Should religion be tolerated?

[Diederick]

How did you come to this conclusion?

It's quite simple. Religion, by its nature, defies a certain truth of reality. It either claims that death is not the end, or any other fantastic promise or threat you can think of. This alone begins the restricting of the person's validity of his or her world-view and starts demanding ignorance, or faith (whichever you prefer). Thus it might be willing to emancipate and embrace common facts, but it can't because that would be destructive to itself. And for that same reason, it stops wanting to, because it really can't.

I agree.
And I say that religion should be tolerated just the same as atheism and agnosticism.

I can't tolerate religion, because some of religion is part of the negative force that is at work in this world (and I don't mean the devil); and I can't discriminate on it. Also, like Christopher Hitchens so brilliantly explained, using the plague as a metaphor for religion:

"We need to have inoculation against plague, not the spread of a more gentle version of it."

Religion is, much like the plague, always capable of becoming alive again. In the case of religion that would mean extremism, while it's not just the extremists I worry about.

 

[Elessar]

I challenge you to find a single bad or evil act which has been done in the name of religion which absolutely, without any question, could not have happened without religion.

 

[McBell]

It's quite simple. Religion, by its nature, defies a certain truth of reality.

Opinion presented as fact.

It either claims that death is not the end, or any other fantastic promise or threat you can think of.

So?
Unless you can prove that death is the end, that there is is absolutely no afterlife, it is irrelevant.

This alone begins the restricting of the person's validity of his or her world-view and starts demanding ignorance, or faith (whichever you prefer).

How so?

Thus it might be willing to emancipate and embrace common facts, but it can't because that would be destructive to itself. And for that same reason, it stops wanting to, because it really can't.

Circular reasoning.

I can't tolerate religion, because some of religion is part of the negative force that is at work in this world (and I don't mean the devil); and I can't discriminate on it.

There is a difference between tolerating religion and giving religion free reign.

Also, like Christopher Hitchens so brilliantly explained, using the plague as a metaphor for religion:

"We need to have inoculation against plague, not the spread of a more gentle version of it."

Religion is, much like the plague, always capable of becoming alive again. In the case of religion that would mean extremism, while it's not just the extremists I worry about.

Are you saying you want to keep the god of religion and toss out the bad?
Who gets to decide which is which?

What about the points presented in posts #97, #100, and #102.

 

[Diederick]

I challenge you to find a single bad or evil act which has been done in the name of religion which absolutely, without any question, could not have happened without religion.

Religion has caused children to be raised maimed - preferably in the genital area; to be raised in a system of fear, guilt and hatred in a much more extreme form than that is natural to the bullies on the playground; to be warded from, and taught to ridicule, scientific fact; to grow up indoctrinated in a religion from which escape takes quite some strength of personality; to, as an adult, attempt to spread this religion, perhaps honestly believing to do good; to send people who are 'bad' in terms of the religion, to a nasty place or at least condemn them to anything less than what they believe they themselves should get as a reward; to pretend to be better than anyone who does not share the same belief, even though most will not show this; to belittle themselves by their ignorance and wishful thinking, to know the real truth of this world.

Religion is not a necessity, its existence would for that alone not bother me, were it not that religion can be - and is (in a lesser form) an unnecessary negative influence in this world. There are secular alternatives, without rituals or rules, that are actually true. I simply don't see why people would hold on to religion.

 

[ChristineES]

Religion has caused children to be raised maimed - preferably in the genital area;

It isn't the religion itself that causes that but people who do.

Religion is not a necessity

It isn't a necessity for you, but it is a necessity for me and others

and is (in a lesser form) an unnecessary negative influence in this world

You can't say that everything about religion and religious people is negative. People like Mother Theresa lived her faith and helped a lot of people. The Hindus I have known are very wise. The Pagans I have known are usually pretty kind. I wouldn't call those things negative.

 

[Diederick]

It isn't the religion itself that causes that but people who do.

