I don't trust religious people anymore

[Sir Doom]

Hello Everybody

Aloha and shalom.

Just to get a few things out of the way, Yes i am new here and yes i am an athiest. I started this thread not to cause a riot or anything like that but to simply discuss the topic.

That's good! This is the best venue for expressing these types of ideas that I've ever found. And I've tried a bunch. Here (as you may have noticed from the last 6 pages) its tough to find non-intellectual responses. While this does sort of shoots big fat mortal wounds into the specific idea you'd like to discuss here, its still a great thing to come across for someone who enjoys these sorts of topics.

Lately as i have grown older i have come to realize that i no longer trust religious people.

That is unfortunate. It sounds like paranoia to be honest. I mean, you are talking about a vast majority of humanity. Its fine if you simply don't trust anyone as a general rule (much like the Reverend Revolting), but its a bit odd to single out the religious simply because of their commitment to a religious ideal. Its almost like you want to say the opposite, "I only trust atheists." Makes it seem a lot worse when you say it this way doesn't it?

I realize that many people i deal with on a day to day basis are religious in some form or another and of varying degrees and for the most part it is never brought up in a topic of conversation. Their beliefs are their own and as long as they don't push them on me i never know the difference..generally these are good people and i have no issues with them at all, nor they me.

Hmm. If I couple this with the first statement about trust, it seems like you are saying, "As long as they keep their mouth shut about their religious inclination, I can just pretend they are atheists and maintain trust." I can't really think of a better example of intellectual dishonesty. This is clearly a lie you are telling yourself. If you can't even trust yourself, I find it hard to believe you trust your fellow atheists any more than you trust the religious.

The problem comes when i find out that they are religious, i instantly lose respect for them on an intellectual level and i no longer trust them to make sound decisions.

A confirmation that my combination of the above statements was spot on. Hitting the nail on the head is awfully rewarding, don't you agree?

The reason for this is the cognitive dissadence they show in their religious views and their ability to ignore what in my opinion is the obvious fact that there is no god, never was and that religion itself is just a tool used to control the masses.

I'm having a very tough time reconciling the phrases "...in my opinion..." and "...obvious fact..." in your statement here. That's a bit besides the point, of course. The reality is you are essentially saying that everything a human being of your acquaintance does up until they spill the beans about their religious leanings is completely irrelevant afterwards.

I find myself looking at the country as a whole and realize that the same people who believe there is an invisable, all powerful , omnipotent being in the sky that created everything, controls everything and can see or do everything with no proof of that person get a vote in how this country is ran and that vote counts just as much as mine does.

So, you actually think your vote should count for more? How much more exactly? Double? Triple? Maybe they just shouldn't get a vote at all? How long do you have to be a religious person in order to lose your vote? How long to you have to be an atheist before you get a vote? How often do we test people's religious leanings in order to determine whether they get a vote? Should we establish a federal organization that travels around the country and tests everyone for religious leanings? What should be the penalty for pretending to be an atheist? Do you think we should remove any other constitutional rights while we're at it? I mean, if we're already taking out 1/3 of the 1st amendment, why not the other 2 parts? If they can't speak or write or make TV shows or movies about religion it will eventually just die off won't it? Then we don't have to worry about employing jack-booted thought-police to make sure no one 'votes for Jesus'.

I sincerely hope you are picking up what I'm laying down here.

Basing their choices on how we should run our country on a figment of their imagination and the will of the church is downright dangerous in my opinion.

Dangerous? As in... we will be physically damaged? Killed? Get sick maybe?

Or maybe you mean it a bit more metaphorically. Something like allowing a single belief structure to dictate to the rest of us how to think and live? A complete subversion of constitutional liberty? Sort of like the scenario I was describing above? Is that the sort of danger you mean?

Anyway , if anybody finds this way of thinking worth a conversation then have at it.

I hope that you take this post in the way its intended. I hope that you take a look at the way you've presented your idea and perhaps rethink your approach. Maybe you might want to consider that you don't have all the answers just because you've arrived at one answer you are sure of. Please understand, I have no desire to stop you from expressing your opinion. Your opinion is valid. Everyone's is. But if you take such a divisive stance without thinking forward to the inevitable conclusions of your ideas, then people like myself are going to do it for you and you're likely to be shocked by the conclusions I come to.

 

[ChristineES]

I think the important thing to remember is this: religious people are not stupid.
That is quite true; religious people are not stupid, they are deceived.

Do you think saying that is any better than saying we're stupid?

 

[crocusj]

I find myself looking at the country as a whole and realize that the same people who believe there is an invisable, all powerful , omnipotent being in the sky that created everything, controls everything and can see or do everything with no proof of that person get a vote in how this country is ran and that vote counts just as much as mine does.

