Why NOT Religion

[joe1776]

Since the question "why religion" has been asked, I think it not inappropriate to begin a thread of my own, suggesting some (perhaps many, who knows how long I'll continue) some of the reasons that I sincerely do not like religion, and give others the chance to say why they do not.

Please feel free to tell me when you think I'm dead wrong, but ONLY if you are prepared to back up your criticism with a fact-based argument.

So, here are a few of my arguments, just to get things going:

• The discouragement of rational, critical thought. Christianity in particular discourages critical thinking. In essence, it makes people less intelligent by telling them that faith is just as good, or better, than arriving at a conclusion through deductive reasoning and evidence
  
• Nearly all religions treat homosexuality, a natural variation in orientation, as sinful and anathema, resulting in discrimination, parents disowning their children, murder, and suicide … I can give evidence of all of these
• People dying because they believe their faith makes them immune to snake venom, or other lethal aspects of reality, and also dying – and letting their children die – because their religion forbids accepting medical help. Other deaths have been caused by people being choked, starved, poisoned, or beaten to death during exorcisms.
• Genital mutilation of babies or (worse) youths (male and female) for nothing but religious reasons
• Genuine psychological conditions not being properly treated, because they're blamed on "demons," resulting in avoidance of proper medical care
• Otherwise good people disowning their own families, or disfellowshipping or shunning members of their own communities over differences in religious opinion.
• Insistence on “Abstinence-only” sex education, which cause far more STDs and unwed pregnancies than necessary...and often resulting in soul-destroying shot-gun marriages
• Forcing women into life-threatening abortions by refusing to allow therapeutic abortions when they are genuinely appropriate, and the best solution in the circumstances
• Women treated like second-class citizens based on religious teachings
• The destruction of great works of art considered to be pornographic/blasphemous, e.g. Bamiyan Buddha's
  
• Children traumatized by vivid stories of eternal burning and torture to ensure that they’ll be too frightened to even question religion
  
• Natural disasters and other tragedies being used to claim God is displeased with something or other, thus encouraging people to seek out that "something or other" and whack it (see Pat Robertson on Hurricane Katrina)

That will do to be going on with. I've lots and lots more, but I'll bet others can contribute to the list.

My mind isn't capable of faith so I don't have a religion; but I'll challenge the argument in the OP just for fun.

The discouragement of rational, critical thought. Christianity in particular discourages critical thinking. In essence, it makes people less intelligent by telling them that faith is just as good, or better, than arriving at a conclusion through deductive reasoning and evidence.

This argument creates a false dichotomy. It doesn't allow the possibility that one can have faith in a religion but be every bit as adept at critical thinking as atheists on other questions.

The rest of the post is cherry-picked negative evidence which can be countered with cherry-picked positive evidence for religion and cherry-picked negative evidence against atheism. That argument can go on forever and isn't persuasive to unbiased minds.

The argument I make against religion that I think is persuasive and difficult for the faithful to deny is that religion's only undeniable achievement has been the division of humanity into thousands of quarreling sects. And because of that, it is a major obstacle to be overcome in humanity's effort to achieve global harmony.

 

[HonestJoe]

Maybe it was for the reasons you stated that Mao Zedong, Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, et al did what they did.

It could certainly be argued that they established non-theistic religions around themselves, using many of the features and tools common of the dominant monotheistic faiths of the time to their own ends. That strikes me as more argument against unconditionally promoting those features and tools, be it in a theistic or non-theistic context.

It reminds me of another atheist, serial killerJeffrey Dahmer sentenced to 900 years in prison, who said “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”.

Do you agree with him? If you stopped believing on God, you’d have nothing stopping you going on an indiscriminate killing spree? How do you explain the countless millions of non-believers in the world who don’t do that or the many believers who have?

It’s also worth noting that this isn’t really about “religion or atheism”, only “religion or not religion”. Personal belief in a god or not is a subtly different question.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Good insights. You really ought to read Yuval Noah Harari (Sapiens, Homo Deus, etc.). Also amazing insights.

