Should religion be tolerated?

[BaronVonKaiser]

So many things I've missed being away for the last few days, I just about can't wait to reply to all of them, first things first, I saw a few posts about Mother Teresa as an example of good done by religion, any idea how many countless people she inderectly murdered for her antiquated and religious ideals regarding condoms, the aids virus kills so many people in Africa and there is such an easy an inexpensive method to help reduce those needless deaths, and yet getting condoms to the people of Africa was made extremely difficult because of good ol' Mother Teresa and her constant campaigns to make sure people didn't use them. Frankly, denying people such a simple device to save lives seems to me to be a huge crime, I don't think Mother Teresa was much better than a mass murderer for this issue alone. It seems obvious that she greatly aided in the deaths of more human beings than she was ever able to help save.

 

[Elessar]

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.

Who gave you the right to decide whether my culture is a good or bad thing? That's the point of it. YOU think its a bad thing. Fine. That's your right. But when does it become your right to enforce YOUR beliefs on me?

 

[Heneni]

So many things I've missed being away for the last few days, I just about can't wait to reply to all of them, first things first, I saw a few posts about Mother Teresa as an example of good done by religion, any idea how many countless people she inderectly murdered for her antiquated and religious ideals regarding condoms, the aids virus kills so many people in Africa and there is such an easy an inexpensive method to help reduce those needless deaths, and yet getting condoms to the people of Africa was made extremely difficult because of good ol' Mother Teresa and her constant campaigns to make sure people didn't use them. Frankly, denying people such a simple device to save lives seems to me to be a huge crime, I don't think Mother Teresa was much better than a mass murderer for this issue alone. It seems obvious that she greatly aided in the deaths of more human beings than she was ever able to help save.

You raise an interesting point!

I can just see jesus wrap her over the knuckles because she helped fed and clothed so many destitute people, yet she wasnt into giving them condoms so that they can have an even better excuse to be sexually immoral. HE HE..... Tricky very tricky.

Jesus says that whatever you do for the hungry and the destitute you have done for him. So then...mother teresa, fed jesus through the hungry, she clothed jesus through the poor, but she did not think it appropriate to give jesus a condom.

I think that was not a bad call actually.

Heneni

 

[Diederick]

Who gave you the right to decide whether my culture is a good or bad thing? That's the point of it. YOU think its a bad thing. Fine. That's your right. But when does it become your right to enforce YOUR beliefs on me?

I'm not enforcing them, I'm presenting them. Unlike you (I observe), I am actually open to criticism; that's why I am here, to learn. You can come with arguments to counter my position, and do what a forum is meant to host; but if you keep on acting all abused and offended by what I think, then this conversation is over.

 

[Heneni]

Who gave you the right to decide whether my culture is a good or bad thing? That's the point of it. YOU think its a bad thing. Fine. That's your right. But when does it become your right to enforce YOUR beliefs on me?

Just a question...how does somebody on a forum, have the legs, the authority or the power to enforce their beliefs on you?

The only people in authority (really) is the goverment and your boss and or your mother..he he...or yourself.

It is really impossible to enforce somebodies beliefs on others. If is say i believe that stealing is right...you dont believe it. I can force you to steal, but i have still not forced you believe that stealing is right.

Heneni

 

[Elessar]

I'm not enforcing them, I'm presenting them. Unlike you (I observe), I am actually open to criticism; that's why I am here, to learn. You can come with arguments to counter my position, and do what a forum is meant to host; but if you keep on acting all abused and offended by what I think, then this conversation is over.

The question in this thread is "Should religion be tolerated?". I assume, and I think it is reasonable, that this means, should religion be tolerated by the government. So I have assumed that if you are arguing against religious practices, you are then arguing that they should be banned.

 

[Diederick]

The question in this thread is "Should religion be tolerated?". I assume, and I think it is reasonable, that this means, should religion be tolerated by the government. So I have assumed that if you are arguing against religious practices, you are then arguing that they should be banned.

Disagreeing with something, and wanting to ban them are two very different things. First of all, like I have stated (I believe in this very same thread) I oppose government intervention in a person's personal business, among that I count religion.
Secondly, I don't understand your logic (honestly). Am I missing something? How can you go from the question "should religion be tolerated" to "should the government ban religion"? My answers would be contradicting to those two different questions.
And I have presented, for as far as I know, reasonable negatives of religion. With religion being a placebo (only working when one believes in it) it means it can be replaced with something different (preferably less harmful). My alternative, which I am living by at this very moment, is Existential Nihilism. But I think most people in religion right now don't need such an alternative, simply because this is deeper than they care.

I'm glad we can continue in a more decent fashion.

 

[BaronVonKaiser]

Please see post #40.
Perhaps you will not ignore it this time?

Sorry, I'm not sure why I had not responded directly to this post earlier, I think I might have gotten mixed up about another thread in which this question came up. That post looks like it asked if there was an example of evil created by religion that could not have been created without.

I can't imagine how anyone could think there was not. Having one psychopath that decides he needs to kill an entire race I can see, having more than one of them hell bent on the same thing seems incredibly unlikely, especially to have them work together toward the same end. But how do you wind up with an army, or an entire culture of people that feel the need to commit genocide on a neighbouring civilization? Only religion can provide the power and the lack of personal responsibility to commit such an atrocity. It's only by creating some sort of misguided hierarchy where an unseen being that can do no wrong and order the masses to commit unthinkable horrors, to have the masses follow said imaginarey being without question, develop a servantile relationship with their god, where they are pathetic and undeserving and must spend their lives in servantile obedience to their god in order to escape his wrathful judgement... that is how you commit the most extreme acts of evil our world has ever known. And now that people have come to accept this way of thinking as natural it allows certain individuals to take on that power for themselves, Stalin for instance, who was not considered a man, he was considered an intermediary between regular humans and god.

