Is no religion better than religion?

[Earthling]

We should abandon religious dogma and religious irrationality which always lead to some kinds of intolerance, discrimination, sectarian behaviour and xenophobia.
All those paths who lack such dogma and irrationality cannot really be called religions because they lack the divisiveness needed to truly speak of a religion.

Isn't that somewhat hypocritical? You're defining which religion is conducive to intolerance, discrimination, sectarian behavior and xenophobia and then you dictate that those should be abandoned.

So e.g. saying 'you can only find salvation through our saviour' is an example of such an irrational religious position.
Such positions are only believed by people who accept religious ideas through dogmatic acceptance.

How do you know this?

 

[Earthling]

I believe God is already available there to experience, but that won't solve our human problems.

Obviously not. Though I question what exactly it means to "experience" God.

 

[Earthling]

I have no problem with religion per se. People should be free to believe what they want BUT...

Religion has no place telling me what I should do, so when it comes to contraception, abortion, homosexuality, morals and everything else religion is hung up about - just keep it to yourself.

Well, first of all I absolutely agree with you. On the other hand sometime during the fray those who object to contraception, abortion, homosexuality, morals . . . aren't the ones criticizing but the ones being criticized. As if religion can't determine these things for society (notwithstanding the argument that society got them from them in the first place) but that they shouldn't be able to determine them for themselves.

 

[Marcion]

Isn't that somewhat hypocritical? You're defining which religion is conducive to intolerance, discrimination, sectarian behavior and xenophobia and then you dictate that those should be abandoned.

You are twisting my words, I said religious dogma and irrationality should be abandoned, not the traditions themselves.

How do you know this?

How do I know exactly what?

 

[stvdv]

So at what point do you believe religion is harmful and at what point if at all should be abandon religion?

Religion is a belief system, Science is a fact system. As long as Religion is not a fact you better stick to science for practicle stuff IMHO

Spoiler: Some common sense ideas from my favorite Scripture the Yoga Vasista (don't read if you can't let go God idea or are allergic to other scriptures)

The lazy man is worse than a donkey. One should never yield to laziness but strive to attain liberation, seeing that life is ebbing away every moment. Every day one must think of the impermanent body and struggle to conquer the animal nature. He must take recourse to association with good and virtuous people. One should not revel in the filth known as sense-pleasures, even as a worm revels in pus. By good deeds, good will return to you; by bad deeds, bad will return. Nowhere is there any God, fortune or fate. One who ignores his present ability for self-effort for fear of his past bad actions, might as well fear his own two arms, thinking them dangling vipers.

One who thinks that fate or God is directing him, is brainless and the goddess of fortune abandons him. Hence, by self-effort, discrimination, good association and study of the scriptures, acquire wisdom. Then realize that self-effort will end — in the direct realization of the truth. But ignoring, or going against the traditional injunctions, will not work. One should not try to create a gemstone from an ordinary pebble. Those who do not believe in the long practiced and experienced truths of the wise, but depend upon God, luck or destiny, are fools called the "living dead." If lazy dullness, this dreadful source of evil, were not found on this earth, who would ever be illiterate or poor? It is because lazy ones rely, life after life, on God or fortune that this earth is full of people who live like animals, miserable and poverty-stricken.

 

[Altfish]

Well, first of all I absolutely agree with you. On the other hand sometime during the fray those who object to contraception, abortion, homosexuality, morals . . . aren't the ones criticizing but the ones being criticized. As if religion can't determine these things for society (notwithstanding the argument that society got them from them in the first place) but that they shouldn't be able to determine them for themselves.

The only reason that criticism comes your way is when you try to impose your views on others.
If you are against (say) homosexuality, that's fine, I'm not making you practice it. BUT don't stop my friends being in a loving relationship and still bake them a cake.

 

[Dawnofhope]

For me atheism works

That's central to working out who we are is to discover what philosophy works best for each one of us. I tried atheism once for about a year but it didn't work as well for me as theism. Simple as that. What works for one may not work for another.

i have no need for superstition, to ask a god of im doing right or wrong, to comfort myself with the blind promise of a better time after i die. I prefer reality, i know what is morally right (despite the cries of protest from some religious quarters), and i know what will happen to the constituent molecules and atoms of my body.

I hear you although religion isn't that for me.

But i am not everyone, other people find comfort in their faith. So i voted "This poll doesn't reflect my thinking"

Its good you appreciate the views of others and so reflective.

 

[ChristineM]

What will happen to the constituent molecules and atoms of your body? You mean, afterlife?

Where do you think your morals and laws came from? Where did you learn right or wrong?



That's a good attitude.

What will happen is that they will return to earth, and be utilised in the creation of new objects, a grain of sand, a rock, a blade of grass, a tree, may be even a fraction of another human being.

Morals are an animal trait, no god involved. Without morality civilisation could not have endured and hence no gods could have been invented to keep people, in line. Think yourself lucky that humanity is an organisational species.

Thanks

 

[Father Heathen]

So, hypothetically speaking, if the world suddenly underwent some devastating global catastrophe and the vast majority of people, rightly or wrongly, decided that science was irrational, unsubstantiated and detrimental to society at large you would abandon science?

Obliviously not considering that science isn't irrational, unsubstantiated, nor detrimental.

 

[Father Heathen]

Where do you think your morals and laws came from? Where did you learn right or wrong?

Sensible morals and laws are derived from reason and compassion rather than arbitrary superstitions.