He might have read them, and I too can recommend them although both do seem to have bits I disagree with. Also, although religions do seem to have played a large role in our development, we can hardly assume that this role was just beneficial or that without such we might have fared better. An inadequacy of human understanding - positing all sorts of things that don't correlate with reality - is just a fact of life. We have gone through a certain stage and perhaps it is time to leave infancy behind us.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

My point is simple, you can pull all the "crazies" you want on the Christianity side just like I can pull out all the crazies on the atheists side.

Because there are crazies on the religious side doesn't mean the answer is "Not Religion"

Your point is a completely mischaracterization of the "equality" you are trying to draw between theism's "crazies" and atheism's "crazies."

Put simply, theism encourages bad/incorrect/fallacious modes of thinking. It literally encourages people to adopt fantasies and apply them to reality. Atheism does no such thing. If a person doesn't believe in God/gods then they belong to the group "Atheist" - that's it. There is no stated/obligatory gathering, no text/doctrine to follow with a requirement that you believe. Atheists are not required to believe anything in particular at all. Just lack a belief in God. And from what I have seen atheists are often very highly skeptical even of one another. Therefore it is extremely difficult for any given atheist to impress anything without rational/evidential support on other atheists. Any such skepticism within religion between believers and with respect to what they believe is tantamount to hypocrisy, honestly... because no matter who you're criticizing, you, yourself are engaged in the exact same styles of belief, with the exact same lack of evidence and rationality for your views, and you hold in reverence the exact same styles of make-believe/fiction.

In adhering to a religion and accepting its "divine" doctrine, you are, by default, proving you are susceptible/gullible. Predators have known for years that if you want to get a group of people motivated to do something that goes against their ordinary nature, the easiest way to do so is to target their desire for obtaining religious/spiritual belonging and understanding.

 

[Kenny]

It could certainly be argued that they established non-theistic religions around themselves, using many of the features and tools common of the dominant monotheistic faiths of the time to their own ends. That strikes me as more argument against unconditionally promoting those features and tools, be it in a theistic or non-theistic context.

That is also possibilities. But notice the subtle differences. For atheists (not all) and their atrocities - there are "other" reasons for their actions but when it comes to religion, it is because of their faith. Do you see the unequal weights of judgement?

Do you agree with him? If you stopped believing on God, you’d have nothing stopping you going on an indiscriminate killing spree? How do you explain the countless millions of non-believers in the world who don’t do that or the many believers who have?

You are giving credit to your "honest" Joe. If you will look back, you will have noted that I made exceptions and qualified that violent atheists are an exception even as violent religious people are exceptions, (equal weights).

But two points:

1. If I didn't believe in God, I would go back to abortion on demand. I think that qualifies as violence.
2. My point is simply that without a God-line, then it is each individual that draws their own lines, whether indiscriminate killing spree, abortions, or simply doing good. There is no line.

It’s also worth noting that this isn’t really about “religion or atheism”, only “religion or not religion”. Personal belief in a god or not is a subtly different question.

IMV, atheism is as much as a religion as any other since it adheres to a position that can only be believed on by faith. And I would have to disagree that it is a "different question".

 

[HonestJoe]

That is also possibilities. But notice the subtle differences. For atheists (not all) and their atrocities - there are "other" reasons for their actions but when it comes to religion, it is because of their faith. Do you see the unequal weights of judgement?

Yes, but that varies massively depending on who is doing the judging and why. The fact remains that the kind of beliefs and policies listed in the OP are either flawed or at least open potential risks regardless of any wider infrastructure they may be based in.

If I didn't believe in God, I would go back to abortion on demand. I think that qualifies as violence.

So you have no rational temporal reasoning for opposing abortion, your sole basis is because you believe God opposes it? I don’t believe in any god but I’m not convinced on abortion on demand. My position is based on consideration of the practical realities of the issue(s). I honestly can’t conceive of addressing any socio-political issue in any other way.

My point is simply that without a God-line, then it is each individual that draws their own lines, whether indiscriminate killing spree, abortions, or simply doing good. There is no line.

Are you sure you’re not actually drawing your own line and simply justifying it as God inspired? After all, there are lots of people who purportedly believe in the same God and follow the same religion and yet hold to very different lines on different issues. Simply believing in a God doesn’t create any lines, that requires much more specific detail.

IMV, atheism is as much as a religion as any other since it adheres to a position that can only be believed on by faith. And I would have to disagree that it is a "different question".