The people who commit these bad things didn't just make them up. They are done collectively, because religion tells them to. Ultimately, religion is man-made so your point does in fact make complete sense, but reading through the rest of your reply, I don't think you really meant that.

It isn't a necessity for you, but it is a necessity for me and others

Religion makes you think it is a necessity, it certainly provides good things - I will never try to dispute that, but also causes negative things where those good things are replaceable by secular means. Religion is a placebo, with side-effects.

You can't say that everything about religion and religious people is negative. People like Mother Theresa lived her faith and helped a lot of people. The Hindus I have known are very wise. The Pagans I have known are usually pretty kind. I wouldn't call those things negative.

Mother Theresa has done some very silly things, like telling the Catholic part of Ireland how bad divorce is, even though she herself was married to a terrible man. I can't see how that is positive, especially not since that only incited the tensions between the religious factions in Ireland, perhaps in a minor form the world. Anyway, I never said all of religion is bad, you must have misread that.

There are perfectly apt and satisfying alternatives to religion, without the bad stuff.

 

[McBell]

The people who commit these bad things didn't just make them up. They are done collectively, because religion tells them to. Ultimately, religion is man-made so your point does in fact make complete sense, but reading through the rest of your reply, I don't think you really meant that.

Religion makes you think it is a necessity, it certainly provides good things - I will never try to dispute that, but also causes negative things where those good things are replaceable by secular means. Religion is a placebo, with side-effects.

Mother Theresa has done some very silly things, like telling the Catholic part of Ireland how bad divorce is, even though she herself was married to a terrible man. I can't see how that is positive, especially not since that only incited the tensions between the religious factions in Ireland, perhaps in a minor form the world. Anyway, I never said all of religion is bad, you must have misread that.

There are perfectly apt and satisfying alternatives to religion, without the bad stuff.

ROTFLMAO
Now you are merely picking at nits.

 

[Diederick]

ROTFLMAO
Now you are merely picking at nits.

Explain.

 

[McBell]

Explain.

ROTFLMAO = Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Arse Off
I find it extremely amusing how you have to pick at nits.
"Mother Theresa has done some silly things..."
Classic.

 

[logician]

It's not so much a question whether religion should be tolerated (freedom of religion is a guarantee in the U.S.), but that religions themselves tend to be very intolerant of beliefs contrary to their own.

 

[McBell]

With all this personification of religion, I am waiting for religion it self to log an and present her side...

 

[Elessar]

Religion has caused children to be raised maimed - preferably in the genital area; to be raised in a system of fear, guilt and hatred in a much more extreme form than that is natural to the bullies on the playground; to be warded from, and taught to ridicule, scientific fact; to grow up indoctrinated in a religion from which escape takes quite some strength of personality; to, as an adult, attempt to spread this religion, perhaps honestly believing to do good; to send people who are 'bad' in terms of the religion, to a nasty place or at least condemn them to anything less than what they believe they themselves should get as a reward; to pretend to be better than anyone who does not share the same belief, even though most will not show this; to belittle themselves by their ignorance and wishful thinking, to know the real truth of this world.

Religion is not a necessity, its existence would for that alone not bother me, were it not that religion can be - and is (in a lesser form) an unnecessary negative influence in this world. There are secular alternatives, without rituals or rules, that are actually true. I simply don't see why people would hold on to religion.

So our Jewish traditions are somehow offensive to you? Our Jewish culture is offensive to you? How overwhelmingly tolerant of you. I don't mean our faith - ignore our faith. Ignore our G-d. But what makes us a people are our traditions. Our heritage. Our writings. And we should just cast them by the wayside because some schmuck thinks they're offensive?

What gives you the right? What gives you the authority to rob us of who we are?

 

[gnomon]

This is something I'm a little torn on, on one hand, I'm inclined to feel that everyone should be able to conduct their lives as they see fit, to live and let live as it were. On the other hand, however, religions in general seem to cross a line, where they begin to enforce their 'divine will' onto the rest of the world. Children across the world get brainwashed to believe that some horrible damnation awaits them unless they seek salvation through their parents religion, religious groups fight amongst each other over conflicting ideoligies and of course faith in and of itself has a tendency to make one shortsighted and biased when it comes to new information that might conflict with said beliefs. All in all it seems to be quite destructive.