On that note, I think Hitler was mentioned womewhere as well, he did have the backing of the Catholic church at the time, the Vatican has apologized and continues to apologize for the atrocities that Hitler comitted under their authority.

Hopefully this suffices as an answer to post #40

 

[Diederick]

Of course your answer is limited to the Abrahamic religions, or do you claim all religions are systems of mass destruction?

The Catholic church is repulsive, concerning their top at least.

 

[McBell]

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?

Dunno.
Why IS the UN tolerated?

 

[Diederick]

Dunno.
Why IS the UN tolerated?

The UN is, or at least, used to be a forum for countries with issues to come and settle things in a neutral or at least safe surrounding. It has done good things, and I firmly believe we will always need a diplomatic forum; just as much as humans who are on this planet together will need to communicate with each other to avoid or minimize friction.

The UN, unfortunately, is being abused. I'm not so hard for a UN fighting force, to defend the UN itself is fine, but to organize raiding parties with befriended countries in some God forgotten desert somehow doesn't feel that good to me.

 

[BaronVonKaiser]

Of course your answer is limited to the Abrahamic religions, or do you claim all religions are systems of mass destruction?

This is true, I admit that the specific examples I gave were biased towards some of the religions that I know a little more about, but my intent was only to provide an example of evil that could only have been commited with the help of religion.

I don't feel that religions are systems of mass destruction so much as religion (that is to say, an organized religion) provides a framework in which an immense amount of power can be exerted over people towards any of numerous ends, a popular one in the history of our planet being mass destruction.

 

[BaronVonKaiser]

I can just see jesus wrap her over the knuckles because she helped fed and clothed so many destitute people, yet she wasnt into giving them condoms so that they can have an even better excuse to be sexually immoral. HE HE..... Tricky very tricky.

Jesus says that whatever you do for the hungry and the destitute you have done for him. So then...mother teresa, fed jesus through the hungry, she clothed jesus through the poor, but she did not think it appropriate to give jesus a condom.

I think that was not a bad call actually.

I'm not sure what your argument is here, but if I understand correctly you are in favor of witholding a life saving device from countless thousands of people, to let them die simply because according to you they might use it as an excuse to be
'sexually immoral' So in other words, you would see men, women and children die by the thousands because the sense of values that were instilled in you by your religion say that they are immoral. I believe this effectively wraps up this argument. If religious people can effectively sentence human beings to death (Regardless if it be by their own hand or just by witholding a condom) without remorse just to force their own misguided morals on the rest of the world, then it would seem that no self respecting human being should be tolerant of said religion.

 

[McBell]

I don't feel that religions are systems of mass destruction so much as religion (that is to say, an organized religion) provides a framework in which an immense amount of power can be exerted over people towards any of numerous ends, a popular one in the history of our planet being mass destruction.

So your argument is that genocide is only possible through religion?
That if religion did not exist back then that there would have been no Holocaust?
I would love to see how you would prove that.

 

[McBell]

If religious people can effectively sentence human beings to death (Regardless if it be by their own hand or just by witholding a condom) without remorse just to force their own misguided morals on the rest of the world, then it would seem that no self respecting human being should be tolerant of said religion.

Let us take Christianity for example...
Where does the Christian scriptures command them to force their beliefs down the throats of others?

 

[ChristineES]

People are awfully narrow-minded in regards to theists and faith. These statements I just can't agree with:
1. All wars are because of religions
2. People get AIDS because of the Catholic Church doesn't approve of condoms.
3. Only religious people commit genocide.
Now, it is very apparent that no one actually said any of things but there certainly were insinuations coming close to that. I am hoping that no one actually meant to day these things.

 

[Diederick]

People are awfully narrow-minded in regards to theists and faith. These statements I just can't agree with:
1. All wars are because of religions
2. People get AIDS because of the Catholic Church doesn't approve of condoms.
3. Only religious people commit genocide.
Now, it is very apparent that no one actually said any of things but there certainly were insinuations coming close to that. I am hoping that no one actually meant to day these things.

I don't think may Atheists would agree with the above either. It seems to me you grossly underestimate our reasonableness, and blew this up out of proportion. This is just as slanderous as when an Atheist would claim your three points to be true.

 

[McBell]

...but there certainly were insinuations coming close to that.

I most definitely agree.

 

[ChristineES]

I don't think may Atheists would agree with the above either. It seems to me you grossly underestimate our reasonableness, and blew this up out of proportion. This is just as slanderous as when an Atheist would claim your three points to be true.

And I am not saying you said them. I said some of the atheists' arguments bordered on saying such things- inadvertently. Which means no one meant to insinuate them.
You can't fit anyone into tight little groups- all people are individuals. Some people love violence- whether atheist or theist or agnostic. Some people are benevolent- also whether atheist or theist or agnostic. Some people are a little of both- whether atheist or theist or agnostic.
AIDS is out of control because of promiscuity, not because Mother Theresa, being a Catholic, didn't approve of condoms. You know this as well as I do. But it almost seemed as that was said, although it truly wasn't.

 

[ayani]

Baron ~

there are more ways of coming to a certain belief system than there are people. it could be said that no two people believe exactly the same.

there are ways of sharing one's faith which are peaceful, non-destructive, and more like dialogue than anything else.

yet most faiths, if not all, make some claim on supreme truth. a Buddhist will not point you to Mahavira, but to the Buddha. a Muslim will not point you to Guru Nanak, but to Mohammad and to the Quran.

people should have the right to argue, discuss, share, and debate issues of faith and truth. people should also be free to choose their own faith, convert to another faith, or decide to believe in nothing at all.