A religion is a set of beliefs and practices. I don’t like the “atheism” label but no commonly used definition of it fits the definition of religion by any stretch of the imagination. After all, you can believe in god without being religions and you can practice a religion without believing in any gods.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I still don't understand people's issues with the OP. It was one of the strongest Abductive Reasoning arguments I have seen in a long time. To refute it, you'd either have to debate the points, or present an argument on equal footing (and not just based on personal taste).

 

[Kenny]

So you have no rational temporal reasoning for opposing abortion, your sole basis is because you believe God opposes it? I don’t believe in any god but I’m not convinced on abortion on demand. My position is based on consideration of the practical realities of the issue(s). I honestly can’t conceive of addressing any socio-political issue in any other way.

How you read all of that into what I said is a little confusing. I never said because "God opposes it". Where did you get that from? And how did you come to the conclusion that "You have no rational temporal reasoning"? You haven't even asked.

I am beginning to wonder about your honesty... by rational temporal reasoning.

Are you sure you’re not actually drawing your own line and simply justifying it as God inspired? After all, there are lots of people who purportedly believe in the same God and follow the same religion and yet hold to very different lines on different issues. Simply believing in a God doesn’t create any lines, that requires much more specific detail.

I don't agree. There are very specific details. "Don't lie" is very specific as is don't steal, don't use course language etc.

A religion is a set of beliefs and practices. I don’t like the “atheism” label but no commonly used definition of it fits the definition of religion by any stretch of the imagination. After all, you can believe in god without being religions and you can practice a religion without believing in any gods.

Religion is a position of faith. Can any atheist really say "there is no god"? It is a position of faith.

 

[viole]

Maybe it was for the reasons you stated that Mao Zedong, Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, et al did what they did.

It reminds me of another atheist, serial killerJeffrey Dahmer sentenced to 900 years in prison, who said “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”.

If you lose your faith tomorrow, do yo think you will turn into Hannibal the Cannibal or similar?

If yes, then keep believing please. By all means.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Religion I believe, without science and reason degenerates into superstition but it’s teachings of virtues things like love, compassion, goodwill, helping the poor and so on can be invaluable to society.

When religion, shorn of its superstitions, traditions, and unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with science, then will there be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world which will sweep before it all wars, disagreements, discords and struggles—and then will mankind be united in the power of the Love of God. (Baha’i Writings)

But to my way of thinking, a little philosophy can do all of that, and without having to remove all the nonsense that tends towards religion. Even Baha'is have there miracle, after all.

Look, one of the things that made me an atheist is that I am a critical thinker (unlike some who like to make that assertion), and when I read the Bible, I found therein so much that was false and unbelievable that there was simply no going back. It's like when someone has lied to you often enough, the foundations for a relationship build on trust have been pulled out, and that trust is not going to happen. So to some extent, the Bible itself contributed to my atheism. But I can read philosophers all day long, and take what is good, reject what I find bad, but always with a degree of trust, because they're trying so hard to be honest. Try reading Hume and Locke and A.C. Grayling if you want to understand what it is to be a "good person, in a world of good." There's more to them than I've ever found in any scripture.

 

[Augustus]

The argument I make against religion that I think is persuasive and difficult for the faithful to deny is that religion's only undeniable achievement has been the division of humanity into thousands of quarreling sects.

This is literally as wrong as it is possible to be. The 'natural state' of humanity is to be divided into far smaller kinship/tribal groups.

The greatest success of religion has been to unite people into ever larger groups. It is open to debate whether or not the 'ladder' of religion can now be discarded, but arguing that religions have, on balance been divisive, is as unscientific and irrational as it is possible to be.

Ironically, the idea of a singular unified Humanity is as religious a concept as exists.

 

[Augustus]

Let's try to list all the lives that, as you say "religion has saved," and compare that to all the lives that religion has killed. Then let's list all the lives that atheism has saved and killed, so long as we can show that it was the atheism that was the impetus for the good or bad deed. And, of course, so long as we can show that "religion" was the impetus, as well. Got to be fair.

The fair comparison would really be 'all religious ideologies' compared to all 'irreligious ideologies'.

