Organized religion = evil.

[gnostic]

Therefore there canot be one without the other-Even the pagans go into there temple to worship and the atheist to is religious in all his ways- trying to disapprove the existance of God

None of my atheist friends tried to disprove the existence of God or gods. They simply don't believe and go on with their lives. They don't hate religion; they simply just don't have time for them, and they certainly don't have time to debate with you or any other religion.

It is only when I come here that I meet atheists who debate with theists. Please don't assume that every atheists are out to disprove the existence of any deity.

 

[Quiddity]

Yet one is at least honest, and the other totally hypocritical.

Peace & Love

Rrrrrrrrrright......watch me sit here and tell you that the Crusades never took place.

 

[gnostic]

I have no problem with people's personal belief in a deity.

My problem is when religion or religious people trying to impose their belief, custom and religious law to people who don't share their belief. This problem is mainly lay with mainstream Abrahamic religions. Of course, not all sects within those Abrahamic religions have taken such actions; nevertheless, I am suspicious they tried to go beyond "personal belief".

This is why I believe there should be separation of state and religion in regarding to politics. Religion should stay out of issues of divorce, abortion, sexual preference, euthanasia.

And there should be a separation between religion and education, particularly that of religion and science. Religion should stop masquerading as science, particularly with their creationism and so-called intelligent design; both of these are nothing more than theology, and have no basis on science. If young people are seriously of learning creationism or intelligent design, then they should visit their local priests in churches instead of interfering with secular subjects or trying to impose these subjects on students as science classes.

 

[isaax]

I think that it is important to make the distiction between religion and churches. Religions being a system of beliefs and a church being the organization built on those ideals. Most of the religions that are unorganized cause very few problems. It mostly the ones that are organized and powerful that begin to cause problems

 

[Jeremiah]

Certainly Hitchens sees the harm. And his examples that he gives most eloquently do demonstrate that there is some harm.

My only beef with him is his blind spot about the other side, where religion brings people together in greater harmony and where it takes an active role in assisting people.

Religion can tear down and it can build also.

As an atheist, I understood this. I really don't understand why Hitchens does not.

I have never seen any of his work. But maybe this type of stuff will stir thought and create controversy. Controversy leads to debate/arguments and people will be educated in this fashion.

I don't know this is such a confusing and multifaceted issues.

 

[Booko]

I have never seen any of his work. But maybe this type of stuff will stir thought and create controversy. Controversy leads to debate/arguments and people will be educated in this fashion.

Oh, Hitchens definitely creates controversy, and honestly I think that's a good thing. To the extent that he puts information out there about some of the more superstitious aspects of religions, and said religions do a little self-examination, that could actually be a good thing.

 

[Smoke]

It's a common outcry of non-theist and theist alike. It's nothing new that organized religion can do such things. What is odd, is to simply attach such things only to oraganized religion. As if others were immune to it.

Isn't that kind of a cop-out, though? Every time somebody points out the horrible things done because of religion, somebody says, "Yeah, but people do horrible things for all kinds of reasons!" Or they'll say, "The horrible things done by people who belong to my religion have nothing to do with my religion!"

The thing is, it seems like a worthwhile religion would teach people to behave better. It seems like a really worthwhile religion would be noted for the good behavior of its adherents. There are a few religions whose adherents actually do seem to behave better than average. The big monotheistic religions actually seem to make people behave worse.

I don't think monotheism as such is the problem, though; I think dogma is. It's just that most monotheistic systems are excessively dogmatic. Dogmatic systems of belief that aren't monotheistic -- Marxism, for instance -- can be just as bad. Any dogmatic system of belief tends toward inflexibility, intolerance, self-righteousness, and violence. It's easy enough for people to demonize the "other" in the best of circumstances. Dogmatic systems practically require it. I may hate my enemy without religion, but if I "know" that my enemy is also the enemy of God, it allows me to feel that my hatred is something holy.

I think that's why Christians and Muslims in the 21st century are distinguished almost entirely by what and whom they hate, and by their attempts to dominate others. The other is not merely other; it is, by definition, ungodly and evil.

 

[James the Persian]

Isn't that kind of a cop-out, though? Every time somebody points out the horrible things done because of religion, somebody says, "Yeah, but people do horrible things for all kinds of reasons!" Or they'll say, "The horrible things done by people who belong to my religion have nothing to do with my religion!"