Are you suggesting that this should not be the case? That you're vote should count more?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

How can anyone's vote 'count more' so to speak, when opposing ideals never mix with close election results. If not a very clear majority there is only a weak power base. They end up with no clear or definitive mandate to implement their policies. Can a Republican president be effective with a democratic congress or visa versa ?

With no big winner or majority they end up like the feet of a huge statue whose feet are made up formed with mixed-together iron and clay.
How long can such a political statue stand before collapsing ?

- Daniel chapter 2

 

[jasonwill2]

Hello Everybody

Just to get a few things out of the way, Yes i am new here and yes i am an athiest. I started this thread not to cause a riot or anything like that but to simply discuss the topic. Lately as i have grown older i have come to realize that i no longer trust religious people.

I realize that many people i deal with on a day to day basis are religious in some form or another and of varying degrees and for the most part it is never brought up in a topic of conversation. Their beliefs are their own and as long as they don't push them on me i never know the difference..generally these are good people and i have no issues with them at all, nor they me.

The problem comes when i find out that they are religious, i instantly lose respect for them on an intellectual level and i no longer trust them to make sound decisions. The reason for this is the cognitive dissadence they show in their religious views and their ability to ignore what in my opinion is the obvious fact that there is no god, never was and that religion itself is just a tool used to control the masses.

I find myself looking at the country as a whole and realize that the same people who believe there is an invisable, all powerful , omnipotent being in the sky that created everything, controls everything and can see or do everything with no proof of that person get a vote in how this country is ran and that vote counts just as much as mine does.

Basing their choices on how we should run our country on a figment of their imagination and the will of the church is downright dangerous in my opinion.

Anyway , if anybody finds this way of thinking worth a conversation then have at it.

Congratulations, you have admitted to being a bigot.

Sorry , it's early so my spelling is a little off, of course i would expect that to invalidate my entire thread because of two mispelled words..my bad

Second, it's not just christian's that i have an issue with..its all religion. Where did i say i had a problem with christians?

You listed a bunch of generally Christian ideas of a God.

Well i grew up in an Italian/Jewish community in the Bronx before moving out west. Plenty of mormons live in Vegas, Catholics, Evangelicals..you name it. Las Vegas believe it or not has a pretty diverse religious population. Actually more churches in this town per capita then most cities in the U.S

If by mispelling a word or two means you lose respect for my intellectual capacity then feel free.

I think the difference is i simply mispelled a word vs i believe an invisable man in the sky controls all..one of those is slightly more dangerous then the other in my opinion.

Hell, my boss can barely spell it seems but i know he is incredibly smart and good at his job..and he believes in some Aliens that populated the world..needless to say i think that's a little silly but i feel there is a higher probability that there are other forms of life in the universe then there is an omnipotent man in the sky

That is not diverse, those are all Christians bar some Jews.

Are you even aware of religions that are not monotheistic? Pantheism, atheism, polytheism, henotheism... are just a few examples of cosmology within my branch of religions (Satanism)

 

[JohnLeo]

Do you think saying that is any better than saying we're stupid?

Certainly!!!.....Highly intelligent folks are not immune from being deceived. Wily politicians deceive people all the time who are far from stupid. And when it comes to deception I think a case can be made that theologians and churchman are as good at it if not better than wily politicians!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

4)Religions are not only used to control people, they are also used to make tremendous amounts of money , gain power and influence among other things . Religion also has many positive qualities but those are necessary in order to keep people from leaving in droves..

What about tribal religions where you will typically not find the power, wealth, and control that has been associated with organized religion by many of those who are antagonistic towards religion? And then there are those few churches and individuals that do actually follow Jesus' commandment of selling all of their possessions and giving the money to the poor. There are even some televangelist who live at a church because they have no property, only a few necessary possessions such as clothing, and donate their money to charity.
And of course there are many individual reasons why someone joins a religion, or a religious group. Even scientists and atheists have their reasons for going to church on Sundays, even if it's just to socialize.

Except there is no evidence to support creationism but mountains of evidence to support evolution. There is certainly no credible science backing up creationism, it is purely based on faith and religious views.

We hear of these views, but they are a minority overall, as only about 40% of Americans are Creationist. No the problem isn't religion, it's politicians and cable news that have inflated the numbers that actually represent their far core values, which has launched a culture war that has turned many places such as schools into political battlegrounds.

 

[Rocky S]

So I understand from your post that you largely feel uncomfortable with Christianity. However, this is not a Christian forum. The various religious niches explored on this forum go beyond what you have described.

Also, it is spelled 'Atheist'.

Why do most, if not all atheist single out christianity?

 

[Tristesse]

Why do most, if not all atheist single out christianity?