Just to help get this topic rolling, take the all too recent example of 9/11, where religious zealots whose faith is unquestionable by anyone, these people willingly gave their lives to carry out the 'divine will' of their religion. And in so doing ended the lives of so many innocent people. How can one be an advocate for religion without advocating the actions of those 'terrorists'. And if you think that their religion is misguided or their interpretation flawed, and that your own religion is superior, aren't you propagating the very mindset that leads to yet more bloodshed in the name of God?

I think the question of tolerating religion is too broad an no meaningful debate can arise from it.

A better question is whether or not actions based on religious beliefs should be tolerated. The answer to that being a clear no. This means that all actions, no matter what grounds for justification, are open to fair criticism.

I just find the term religion too general.

 

[McBell]

I think the question of tolerating religion is too broad an no meaningful debate can arise from it.

I am beginning to think you are right.

A better question is whether or not actions based on religious beliefs should be tolerated. The answer to that being a clear no. This means that all actions, no matter what grounds for justification, are open to fair criticism.

I agree.
Though I thought this is the way it is supposed to be in the eyes of the law...

I just find the term religion too general.

Another excellent point.

Unless of course you think, like many atheists in this thread have most definitely alluded to, that religion is a living breathing thing in and of it self.

 

[gnomon]

Though I thought this is the way it is supposed to be in the eyes of the law...

That's the hope.

Unless of course you think, like many atheists in this thread have most definitely alluded to, that religion is a living breathing thing in and of it self.

I hold no such illusion. If it were a discussion of specific denominations or clearly defined religions such as Scientology, certain Pentecostal beliefs, Roman Catholicism, etc. then I think a debate over their value is worthy because they tend to delineate a specific set of beliefs. But they act as a defining set and nothing more. I hold all religions to be nothing more than a construct.

 

[zenzero]

Friend BaronVonKaiser,

What you are talking about is ORGANISED RELIGION.

But really speaking without tolerance things will become even murkier or another never ending HOLY WAR which again has to be fought between two or more organised religious groups.

Can you list the OPTIONS available if TOLERANCE is not one?

Love & rgds

 

[Diederick]

So our Jewish traditions are somehow offensive to you? Our Jewish culture is offensive to you? How overwhelmingly tolerant of you. I don't mean our faith - ignore our faith. Ignore our G-d. But what makes us a people are our traditions. Our heritage. Our writings. And we should just cast them by the wayside because some schmuck thinks they're offensive?

What gives you the right? What gives you the authority to rob us of who we are?

Yes. Tolerance is the question here, so I answer it. I personally find it intolerable that children are the victim of religion. I've said this several times already, but here we go again: If religion didn't force itself onto other people, if religion didn't judge other people, if religion didn't manipulate children, if religion didn't motivate abuse; then I would have no problem in the least what people wish to believe. But religion does influence this world negatively, there is no denying that.

And I don't give a rat's *** about hurting your feelings because it is your culture, your heritage and the thing you (I assume) grew up with. I find it to be negative, so I criticize it; and unless you make religion seem a positive influence to me, you shouldn't jump on my back when I speak out over something I disagree with, just because you happen to have been brought up in a Jewish culture.

 

[McBell]

But religion does influence this world negatively, there is no denying that.

So we should be intolerant of everything that effects the world negatively?

 

[Storm]

But religion does influence this world negatively, there is no denying that.

And here I thought that was exactly what I was doing. :sarcastic

 

[Diederick]

So we should be intolerant of everything that effects the world negatively?

We should criticize it in accordance with how bad it is. Of course there are some necessary evils and things that are harmful to the person creating it alone - but to anything that needlessly harms the world, why not? Why would we tolerate such a thing?