The thing is, it seems like a worthwhile religion would teach people to behave better. It seems like a really worthwhile religion would be noted for the good behavior of its adherents. There are a few religions whose adherents actually do seem to behave better than average. The big monotheistic religions actually seem to make people behave worse.

I don't think monotheism as such is the problem, though; I think dogma is. It's just that most monotheistic systems are excessively dogmatic. Dogmatic systems of belief that aren't monotheistic -- Marxism, for instance -- can be just as bad. Any dogmatic system of belief tends toward inflexibility, intolerance, self-righteousness, and violence. It's easy enough for people to demonize the "other" in the best of circumstances. Dogmatic systems practically require it. I may hate my enemy without religion, but if I "know" that my enemy is also the enemy of God, it allows me to feel that my hatred is something holy.

I think that's why Christians and Muslims in the 21st century are distinguished almost entirely by what and whom they hate, and by their attempts to dominate others. The other is not merely other; it is, by definition, ungodly and evil.

All I can say is that that is an extremely peculiar view of Christianity to hold for someone who was once Orthodox. I do recognise the groups you're talking of but it's not my Church's attitude, that's for sure. As for the view on dogma, that likewise is a bit odd. All dogma is is 'that which must be believed to be a member of the faith' - the bare minimum common core beliefs, in other words (which is why I so dislike how Rome tends to over-dogmatise things). If you don't believe these things, why be a member of the Church? To believe them doesn't make you any less flexible, though. It just makes you less a part of the Church - which doesn't make you evil or damned just, from our point of view, misguided. Are you really trying to say that defining common core beliefs is somehow bad? Or that that makes you inflexible or predisposes you to violent excesses? I'm afraid that I have a very hard time understanding what exactly yuour criticism of dogma is meant to mean.

James

 

[Smoke]

All I can say is that that is an extremely peculiar view of Christianity to hold for someone who was once Orthodox. I do recognise the groups you're talking of but it's not my Church's attitude, that's for sure. As for the view on dogma, that likewise is a bit odd. All dogma is is 'that which must be believed to be a member of the faith' - the bare minimum common core beliefs, in other words (which is why I so dislike how Rome tends to over-dogmatise things). If you don't believe these things, why be a member of the Church? To believe them doesn't make you any less flexible, though. It just makes you less a part of the Church - which doesn't make you evil or damned just, from our point of view, misguided. Are you really trying to say that defining common core beliefs is somehow bad? Or that that makes you inflexible or predisposes you to violent excesses? I'm afraid that I have a very hard time understanding what exactly yuour criticism of dogma is meant to mean.

Dogma has a very different role in Eastern Orthodoxy than it does in Western Christianity. Most Orthodox dogma serves the purpose of safeguarding the mystery of the faith, but there's no real attempt to explain, say, the Trinity or the Incarnation. Orthodox understand that mystery is the essence of religion, and that the ultimate mysteries are beyond human ken. So Orthodox doctrine is less ambitious and less presumptuous than Western doctrine tends to be.

But even in Orthodoxy, dogma has an ugly side, too: All dogma is is 'that which must be believed to be a member of the faith' - the bare minimum common core beliefs, in other words. There's the rub, you see, because those who don't share that bare minimum aren't just members of another club. It's not that we belong to the Moose Lodge, and they belong to the Lions Club. Our faith has established the universe; they are blinded by pernicious heresies. It's much easier to join the Crusade or the pogrom if you're convinced you're killing God's own enemies. Dogma is all too often the way we know who God's enemies are.

 

[James the Persian]

Dogma has a very different role in Eastern Orthodoxy than it does in Western Christianity. Most Orthodox dogma serves the purpose of safeguarding the mystery of the faith, but there's no real attempt to explain, say, the Trinity or the Incarnation. Orthodox understand that mystery is the essence of religion, and that the ultimate mysteries are beyond human ken. So Orthodox doctrine is less ambitious and less presumptuous than Western doctrine tends to be.

On this we agree.

But even in Orthodoxy, dogma has an ugly side, too: All dogma is is 'that which must be believed to be a member of the faith' - the bare minimum common core beliefs, in other words. There's the rub, you see, because those who don't share that bare minimum aren't just members of another club. It's not that we belong to the Moose Lodge, and they belong to the Lions Club. Our faith has established the universe; they are blinded by pernicious heresies. It's much easier to join the Crusade or the pogrom if you're convinced you're killing God's own enemies. Dogma is all too often the way we know who God's enemies are.