Because in the U.S. christianity is the most vocal and well funded orginization that tries to limit the freedoms of others based on their personal beliefs, while not providing any evidence that those beliefs are in any way real.

 

[jasonwill2]

We hear of these views, but they are a minority overall, as only about 40% of Americans are Creationist. No the problem isn't religion, it's politicians and cable news that have inflated the numbers that actually represent their far core values, which has launched a culture war that has turned many places such as schools into political battlegrounds.

More like 20-30% at most. 40% is too high, more than my personal expereince even ehre in West Virginia it is more like every 3 out of ten are fundies or creationists.

Why do most, if not all atheist single out christianity?

Because Christianity is the largest and one of the most potentionally annoying ones. Since they are larger and more dedicated to conervsion, it's the religion trying to convert them that most non-Christians run into. Also i mean annoying by soliciting people without provocation in that usage of "annoying".

For example a guy came to a Church a while ago and mentioned that sometimes when he got teh bill at a restruant or was checking out at a store when no one else was held up, he would ask:

"Do you know where you are going to heaven when you die?" and when they answered "well i hope so" he would ask "how are you sure?" and "Challenge" them

Stuff like that ... is annoying. I got sent two letters in my mail recently from churches. If a person tried to solicit me to their religion at my work place, I don't know how'd I react. If someoen came to my door... oh that would be a fun trolling time with a Hannibal lecture about why they suck

Though not all christians are pushy like this, but some are. Some want to change the laws to fit the Bible, which other faiths in the USA do not do. So they are singled out for their actions overall as well as them being the largest religion.

 

[ChristineES]

Congratulations, you have admitted to being a bigot.



You listed a bunch of generally Christian ideas of a God.



That is not diverse, those are all Christians bar some Jews.

Are you even aware of religions that are not monotheistic? Pantheism, atheism, polytheism, henotheism... are just a few examples of cosmology within my branch of religions (Satanism)

That is an ongoing misconception- that monotheism is the only type of religion and that Christianity is the only religion. Maybe we should have a sticky topic on the top of the religious debates that talks about that- there are many religions and many types of theists, and some religions that have no deity.

 

[methylatedghosts]

That is an ongoing misconception- that monotheism is the only type of religion and that Christianity is the only religion. Maybe we should have a sticky topic on the top of the religious debates that talks about that- there are many religions and many types of theists, and some religions that have no deity.

And some that have a "deity" that is so different from the usual term that "God" fails to accurately describe it, yet it's the only word that approaches it so that you might have some kind of common ground.

 

[Starsurfer93]

How exactly does Evolution and Astrophysics disprove a single concept of Deity? What kind of evidence can disprove God? Has a Naturalistic explanation been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? They're barely trying to figure out how the Earth didn't crash into the sun and at best they have a few computer simulations. There's such thing as Theistic Evolutionists, whether I agree with them or not, there is absolutely nothing scientific or logical about science or logic that in any way defeats the concept of Deity. What may happen is a clash between the available known data and the opinions of the scientific community majority (most happen to be Atheist) and the opinions of those in the Theist camp who oppose them. If you think they are wrong, then there's a whole debate forum to get down to the details, but in no way whatsoever has any single scientific advance put the concept of Deity into doubt, there are so many "gaps" in the theory that a purely Naturalistic explanation requires an even greater leap of faith than a YEC, but that's a subject for said debate board. The point is, logic and science does not disprove Theism in any possible way, at best interpretations of the results contends against certain interpretations of the Writ. I don't think its reasonable at all to conclude that science and logic have disproven the idea of God, it's a commonly used end-run argument around on the actual details and is devoid of any actual substance.

Allow me to rephrase. Scientific discoveries have given us a great deal of insight into our past on a whole. Yes, there are gaps in the theories. Most theories have gaps until they are completely solidified, and I do not claim to be extremely knowledgeable of all the scientific discoveries made in the past 50 years or so. However, I do know that a great deal of them give evidence against traditional views of the earth's creation, our ascension to being the dominant beings on the planet, and other issues brought up by atheists. Keep in mind that none of these theories are made as an attack on the concept of god.

The reason why many people feel that these theories disprove the concept of a deity is because of the way many organized religions often go about addressing such theories. I'm not trying to sound biased, but when such scientific discoveries have been brought up to many religious organizations in the past, more often than not they have been adamantly refuted, despite having a good deal of evidence backing them. In addition to this, many of these institutions don't give much solid scientific evidence that supports their beliefs. For people who require such evidence in order to align themselves with a particular world view, the substantial evidence backing many scientific explanations of how our world came to be, such as evolution, coupled with the general lack of evidence supporting many religious explanations, like the traditional interpretation creation story in the Abrahamic faiths, AREperfectly understandable reasons why one may feel that there is no god.

