Is no religion better than religion?

[Stevicus]

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 believe religion is harmful the minute parents start teaching it to their children. To put the fear of God and the threat of eternal damnation and hellfire into children at a very young age is tantamount to abuse. And this is how religion is taught and inculcated in people.

 

[Earthling]

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

But, according to you, what is the difference? If you decide what is irrational that's subjective, and what is dogmatic is simply a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Given that, what is not dogmatic about theoretical science being promoted as fact?

How do I know exactly what?

This . . .

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 it's irrational, or even what it means?

 

[ChristineM]

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



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.

It is not a belief, it is evidence based and tallies with one of the fundimental laws of this universe. Did you see anything of soul or heaven or hell or jesus returning to raise me?

Scientific investigation shows that animals display moral behaviour.

No morality is inbuilt. You may believe whatever makes you happy but without morality religion could not exist. In reality religion hijacked morality, said something along the lines of ''thats ours and if you are not in our club you are not moral'

Gods are not a default state. No human child, no animal is born with a inbuilt god belief, it is taught.

Yes its just priests keeping people in line so the coffers wouldnt empty. I didnt say everyone held to morality, even today power corrupts

 

[Jumi]

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."

All right.

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?

Yes, there's the problem with literality. The event is how the person experiences, yet it becomes something as if there were real angels present in the flesh or something like that.

 

[wellwisher]

One of the problems with this question, is there is not an objective definition for religion that include all the religions. For example, Buddhism is a main world religion that does not have deities. Most of what atheists object about religion is connected to the mythology of deities. However, not all religions have deities, yet they are still called religions.

Shouldn't the definition of religion be more broad based so it can include both deity and non deity based belief systems? Under this more broad definition, does that mean that atheism is a religion that is similar to Buddhism in the sense of having no deities? Buddhism seeks enlightenment through introspection, while atheism seeks enlightenment outside itself, through science and the sensors systems. They are opposites with neither based on deities.

The question is, are atheism and political movements types of non deity religions? Each seeks truth and enlightenment in different ways. For example, the Democrat party in America has set up emotional and psychological dogma for its flock that causes their flock to be angry and scared all the time. Wouldn't those people be better off getting out of that church since it impacts their ability to cope?

Atheism makes one unable to live and let live, based on certain preferences. Would leaving the religion of atheism make its members happier, since they would be able to embrace more people, regardless of personal differences?

The closet religions have tried to stay under the radar. They think they get to define religion in a way that exempts their own religion from religious criticism. Why not define religion objectively by first finding what is common to deity and non deity religions. All religions comes down to various ways of dealing with the personality firmware behind human nature. Religion is about how to strike a balance or in some cases, induce lopsidedness with human nature.

In terms of deity religions, these have a connection to natural brain firmware. The way to understand this is connected to child behavior. A small child is like natural animal. They lack the willpower of an adult to conform to social expectations. They walk to the beat of their own inner drum.

If you ever read stories to a small child, they instinctively love fairly tales. You can read the same story ten times in a row and they never get bored or tired. You can't do this with logic analysis. These stories make a connection to the natural brain firmware that is active in the child. Fairly tales deal in symbols which is the language of the unconscious mind. These symbols are like command lines that can reach the natural parts of the brain, so one is able to become more aware of the natural firmware later in life; less you become as children. It goes deeper into the operating system than logic. Buddhism reaches the firmware in a different way. It does so by the process of elimination; leave the sensory world.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most of what atheists object about religion is connected to the mythology of deities.

This atheist is more concerned with unjustified religious harm and oppression more than anything else, and Dharmic religions like tend to be just as bad as Abrahamic religions in that respect.

 

[Thief]

I have no religion
lots of practice....almost became a priest
and in later years relatives of different faiths led me about

looking back....it's good I let it all go

declaration of any kind is like building fences
and some would say good fences make good neighbors

but I suspect greater disciplines as we enter heaven
and having greater disciplines ....a different scheme of dealing with each other

Do unto others as you would have it done unto you
is a discipline
and fair warning

and the only fence that you have to worry about
no religion required

 

[JesusMyFriend]

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.

Beautiful! And so true as well!!!

 

[osgart]

I have found that the Ba'hai scriptures are highly motivating though i do not buy into all of its tenets.