But surely you recognise that this is a perversion of the faith? We are called not to judge and anyone who is convinced that those outside the Church are God's enemies is certainly deluded. We know where the Church is but not where She is not. It's not the dogma that has a dark side, it's the people who twist it to prop up their anti-Christian actions. Dogma no more has a dark side than the rules of the Lions Club you mentioned above does - and if members of that club go out and use nonadherence to those rules as a pretext to beat up non-members, I imagine you'd blame the individuals rather than the rules, wouldn't you? Unless, of course, one of the rules was 'all members must beat up non-members wherever they find them' - then you'd have a point. Orthodoxy (or even Christianity in general) has no such dogma, however, quite the opposite, so it sems to me that in blaming dogfma you have chosen the wrong target. The dogmatism (I'd actually add legalism in with that) of people might, perhaps, be more valid but that's not really the same as dogma, is it?

James

 

[Smoke]

Orthodoxy (or even Christianity in general) has no such dogma, however, quite the opposite, so it sems to me that in blaming dogfma you have chosen the wrong target. The dogmatism (I'd actually add legalism in with that) of people might, perhaps, be more valid but that's not really the same as dogma, is it?

When we teach that we must believe a particular doctrine, isn't it natural for us to assume that belief in that doctrine pleases God, and that disbelief displeases him? And if I believe in that doctrine, and am found in the bosom of the Holy Church, and you don't believe that doctrine, and you are excluded from the Holy Church, isn't there a natural tendency to conclude that I am more pleasing to God than you are? Don't you think it was all the easier for Orthodox Christians to join in the pogroms because the Jews weren't just people of a different opinion? They were rejectors of Christ, people whose very existence as Jews, as non-believers, was offensive.

And the Church does sanction violence. When the clergy go out to bless the troops, when they pray for victory in war, they sanctify that war in the minds of believers. When the church glorifies St. Emilian, who vandalized pagan temples and died boldly unrepentant, she teaches Orthodox children that it's good, and even glorious, to disrespect non-Christians. When she glorifies St. Theodosia of Constantinople, who took it on herself to kill the man who was removing the icon from the Bronze Gates, and participated in the stoning of Patriarch Anastasios, she teaches Orthodox children that it's good, and even glorious, to behave violently toward heretics. In the time of Patriarch Nikon, the Russian Church urged on the persecution of the Old Believers, and good Orthodox Christians brutally oppressed other Orthodox Christians for daring to cross themselves with two fingers instead of three, while the Old Believers, for their part, so fervently rejected the "heresy" of crossing oneself with three fingers (thereby putting the three persons of the Trinity, rather than the two natures of Christ, on the Cross) that many of them burned their churches around them, consigning themselves and their children to horrible deaths rather than submit to further persecution at the hands of the "three-fingered faithful."

The beliefs may not be violent, but the importance imputed to them fosters violence. Faithful Orthodox Christians would not have burned Archpriest Avvakum at the stake if they had not believed that his adherence to the Old Rite was displeasing to God.

 

[Seraphiel]

Though I would not go so far as to hate religion. But I think the man has a point here. A lot of misery in the world was and is directly or indirectly connected to organized religion. Or at least abuse of power by people who stand at the top of such organizations. That's also the main reason that I don't want to join any church or religion. I don't want to be part of a group in which there is a hierarchy.

 

[Quiddity]

Isn't that kind of a cop-out, though? Every time somebody points out the horrible things done because of religion, somebody says, "Yeah, but people do horrible things for all kinds of reasons!" Or they'll say, "The horrible things done by people who belong to my religion have nothing to do with my religion!"

As you note below, it’s all about dogma.

The thing is, it seems like a worthwhile religion would teach people to behave better. It seems like a really worthwhile religion would be noted for the good behavior of its adherents. There are a few religions whose adherents actually do seem to behave better than average. The big monotheistic religions actually seem to make people behave worse.

I could probably write a whole book on the “why’s”. Some that would probably impress you and most that probably wouldn’t. Either way, I don’t think good explanations would make a difference in swaying you. I could for example argue that it is historically/statistically demonstrable that in our own country (say, 50 years ago) rates of crime, and things such as divorce, child abuse, promiscuity, spousal abuse, drugs, pornography, and a number of other societal ills, were significantly linked to sexual liberalism and the ascendancy of philosophical relativism and a number of adverse trends such as increased hedonism, narcissism, materialism, etc. (i.e., the values of the 60s counterculture). Several books have been written about this - and not just Christian ones, but also secularist sociological analyses.