However, you do bring up a good point. While these theories do have more backing than traditional religious views on the conception of our world, we have to remember that these are just SOME interpretations based primarily on religious scripture.While these views appear to be the majority, there are many other interpretations of god. Something that I considered before making my last post was how conditioned our minds tend to be and when hearing the word "god" we tend to instantly align our view of such a being with whatever the dominant view of such a deity would be like in our particular society.

That is where I feel many of the issues between science and reigion come into play. Scientific discoveries have a knack for conflicting with traditional (and usually literal) interpretations of intelligent design. However, if we did away with all the religious dogma saying "God must be like this" and then asked the question, would the answer be the same? If taking out all the less believable factors put in play by religion, like the 7-day creation of the earth for example (in the Jewish and Christian faith), does science really disprove the concept of God? In my opinion? Well... Not really. If we don't try to put god in a box and simply consider whether or not some being or force far greater than our own could have acted as the catalyst for the creation of our world and possibly influenced it's development, there isn't too much that flat out disproves this concept. There isn't too much that proves it either, but then again, how could you give evidence for such a broad and vague interpretation of god? I suppose we can't really know...

 

[gnostic]

I don't trust politicians, lawyers and used car salesmen even more.

 

[Curious George]

I don't trust politicians, lawyers and used car salesmen even more.

what a horrible blanket statement

 

[gnostic]

what a horrible blanket statement

Yep! :yes:

:biglaugh:

 

[Orias]

The problem comes when i find out that they are religious, i instantly lose respect for them on an intellectual level and i no longer trust them to make sound decisions.

What does respecting someone on an intellectual level have to do with respecting them?

How much does this contribute to your own intellectual basis, and is it a sound decision to limit potential?

The reason for this is the cognitive dissadence they show in their religious views and their ability to ignore what in my opinion is the obvious fact that there is no god, never was and that religion itself is just a tool used to control the masses.

This must be why the people you argue with ignore you.

Because its not a fact that there is no God. Its a fact that the claim lay disputed, its neither proven nor disproven.

 

[jasonwill2]

I don't trust Christians anymore, at least not to be objective, and only the hardcore ones at that. The Liberal ones are okay though.

I mean, I would trust the fundies i know, more then strangers to not steal my luggage, but not to teach science if you get what i mean.

 

[Orias]

I just don't trust anyone. I mean, I trust as in them being able to understand the words I say, but thats about it.

And plus, its not very smart to completely trust someone.

 

[s2a]

That is where I feel many of the issues between science and reigion come into play. Scientific discoveries have a knack for conflicting with traditional (and usually literal) interpretations of intelligent design. However, if we did away with all the religious dogma saying "God must be like this" and then asked the question, would the answer be the same? If taking out all the less believable factors put in play by religion, like the 7-day creation of the earth for example (in the Jewish and Christian faith), does science really disprove the concept of God? In my opinion? Well... Not really. If we don't try to put god in a box and simply consider whether or not some being or force far greater than our own could have acted as the catalyst for the creation of our world and possibly influenced it's development, there isn't too much that flat out disproves this concept. There isn't too much that proves it either, but then again, how could you give evidence for such a broad and vague interpretation of god? I suppose we can't really know...

Allow me, if you may, to expound just a tad further,,,

The only “conflicts” either perceived or insisted upon as being such between “science and religion” are those identified and argued amongst those of faith-based beliefs.

Science is particularly non-partisan in such matters, which does tend to solidify it’s unpopularity amongst any fundamentalist adherents of any religious group or cult.

Philosophy stopped being a “Scientific” discipline quite some time past… and religion is simply a finely honed and narrowed philosophy defined by sectarian distinctions.

The simple estimable fact of the matter is that religion defies any measure of test or experiment of any kind. Titles of expertise and wisdom within secularized religions can be honorably bestowed amongst like-minded adherents (priest, preacher, rabbi, shaman, pope, guru, etc.), but none of these “experts” can “scientifically” establish any validation predicated upon empirical evidences alone that their “god” is “THE GOD”. In both concept and reality, this is no more than a philosophical argument beyond any test, measure, or means of falsification. Therefore, religion can never be either designated nor defined as a “scientific” discipline…and that’s OK.

The “conflict” arises whenever anyone of religious faith or practices asserts that their philosophy trumps or invalidates any scientific revelations or compelling conclusions of evidential fact.

That “conflict” only resides amongst believers themselves, and not within the realm of scientific inquiry.

The impartial scientific conclusion as it stands today essentially states that the existent Cosmos can be substantively explained without any need/insertion of supernatural cause/effect “mover” of nature…

…and while this conclusion is not offered as “disproof” of any claimed deity, it simply asserts that someone’s “god” is an unnecessary factor in solving the equation.

Some people don’t like that answer… and therein lies the “conflict”...