Most religions are dead ends, and actually stifle people spiritually.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't think it's possible for humanity to abandon religion. It might call what it does by some word other than "religion" but all the core aspects are still going to be there whether or not one claims to have abandoned it. Thus, the benefit of mindfully practicing religion is being mindful of how one weaves together those different aspects instead of it being a hackneyed exercise. What are those aspects I'm talking about? Well, basically this (Religion - Wikipedia) but to simplify:

• Mythos - first and foremost, religion is about myth making or storytelling. It is a body of narratives that informs us about ourselves, others, and relationships. In short, it's about the meaning of life and living.
• Ritual - religion also includes practices that engage those narratives on an active basis. Stories are not simply told, they are living entities and enacted through behavior. In short, it's about outlining a way of life and living.
• Values - inevitably, the myth and ritual as an articulation of personal and/or cultural values. Religion deals with our sacred things, that which we deem worthy of worship, that which we hold as a centerpiece in our lives.
• Community - humans are social animals, and shared myth and ritual among humans creates community. It is through this community that religions become organized or institutionalized, a structure that facilitates passing mythos, ritual, and values between generations.

While I don't think it is possible for humans to not have a religion (whether called such as not) it is certainly possible to have a poorly-articulated religion and be following a path that is a poor fit for an individual or a community. I think a lot of the consternation regarding religion comes from having a path that is a poor fit, or the conflicts that arise between people who do not share common myths, rituals, and values. Put another way, it boils down to cultural clashes that exist regardless if that aspect if culture is labeled as "religion" or not. Thank gods for cultural clashes, though - it means we live in a diverse reality with options rather than a painful monotony of sameness.

 

[Earthling]

Yes, there's the problem with literality. The event is how the person experiences, yet it becomes something as if there were real angels present in the flesh or something like that.

I see. That certainly makes sense to me, I just wouldn't call it "experiencing God."

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Any belief that promotes self-growth, positivity, critical thinking, love, is good whether theistic or non-theistic.

 

[ChristineM]

One of the problems with this question, is there is not an objective definition for religion that include all the religions. For example, Buddhism is a main world religion that does not have deities. Most of what atheists object about religion is connected to the mythology of deities. However, not all religions have deities, yet they are still called religions.

Shouldn't the definition of religion be more broad based so it can include both deity and non deity based belief systems? Under this more broad definition, does that mean that atheism is a religion that is similar to Buddhism in the sense of having no deities? Buddhism seeks enlightenment through introspection, while atheism seeks enlightenment outside itself, through science and the sensors systems. They are opposites with neither based on deities.

The question is, are atheism and political movements types of non deity religions? Each seeks truth and enlightenment in different ways. For example, the Democrat party in America has set up emotional and psychological dogma for its flock that causes their flock to be angry and scared all the time. Wouldn't those people be better off getting out of that church since it impacts their ability to cope?

Atheism makes one unable to live and let live, based on certain preferences. Would leaving the religion of atheism make its members happier, since they would be able to embrace more people, regardless of personal differences?

The closet religions have tried to stay under the radar. They think they get to define religion in a way that exempts their own religion from religious criticism. Why not define religion objectively by first finding what is common to deity and non deity religions. All religions comes down to various ways of dealing with the personality firmware behind human nature. Religion is about how to strike a balance or in some cases, induce lopsidedness with human nature.

In terms of deity religions, these have a connection to natural brain firmware. The way to understand this is connected to child behavior. A small child is like natural animal. They lack the willpower of an adult to conform to social expectations. They walk to the beat of their own inner drum.

If you ever read stories to a small child, they instinctively love fairly tales. You can read the same story ten times in a row and they never get bored or tired. You can't do this with logic analysis. These stories make a connection to the natural brain firmware that is active in the child. Fairly tales deal in symbols which is the language of the unconscious mind. These symbols are like command lines that can reach the natural parts of the brain, so one is able to become more aware of the natural firmware later in life; less you become as children. It goes deeper into the operating system than logic. Buddhism reaches the firmware in a different way. It does so by the process of elimination; leave the sensory world.

How does
'Atheism makes one unable to live and let live, based on certain preferences'
Make sense?

How does "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." Prevent other people from living as they chose.

On the contrary, i find many Christians use their belief as threats in a (futile) attempt to prevent an atheist living as they choose. Many religious stick to their own kind, (think it is this trait driving your post) whereas an atheist is typically not that bothered about anothers faith so long as they dont push that faith onto others.

P.s. atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby... NOT.

 

[David T]

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.

Use extreme caution in all cases! The wild curch network is interesting. If one of these denominations, (and yes it could be bahi, or catholic or luthern the network isnt specifix that way) i would go if one was local. Although one would think being in a somewhat remote location as the oregon coast there would be one.

Muir said why should he sit in a box on sunday with someone telling him, when he can go direct to the source. I concur.

Its not avoiding people its people prefering to have someone tell them rather than stepping out for themselves and into for themselves. I am always in church in the forest and mountains and ocean.
Home

 

[Earthling]

It is not a belief, it is evidence based and tallies with one of the fundimental laws of this universe. Did you see anything of soul or heaven or hell or jesus returning to raise me?