But of course, this isn’t in the name of any particular movement, religion, or anything of that sort, so trying to pin point it is not an easy task. It’s so much easier to go for the big dogs whose connections are easy to spot. That, and the fact that most Abrahamic (or monotheistic as you prefer) religions are usually always held to higher standards and people have all sorts of neuro-associations with them. But like I said, even I was able to show any of this, we’ve never taught that perfect behavior is on what we must be judged. People will and always do this, but unless they can shatter our dogma, we can march in opposition of some Church acts and never leave the Church.

I don't think monotheism as such is the problem, though; I think dogma is. It's just that most monotheistic systems are excessively dogmatic. Dogmatic systems of belief that aren't monotheistic -- Marxism, for instance -- can be just as bad. Any dogmatic system of belief tends toward inflexibility, intolerance, self-righteousness, and violence. It's easy enough for people to demonize the "other" in the best of circumstances. Dogmatic systems practically require it. I may hate my enemy without religion, but if I "know" that my enemy is also the enemy of God, it allows me to feel that my hatred is something holy.
I think that's why Christians and Muslims in the 21st century are distinguished almost entirely by what and whom they hate, and by their attempts to dominate others. The other is not merely other; it is, by definition, ungodly and evil.

But why judge the worst monotheist with the best non-theist or non-monotheist? You won’t get an argument from me that Christians and other monotheist have done horrible things, but what are you planning to gain by pointing them out? Forget the fact that we have thousands of Saints that actually showed love and charity!

Personally, I’d rather discuss the system of belief that leans toward inflexibility, intolerance, self-righteousness, and violence.

 

[Quiddity]

The beliefs may not be violent, but the importance imputed to them fosters violence.

But you can say this to just about anything that you attach “importance” to. This isn’t just in monotheism or religion either. Of course systematic and dogmatic religions will have louder responses but you can attribute that to all sorts of things outside of dogma. Anytime you have a large body of people who find something meaningful and someone or some group to tamper with it, you will get a response. This can be attributed more to human behavior then you can any dogma. Sociology 101...

 

[James the Persian]

But you can say this to just about anything that you attach “importance” to. This isn’t just in monotheism or religion either. Of course systematic and dogmatic religions will have louder responses but you can attribute that to all sorts of things outside of dogma. Anytime you have a large body of people who find something meaningful and someone or some group to tamper with it, you will get a response. This can be attributed more to human behavior then you can any dogma. Sociology 101...

My point entirely. It's the people who use the dogma to alienate and dehumanise others that are the problem, not the dogma itself. Dogma is morally neutral. The Church does not sanction violence or teach that it is right, however, and I am extremely surprised by the lack of understanding, in one who once was Orthodox, when it comes to some of the things, for instance the blessing of troops, raised by MidnightBlue. His take on St. Theodosia (that she intended murder) is bizarre in the extreme and flies in the face of her life as taught by the Church so who's glorifying violence? She was martyred for trying to prevent the destruction of an icon and martyrs are martyrs whatever other failings they might have. We don't expect saints to be perfect - they're still human.

I actually can't see how such can be anything other than willful on his part - and willful ignorance is something that I'm not even willing to debate. If you want to wallow in your misconceptions then by all means do - I won't stop you.

James

 

[Smoke]

But why judge the worst monotheist with the best non-theist or non-monotheist?

Why, indeed? That's why I didn't do it.

You won’t get an argument from me that Christians and other monotheist have done horrible things, but what are you planning to gain by pointing them out?

I think it might be helpful to understand why the adherents of dogatic belief systems are so prone to intolerance and violence.

But you can say this to just about anything that you attach “importance” to. This isn’t just in monotheism or religion either. Of course systematic and dogmatic religions will have louder responses but you can attribute that to all sorts of things outside of dogma. Anytime you have a large body of people who find something meaningful and someone or some group to tamper with it, you will get a response. This can be attributed more to human behavior then you can any dogma. Sociology 101...

Not just louder, but more intolerant, more violent, more deadly. Why?

Not just in reaction to people who "tamper with" their beliefs, but in aggressive attacks on people who merely fail to conform. Why?

Some religions convince their adherents not to behave that way. The Abrahamic religions, for the most part, don't. Why?

Maybe I'm wrong about dogma. I don't think I am, but it's possible. If it's not dogma, though, there must be some other explanation for the brutal behavior of Christians, Muslims, and Jews toward people of other religions, and even toward dissenters within the same religion. What is the explanation?

