
Most religions state that the bible is inspired by god, not written by him. But I encourage you to read it anyway -- it's a good story, and it's a huge influence on our society.
Even atheists like me can get something out of a good story.
Plus, having a solid knowledge of the bible makes you better at crossword puzzles .
I think that to a large extent you have Bush and the Republicans to thank for that. Tsu and I are both people of faith, but because of Bush and many of the people who have supported him, and because of what he has done, many times even we feel anti-religious now.
But therein lies the absurdity of this study. There is no way to assign beliefs or even attributes to "religion" unless we specify which one we mean. In fact, contrary to some of the objections made, the essense of the Christian message is love and acceptance, not intolerance.
Love your enemy, judge not or you will be judged, visit and provide comfort for the infirmed and imprisoned, help those who are less fortunate than you, blessed are the peacemakers... Hmmm, that doesn't quite match the list given.
Perhaps the problem is more one of human nature than faith.
Irrational? There are thousands of years of history that one might use to justify faith. But beyond that, if a person finds that a religious model works for them as promised - that indeed they are happier, their life improves in tangible ways, and they feel a sense of meaning in their life - it is perfectly rational to accept that model.
People have faith because they see a difference in their lives when they make the choice to have faith. One doesn't dedicate their life to a belief based on nothing but a story. They do it because they see results.
Of course. The problem is you can very easily use religion as a cover for your own evil.
Slavery was defended on the grounds that it was OK in the Bible, not to mention that religious texts are so vague that anybody can interpret it in any way they like.
I share Ivan's sentiments.
Those who are evil will find a way to justify it - even without religion. One could condemn every human institution, even all of humanity, based on the acts of some - but that wouldn't be right.
To use religion to justify intolerance, or segregation or exclusivity, or any immoral act is simply a misuse or corruption of religion - just as one could misuse food and overeat, or misuse a tool as a weapon, and so on.
Thousands of years of history justifies jack squat. Are you even trying to make a rational argument? We've had thousands of years of crime, slavery and subjugation of women. We've had thousands of years of people believing in all kinds of witchcraft, magic, superstition, and other irrational ideas. That doesn't justify any of them, nor does it make them rational.
So long as they don't go about imposing their superstitions on others.
Of course there are results. Very comforting results, even. But the same can be said of getting hooked to cigarettes or booze.
The thing is that you can use the bible to justify anything. Good people will selectively read the bible and only notice the good parts and vice versa.
All atheists should be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
All homosexuals should be stoned to death (Leviticus 20:13)
All disobedient children should be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
If your hand or eye offend you, you should cut it off or pluck it out (Mark 9:43)
The bible has its roots from cattle sacrificing primitives. Surely, we can do better than this?
According to some calculations, the character of Jahve has personally killed over 33 million people in the bible, making him the biggest genocidal maniac in all of history (if he existed and the stories are true). In comparison, Satan has killed 10.
The data seems more consistent with the conclusion that using religion to justify tolerance, love, peace and moral act is a corruption of religion. Let us be honest, the only reason religion is still left is because it has been indoctrinated into children for generation after generation.
Non sequitur. Just because a concept or idea is pleasant has no effect on its truth-value. I can invent a religion, where you will burn forever and ever in Hell and be eaten by bob, a demon with seventeen horns if you do not teach your children love, respect, science and reason. If we where to replace all religious extremism with the religion of bob, the world would be a much better place. However, would this suggest, even slightly, that bob exists?
Let us face it, the major world religions are pretty much mutually exclusive. No matter how much we twist and turn, at least 4 billion people are delusional, in the sense that they are subscribing to a worldview that is entirely factually false.
Read all of those.
But the last part you quoted isn't entirely accurate. It's meant that if it makes you sin, get rid of it. Not necessarily "offends".
Sweet sweet atheism!
Your objection seems consistent with self-mutilation if you are a sinner. The key here is that all Christians are sinners on the Christian worldview, by default.
No, that's not how it works. You are born a sinner, sure, but you are supposed to beg Jesus for forgiveness and he'll do it cuz he's cool like that.
But when a body-part continuously sins (apparently you have no control over it or something), then it's better to just get rid of it instead of constantly sinning. So if your pen0r causes you to be an adulterer or rapist, cut it off and stop raping or adulterizing people.
Or if you look at beautiful young women.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt 5:27-28)
So look at women means that you should pluck your eyes out.
I mean, I don't exactly get a chance to look at women, but doesn't everybody just sit at home 24/7 like I do?
Have you tried a life without faith?
If it ain't broke, why fix it?
I would hope standards one's life are a bit higher than that.
Standards? What do you mean?
If you have something in your life that makes you happy, and it doesn't harm you or anyone else, why would removing it from your life necessarily make you happier? In fact, wouldn't that just be likely to make you unhappier?
I think that's the problem here.
How much have you donated to a church? To buy Bibles? Stuff that a non-religious person would be ridiculed for doing?
We call ^^^ that person delusional, but we call
^^^ that person religious.
What's the difference?
I agree. But faith is not always a bad, harmful thing. Sometimes it's a very good and life enhancing thing.
None. I donate to charities that help animals.
Why would the non-religious person be ridiculed for a donation to a church? Gee, that seems kind of mean and intolerant.
And one more set of opinions ...
After a long life of thought about many subjects, including religion, I have come to the following conclusions regarding religion:
- Religion, primarily, is man's way of dealing with his mortality
- Most religions teach many worthwhile traits; some traits have no social value whatsoever, though
- Many people practicing a religion don't live by its worthwhile traits
- The very religious can be the most intolerant, despite most religion's advocacy of tolerance
- Many religions preach proselytization (is this a good word?). Really irritates me, though, when I'm the object of their proselytization.
- I would suggest that more people have been hurt/killed/whatever in the name of religion that anything else
- Bottom line: Live a worthwhile life, with value to your family and society and be happy. If you really need religion to make you happy or secure, then adopt one, but keep it to yourself.
Separate names with a comma.