Why religion terrifies me.

[Flappycat]

It's a bit of a fallacy to claim such a thing as "atrocities in the name of atheism," but there have been atrocities commited out of antipathy and intolerance toward religion. Most serious cases of this have been governments that hold religion to be a threat to their own power, and the only thing being served in these cases would be political power. Many groups have come under oppression in the name of political power.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Does this mean you know of some, you just aren't going to tell me? I've got a secret, and all that? I honestly don't remember one atrocity committed in the name of atheism, though there may be some.

Christmas is a time when people of all religions come together to worship Jesus Christ. Matt Groening (1954 - ), The SimpsonsOh Matt, you're so clever

The reason for human atrocities is most often pride, wrath and greed. Religion is often thrown in as an excuse or justification for an atrocity, but that should not be confused with the real reason for it. The reality is that incidents of a religion that attempt to "convert by the sword" are rare.

Keep in mind the worst genocides in modern history have been committed by non-religious tyrants.

 

[yuvgotmel]

I very strongly believe in preserving life, not to the extreme of pacifism, if someone tries to kill me I will kill them if possible. I have no reason to end my own life in the service of any cause, because it is the only one I have. Religion however, at least most religions I've heard of, present an afterlife, or some form of continuation after death. That is the draw of religion, it offers and explanation of that which we do not understand, and death ranks #1 on that list. That is why I am terrified of religion. 99.9% of religious people, maybe even more, would never dream of harming me, because they do not think killing me would benefit them in any real way. Killing me would result in a stain on their soul against god, thus either damning them to hell, or whatever negative consequences their religion offers. However, that one guy, one person who either misinterprets his religious teachings, or truly believes them correctly (What mortal is to say they have the right interpretation?) decides that my very existence is blasphemous to their deity. They strap a bomb to their chest. They kill me and half a city block. Now I'm dead, my only life snuffed out. Done.

You know...There are people who refrain from killing simply because their religion tells them so.

....In other words, it could be worse.

There are people who restrain their desires simply because they fear "god".

 

[LeMaverick]

The reality is that incidents of a religion that attempt to "convert by the sword" are rare.

Atrocities are not restricted to "convert by the sword". Religious wars may simply be an attempt to gain advantage over, or to destroy, competing religon. We presently have such a situation in the Middle East wherein a Christian nation, "led" by one who "was told by god to strike Muslim countries"

Keep in mind the worst genocides in modern history have been committed by non-religious tyrants.

Would that include Hitler, the Christian?

 

[UnTheist]

Keep in mind the worst genocides in modern history have been committed by non-religious tyrants.

Just to clarify, Hitler wasn't atheist.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Does this mean you know of some, you just aren't going to tell me? I've got a secret, and all that? I honestly don't remember one atrocity committed in the name of atheism, though there may be some.

Christmas is a time when people of all religions come together to worship Jesus Christ. Matt Groening (1954 - ), The SimpsonsOh Matt, you're so clever

It means I won't wast my time. At the risk of sounding offensive, I do not believe you ae engaged in an honest pursuit of truth and understanding.

 

[Runlikethewind]

This is kinda the a turn-around on a common response I've gotten that, if you believe you stand to lose nothing, but if you don't you stand to lose everything. Consider this from my point of view. I'm a non-believer, you fear non-believers because they fear no eternal consequences. So I kill you and myself in a nuclear blast. I think I just faded to nothing, you think you get to go to heaven. So you don't really fear death right? Death is just the path to a far better world, if catholic doctrine is to be believed, assuming you lived as you should and you didn't kill yourself. The terror for someone killing me is more severe, I believe this is the only life I've got, and I believe both of us just die, and nobody knows what happens then. Maybe nothing.

This is not what I meant. I must admit that I made my comments in a rush and did not think them through very well. As I go back and read it over I see that it is full of error in that I don't agree with anything I said. Not only did I fail to make any good point I seem to imply that people who don't fear God have a far greater chance of doing something crazy than people of faith. Wait, thats not what I implied those are pretty much my exact words!!! I do not believe that. I don't know why I said it, except to say that I said it in a hurry to respond rather than wait until I had time to really sit down and make a thought out reply.

Let me see if I can make a more clear argument for what I would like to say.

What a person believes happens to them after death invariably affects their opinion of it, and thus their ethics.

The belief that nothing will happen after death also effects one's opinion and thus their ethics.

99.9% of religious people, maybe even more, would never dream of harming me, because they do not think killing me would benefit them in any real way.

I would say 99.9% of non-religious people, maybe even more, would never dream of harming me, because they do not think killing me would benefit them in any real way.