His take on St. Theodosia (that she intended murder) is bizarre in the extreme and flies in the face of her life as taught by the Church so who's glorifying violence? She was martyred for trying to prevent the destruction of an icon and martyrs are martyrs whatever other failings they might have. We don't expect saints to be perfect - they're still human.

St. Theodosia was executed for killing a man and stoning the patriarch. She was, of course, trying to prevent the man she killed from taking down an icon. She protected the icon by knocking a high ladder out from under a man. I think if you were standing on a high ladder, and I knocked it out from under you, you might think I meant you harm -- even if harming you wasn't the main reason I killed you.

What's bizarre to me is the refusal even to acknowledge the problem of violence in the Church, and the Church's failure to address it. What kind of a religion excuses burning people at the stake? What kind of a religion do people have when they hang their Jewish neighbors up on meathooks and run them through the machinery at a slaughterhouse, under the banner of the Archangel Michael? When they are so eager to slaughter their Jewish neighbors that even the Nazis are horrified?

Do you think it was any consolation to the Jews of Bucharest that all the horrors inflicted on them by their pious Orthodox neighbors weren't directly ordered by the hierarchy? Do you think they might have wished that -- somewhere along the line -- the Church had made it absolutely clear that torturing and murdering people because they belong to a different religion is not acceptable?

Can you imagine Buddhists doing such a thing in the name of their religion? Unitarians? Quakers? Jains?

Can you not understand at all why people would wonder what is wrong with the Abrahamic religions?

I actually can't see how such can be anything other than willful on his part - and willful ignorance is something that I'm not even willing to debate. If you want to wallow in your misconceptions then by all means do - I won't stop you.

And if you want to take this down to the level of personal insult, I won't stop you, either. But I won't join you.

 

[Jeremiah]

I think the problem is faith.

 

[Smoke]

I think the problem is faith.

Maybe. Can you elaborate?

 

[Quiddity]

Why, indeed? That's why I didn't do it.

Awesome...I'll take your word on that.

I think it might be helpful to understand why the adherents of dogatic belief systems are so prone to intolerance and violence.

The same reasons non-dogmatic people do. Except, as I said, you have the attachments and unity that may not exist in non-dogmatic groups. But again, I haven't the foggiest idea why the focus comes back to the same group. If you want to find something there to justify your own biases, have at it. According to my secular World Religions (Philosophy) professor, it's a problem that the focus is just with dogmatic systems (*cough* *cough*...Sam Harris). In truth (he says), all religions or non-religious systems have dogma. They just don't call it that.

Not just louder, but more intolerant, more violent, more deadly. Why?

Because we don't take social changes well. Being absolutist and all.

Not just in reaction to people who "tamper with" their beliefs, but in aggressive attacks on people who merely fail to conform. Why?

Sorry, I'll give you the above one, but I can't say my experience has been the same. I've challenged priets lovingly more then once. Have failed to conform and I can't say I've experienced what you talk about. I can only imagine it's your own experience.

Some religions convince their adherents not to behave that way. The Abrahamic religions, for the most part, don't. Why?

If you want to say that people of Abrahamic religions aren't behaving lovingly, I won't argue that...(but go ahead and ignore all the saints)......but, if you want to sit there and say that their lack of being able to force (yes force, cause that's ultimately what they'd have to do) there members to behave is being dropped on the laps of the Church is absurd.

Maybe I'm wrong about dogma. I don't think I am, but it's possible. If it's not dogma, though, there must be some other explanation for the brutal behavior of Christians, Muslims, and Jews toward people of other religions, and even toward dissenters within the same religion. What is the explanation?

It can be a variety of things. Ignorance of their own teachings, cultural attachments, politics, etc.

 

[Jeremiah]

Maybe. Can you elaborate?

Faith transcends all that is worldly.

Faith is the highest authority. It is to be obey and followed before all else. Faith is beyond reason; if something makes no sense than it is to be accepted or acted on by faith and faith alone. Faith transcends the ethic and laws of man. While an act of faith may seem immoral and unjust it is not, because duty to God is higher than duty to man.


So organized religion is not the problem because they follow the word of God. Surly God's ways are better than man's. If a law of God does not make any sense you must have faith in God. If a law of God seems immoral you must have faith in god. The word of God is infallible and can not be changed by man.

If you have faith in God it would be illogical not to follow the word of God.

It seems to me God made a mistake by leaving his word in the hands of man. But than I don't have faith so it makes no sense to me.


I hope that was understandable I am not that skilled at writing.