However it's all hypothetical as you can't really isolate things easily enough for anything to be particularly meaningful (not even sure we can define 'religious' in a meaningful way). For example, you can't call the 30 years war a religious war, and you can't call it a non-religious war. More importantly, there is no way you can identify wars that never happened because of whatever religious/irreligious ideologies people held that might have happened had they believed something completely different.

Also 'post-religious' ideologies like Secular Humanism and Communism all borrow heavily on religious concepts so likely wouldn't even exist if certain religions had failed to achieve popularity.

It's always fun to speculate, but it's basically the definition of unknowable.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My mind isn't capable of faith so I don't have a religion; but I'll challenge the argument in the OP just for fun.



This argument creates a false dichotomy. It doesn't allow the possibility that one can have faith in a religion but be every bit as adept at critical thinking as atheists on other questions.

The rest of the post is cherry-picked negative evidence which can be countered with cherry-picked positive evidence for religion and cherry-picked negative evidence against atheism. That argument can go on forever and isn't persuasive to unbiased minds.

The argument I make against religion that I think is persuasive and difficult for the faithful to deny is that religion's only undeniable achievement has been the division of humanity into thousands of quarreling sects. And because of that, it is a major obstacle to be overcome in humanity's effort to achieve global harmony.

I will admit that you make a very good point, at the end. But I still maintain that the things that trouble me about religion are very real, and I haven't found contradictory arguments that I find convincing, as they are almost always backed up not be reason, but by scripture and wild conjectures about "what God wants."

 

[HonestJoe]

How you read all of that into what I said is a little confusing. I never said because "God opposes it". Where did you get that from? And how did you come to the conclusion that "You have no rational temporal reasoning"? You haven't even asked.

You said that if you stopped believing in God, you'd go back to abortion on demand. Doesn't that mean your belief in God is the only factor currently preventing you from supporting abortion on demand? If you had any other reasons, loosing faith in God alone wouldn't shift your position.

I don't agree. There are very specific details. "Don't lie" is very specific as is don't steal, don't use course language etc.

They're not related to simply believing in the existence of a god but to a specific religion. Someone could believe in God but not those commandments. Someone could also choose to follow them as personal principles without any reference to God.

Religion is a position of faith. Can any atheist really say "there is no god"? It is a position of faith.

No, theism is a position of faith. Religion is a set of beliefs and practices, which may or may not include the existence of one or more gods.

Again, the OP is asking about specific religious opinions and ideas, not the belief in the existence of a god.

 

[joe1776]

This is literally as wrong as it is possible to be. The 'natural state' of humanity is to be divided into far smaller kinship/tribal groups.

If you were right, small towns would be flourishing and not cities.

Cooperation in a worthy cause is the most powerful human force. The bigger the cooperative, the better it works (because it allows greater specialization).

Economic globalization is an obvious trend you're missing. This involves goods and services, and the economic resources of capital, technology, and data. The WWW is also allowing us to share ideas globally.

The greatest success of religion has been to unite people into ever larger groups. It is open to debate whether or not the 'ladder' of religion can now be discarded, but arguing that religions have, on balance been divisive, is as unscientific and irrational as it is possible to be.

If you do a search for timelines of religious wars, there are many online. You'll then be reminded of the violent past of religion which you seem to be overlooking.

Moreover, have you noticed that Protestant Christianity alone has divided itself into thousands of sects? ...the Center for Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which is evangelical Protestant, estimates that there are currently 47,000 denominations.

Ironically, the idea of a singular unified Humanity is as religious a concept as exists.

True, the Roman Catholic Church once imagined a world ruled by its pope. But we're not debating concepts. We're debating reality. World unification under Catholic rule never happened. Humanity will achieve global harmony when the teachings of religion fall in line with the goal of global harmony as the Bah'ai are doing, when religions are discarded by many, or when both happen (which seems likely).

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Maybe it was for the reasons you stated that Mao Zedong, Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, et al did what they did.

It reminds me of another atheist, serial killerJeffrey Dahmer sentenced to 900 years in prison, who said “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”.

I'm told I look like Jeffrey Dahmer. I don't really see the resemblance.

Yeah, I think I get where that's coming from though.