What is the soul, heaven and hell and according to whom? Why suggest Jesus has to have anything to do with what you say confidently what happens to you after you die?

Scientific investigation shows that animals display moral behaviour.

This is the kind of statement that baffles theists or at least people who can think for themselves. Scientific investigation has shown many things, and then redetermined them to show something else. Science, for example, determines that humans are animals. It's just a matter of classification.

No morality is inbuilt. You may believe whatever makes you happy but without morality religion could not exist. In reality religion hijacked morality, said something along the lines of ''thats ours and if you are not in our club you are not moral'

To a certain degree I would agree with that, but then science is just another club challenging the old one. Meet the new club, same as the old club.

Gods are not a default state. No human child, no animal is born with a inbuilt god belief, it is taught.

That's debatable. But then again, what isn't?

Yes its just priests keeping people in line so the coffers wouldnt empty. I didnt say everyone held to morality, even today power corrupts

This, I believe, is absolutely right.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To address the OP, having no religion is optimal for me, and polite and considerate religion is what I prefer in others.

is that an indication that experiencing God isn't a literal event?

When we have one group of people claiming to have a certain kind of knowledge or experience, and another saying that they have no such experiences, how do we determine if the first group is claiming to experience something that is not there, or if the second group lacks the ability to experience something that is there? Easy. We compare the reports of those claiming to be experiencing whatever it is that we are discussing - in this case a god or gods. No two theists describe the same thing. That tells me that such people are simply experiencing their own minds and projecting that experience onto external reality.

Compare that to somebody with color blindness that makes red look like green to them - maybe both appear gray. If he shows red and green socks to people that claim to be able to see these colors, the answers from honest people with normal color vision interviewed independently will be the same. That's how he knows that they really are experiencing what they claim they are and not just pulling his leg.

If science is bad then it's bad science

Bad science generally refers to science performed badly - violations of the scientific method, whether just an insufficiently powered study such as a drug trial studying too few patients, or pseudoscience. Science performed properly is never bad, even when governments and industry put it to bad use.

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.

That wouldn't make science irrational or detrimental. If those words apply, they apply to whomever used the science in that manner.

Look at what science has done in the last few decades for law enforcement via forensics, which has not only found and brought to justice uncounted numbers of people including in cold cases at times 20 or more years old, but has prevented the incarceration of innocents identified by eye witnesses in line-ups.

your morals did come from religion of old

Not in my case. They came from a combination of reason, evidence, and compassion as my intellect and conscience see them. I reject large numbers of moral principles coming from religions, and where we agree, it's not because of that religion. My values might be the same as some of theirs, but that is irrelevant to where mine came from.

are atheism and political movements types of non deity religions?

No. Neither is a religion as I use the word, which requires a deity and supernaturalism to be called religion. Worldviews based only on reason and evidence are not religions. Atheism isn't even a worldview. It's the state of being unconvinced that deities exist. Perhaps you're thinking of secular humanism, which is a worldview, but also not a religion.

Atheism makes one unable to live and let live

Again, no. Most of us are very good at that.

Most of what atheists object about religion is connected to the mythology of deities

Why would we object to that? We object to theists that try to impose their beliefs on others that don't share them. If that stops, I bet that most of us wouldn't give religion a second thought.

 

[ChristineM]

What is the soul, heaven and hell and according to whom? Why suggest Jesus has to have anything to do with what you say confidently what happens to you after you die?



This is the kind of statement that baffles theists or at least people who can think for themselves. Scientific investigation has shown many things, and then redetermined them to show something else. Science, for example, determines that humans are animals. It's just a matter of classification.



To a certain degree I would agree with that, but then science is just another club challenging the old one. Meet the new club, same as the old club.



That's debatable. But then again, what isn't?



This, I believe, is absolutely right.

Its not a matter of my view but that of millions of christians who believe the soul will go to heaven. JC has nothing to do with the law of the law of conservation of energy.

Humans are animals, no amount of sarcasm is going toto change DNA

Not quite, meet the new observation, measurement, experiment that supercedes the old club and will probable mean a newer club to come.

Try asking a dog or spider which god they worship, same for a child before indoctrination

There ya go

 

[Father Heathen]

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?

Incorrect. Work on your reading comprehension.

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?

What an asinine non sequitur. That's like saying gravity is irrational and detrimental because you murdered someone by dropping a bowling ball on their head.

 

[shmogie]

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.

Religion is about truth, not kumbaya moments.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Religion is about truth, not kumbaya moments.

Religion can also be about hatred, prejudice, violence and war.

Religion should be about love. That is what Jesus taught after all, did He not?

Mark 12:30-31