 

[ChristineM]

That's central to working out who we are is to discover what philosophy works best for each one of us. I tried atheism once for about a year but it didn't work as well for me as theism. Simple as that. What works for one may not work for another.



I hear you although religion isn't that for me.



Its good you appreciate the views of others and so reflective.

Nope, thats central to me realising, after a very trying time of being raised a christian that there is no proof of god so why waste my time worshipping a myth.

Religion is many things to many people. I only mentioned some of the more obvious reasons i have seen over the years

Not really appreciate, (that trying time was very trying) more like accept.

 

[blü 2]

So at what point do you believe religion is harmful and at what point if at all should be abandon religion?

Religion suits some people and not others, suits some people at particular times and not others.

We all find our own way.

However, nothing above should be read as approving fundamentalism in any form.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The answer may be a resounding "No" for many of us for all sorts of reasons.

The Baha'i Faith teaches that religion should be like a healing medicine causing love and unity between peoples. If it does the opposite and causes estrangement and hatred, then that religion is no religion. Instead of being a healing medicine it is a deadly poison. It is noble and a truly religious act in the sight of God to leave such a religion.

Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth; it should give birth to spirituality, and bring light and life to every soul. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division it would be better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure, but if the remedy only aggravates the complaint, it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 158-160

So at what point do you believe religion is harmful and at what point if at all should be abandon religion?

Your thoughts and comments are appreciated as always.

I come at it from another direction: I think that we should be rational in our approach to facts and kind and empathetic in our approach to values... and then let whatever flows from that flow.

Becoming irreligious isn't necessarily the desired end goal from this process, but I think that very few religions would be compatible with this approach if the approach is followed consistently and honestly.

 

[Jumi]

Obviously not. Though I question what exactly it means to "experience" God.

You will know it if you happen upon it and you will know then what some religious texts were talking about, they were about experiencing that. Later on some people took the descriptions and took them to be literal events, or persecuted those who knew better.

 

[SalixIncendium]

So at what point do you believe religion is harmful and at what point if at all should be abandon religion?

Religion should be abandoned when it teaches intolerance or unacceptance of the beliefs or worldviews of others or when it claims to be the One True Religion™.

My opinion, of course.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The answer may be a resounding "No" for many of us for all sorts of reasons.

The Baha'i Faith teaches that religion should be like a healing medicine causing love and unity between peoples. If it does the opposite and causes estrangement and hatred, then that religion is no religion. Instead of being a healing medicine it is a deadly poison. It is noble and a truly religious act in the sight of God to leave such a religion.

Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth; it should give birth to spirituality, and bring light and life to every soul. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division it would be better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure, but if the remedy only aggravates the complaint, it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 158-160

So at what point do you believe religion is harmful and at what point if at all should be abandon religion?

Your thoughts and comments are appreciated as always.

No. (Having) nonreligious is not better than having religion.

What bothers me is assuming everyone else needs the same medicine. Whether this is assumption is kept to ones self or evangelize, the point we will heal with only one drug is highly unrealistic and dangerous.

Religion becomes harmful when medicine is forced for others to drink. It's harmful when it changes the persons worldview to think we are all sick and need healing. It assumes that we need one medication to heal all. Medically that is totally dangerous and if medical and spiritual affects our health, which it does, the latter is dangerous also.

We should abandon religion when it does harm to people who don't believe in it than good. We have protests here to politically change others minds to have no abortion. We have ministers teach the only medicine is jesus christ.

No. It's not just christians just I live in s christian area. Whether to oneself or with others as well, I find it self harmful to assume one medicine will eventually heal all. It assumes everyone is suffering from the same illnesses and it also assumes one person's illness and pain is another person's.

 

[Earthling]

You will know it if you happen upon it and you will know then what some religious texts were talking about, they were about experiencing that. Later on some people took the descriptions and took them to be literal events, or persecuted those who knew better.

I've read quite a few religious texts; from Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism and Taoism and few of them outside of the Bible made any reference that could be construed as "experiencing God."

You say "later some people took the descriptions and took them to be literal events" is that an indication that experiencing God isn't a literal event?

 

[Earthling]

Sensible morals and laws are derived from reason and compassion rather than arbitrary superstitions.

You're sure about that?

 

[Earthling]

Obliviously not considering that science isn't irrational, unsubstantiated, nor detrimental.

So, then, all you are really saying is that you think that science, for better or worse, is as good as it gets and religion is as bad as it gets? If science is bad then it's bad science, correct?

Because, if the global catastrophe I used in the example were thermonuclear and biological war you can see that people would quite possibly consider science irrational and detrimental. Unsubstantiated? That would be a moot point, at least by then. But you yourself wouldn't abandon science under those conditions?

 

[Earthling]

What will happen is that they will return to earth, and be utilised in the creation of new objects, a grain of sand, a rock, a blade of grass, a tree, may be even a fraction of another human being.

That's your belief in the afterlife. How is that different, than . . . let's say . . . the Bible's explanation of death?

Morals are an animal trait, no god involved. Without morality civilisation could not have endured and hence no gods could have been invented to keep people, in line. Think yourself lucky that humanity is an organisational species.

Thanks

First of all, you don't know that. There's no way you possibly could. No one knows that. Secondly, your morals did come from religion of old. They weren't made up and decided upon any time recently, and thirdly, name one example of gods being invented to keep people in line? I think that would be interesting for two reasons. 1. You can't and 2. If gods were invented to keep people in line then that would just be people keeping people in line, which would be morality, and you just said without morality civilization could not have endured.