I think unfortunately that's the point, that some ppl have maybe been so conditioned to thinking of God as some sort of government type that they'd rather do horrible things than be told they're wrong.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

If you were right, small towns would be flourishing and not cities.

Cooperation in a worthy cause is the most powerful human force. The bigger the cooperative, the better it works (because it allows greater specialization).

Economic globalization is an obvious trend you're missing. This involves goods and services, and the economic resources of capital, technology, and data. The WWW is also allowing us to share ideas globally.


If you do a search for timelines of religious wars, there are many online. You'll then be reminded of the violent past of religion which you seem to be overlooking.

Moreover, have you noticed that Protestant Christianity alone has divided itself into thousands of sects? ...the Center for Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which is evangelical Protestant, estimates that there are currently 47,000 denominations.


True, the Roman Catholic Church once imagined a world ruled by its pope. But we're not debating concepts. We're debating reality. World unification under Catholic rule never happened. Humanity will achieve global harmony when the teachings of religion fall in line with the goal of global harmony as the Bah'ai are doing, when religions are discarded by many, or when both happen (which seems likely).

You seem to be an idealist. Globalism is socialism/communism under a UN/EU banner. Go look up what happened to SE Asia under that. I'll wait.

 

[Augustus]

f you were right, small towns would be flourishing and not cities.

Cooperation in a worthy cause is the most powerful human force. The bigger the cooperative, the better it works (because it allows greater specialization).

Economic globalization is an obvious trend you're missing. This involves goods and services, and the economic resources of capital, technology, and data. The WWW is also allowing us to share ideas globally.

You are starting a few hundred thousand years too late. You need to go back to the dawn of man and start your history there.

No cities, no towns, just fragmented populations of small groups. This is the starting point.

If you do a search for timelines of religious wars, there are many online. You'll then be reminded of the violent past of religion which you seem to be overlooking.

Moreover, have you noticed that Protestant Christianity alone has divided itself into thousands of sects? ...the Center for Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which is evangelical Protestant, estimates that there are currently 47,000 denominations.

Humans are violent and so our past is violent. Large scale wars require a degree of unity beyond the small groups we evolved to live in though.

Religions were essential in getting us to the point where we could have large scale wars, as they were essential in building large scale societies.

A few religions is a lot less divided than millions of little tribes and kinship groups.

True, the Roman Catholic Church once imagined a world ruled by its pope. But we're not debating concepts. We're debating reality.

And the reality is there is no such thing as humanity. Just diverse groups and people with differing and often conflicting interests.

The idea we are actually one singular group is a concept borrowed from monotheism. It was not something that was common in most traditional societies.

If Tribe A and Tribe B had been fighting each other for generations they didn't think 'those Tribe B chaps are our brothers, we are the same species after all'. People share a 'common humanity' because they were created by the same God.

Many people have so thoroughly internalised this concept of Humanity that they think it is self-evident and natural. There's nothing natural about it though, it's a product of man-made religion (in the West, generally Christianity).

Many people who think they have moved passed the irrationalities of religions get completely suckered into believing this fantasy. It is most irrational to be an atheist and believe that Humanity actually exists in any meaningful sense.

 

[ChristineM]

What was good for the goose is good for the gander.

I could go on about atheists Napoleon Bonaparte and Alfred Kinsey too. Why don't you mention those?

How about christian adolf hitler or budhist pol pot or christian joe stalin?

Oh right. You already claimed the only christian in the kremlin who publicly stated "surely jesus lived", rebuilt the christian church in russia, donated millions of rubles to the church and had not 1, not 2 but 3 archbishop's officiate at his funeral... Sounds like a true atheist to me - not.

 

[joe1776]

You seem to be an idealist. Globalism is socialism/communism under a UN/EU banner. Go look up what happened to SE Asia under that. I'll wait.

You won't have to wait long, Samantha. It's not like I haven't heard your point before.

There are many counters to it. I'll just give you one:

For plans to succeed, the plan has to be sound and the execution of the plan has to be effective. And since we humans have yet to invent a government that wasn't incompetent, corrupt or both, no social plan has ever succeeded. There are just some that failed worse than others.

So, your notion that you can project what my future world would look like and predict its failure based on something that failed in any part of the world is an obvious false analogy.