However, that one guy, one person who either misinterprets his religious teachings, or truly believes them correctly (What mortal is to say they have the right interpretation?) decides that my very existence is blasphemous to their deity. They strap a bomb to their chest. They kill me and half a city block. Now I'm dead, my only life snuffed out. Done.

Then there is that one guy who believes that, since there is nothing after death, he can do anything he wants. Or maybe the one guy who thinks that since there is nothing after death the only way to attain any semblance of immortality is by doing some notorious deed which will be remembered throughout history. A person doesn't have to have religious motivation to decide to do something crazy and a person could easily justify their actions in whatever way suits them best.

How could anything I promise, plead, or beg for sound better to them then eternal paradise next to a loving deity, their every whim answered? The sad truth is, it can't.

A person of faith, one might reason with, on the grounds that God would not approve of their actions. One could argue that eternal hell sounds allot worse than eternal paradise and that their actions might lead them there. The fact is there is an alternative that can be offered to the believer the possibility that they have misinterpreted their faith and that their actions will not result in eternal bliss. So I feel that I at least have something to argue with them. We are both talking about a slim majority of people. You are afraid of the .1% of believers who would do something crazy because you have no way of reasoning with them over their belief that God approves of their actions. I say that I would be more afraid of the .1% of non-believers who might think of doing something crazy because I have no way to reason with them. It seems that you fear people of religion because you have no way of reasoning with them and because you have a greater fear of death than I do since you don't know what will happen to you and I, at least think/believe, that I do know. I fear non-believers more than believers and you fear believers more than non-believers for the same reason, we both fear that which is foreign and unknown to us.

 

[Runlikethewind]

That's an extremely offensive thing to say about people who do not hold the same worldview as you, and one I dare say, you cannot provide evidence for.

Absolutely right.

I feel that people who live moral and ethical lives usually do so because they have a sense of responsibility to themselves and to others. The incentive is that we want to live in a more sane, peaceful, and just world than the one we have at present, and we wish to pass on a better world to succeeding generations.

To say that moral and ethical living only occurs because people fear hell or damnation is to demean those who seek to lead morally and ethically responsible lives.

Your right. I apologize for my comments. I posted those comments in a rush to respond. Once again I must learn the lesson the hard way, think before you speak.

 

[Runlikethewind]

Can you show us your evidence that Atheists are more immoral?

No

Are you saying we are more dangerous simply because we don't agree with your belief system?

It appears that I was. Why did I say that? I was in a hurry to post a response and failed to think before I spoke. My apologies.

 

[Runlikethewind]

I tend to be more afraid of the person who has no religion and who does not believe in an after life than of people of faith. I am far more afraid of the guy who thinks that killing me will have no eternal consequences than the guy who is afraid that if he kills me he might end up in hell.

Why are you afraid at all? In either case you would be dead all the same. Just because a person is afraid of hell doesn't mean that they still wont kill you and just because a person fears no eternal consequences won't stop him from killing you either. It appears that you are implying that the person who has no fear of God or Hell is more likely to be the killer...that is just mean and totally unprovable.

Fear of God is big deterrent to bad behavior for the vast majority of people of religion. Those who do not have this fear, I believe, have a far greater chance of doing something crazy like killing people and blowing things up.

So you do think that the person who doesn't fear God is more likely to be the bad guy! That is wrong, you are dumb. A person should not be motivated to do good and avoid evil simply out of fear of eternal punishment anyway. A person of faith, like yourself, shouldn't do something crazy out of fear of hell but out of fear of disappointing God who is your loving Father. This idea that a majority of people of faith behave only because they don't want to go to hell is ridicules. Most people of faith are motivated to behave not out of fear of God's punishment but out of love for God and a fear of disappointing Him. You should really think before you open that big fat mouth of yours....

 

[BFD_Zayl]

now now, I don't really think it was the OP intent to have some people smash each other...I just think that before saying anything people need to do some reading, educate themselves on the matter, and THEN post what they think...

 

[Doodlebug02]

I'm an Episcopalian and I believe in a literal Heaven and Hell. I also believe that I have a very good morality and ethics system that most Atheists/Agnostics/other Non-Theists would approve of. I consider myself to be quite liberal.

 

[DeepShadow]

I would appreciate a few examples of atrocities committed in the name of atheism. Not atrocities committed by atheists, because I'm sure there are plenty of those, but in the name of atheism.

LOL! In that case, you ought to restrict yourself to examples where religion was more than a pretext or a moral fig leaf.

As opposed to "You're wicked and evil and tainted in God's eyes, so I'm gonna tie you above the pile of wood and slow roast you to death over about 45 minutes so that your soul can be purged"

Plenty of modern scholars have demonstrated how witch trials were used as a cover for other social crimes. It would be better to phrase these "You're a single woman who frequently speaks out against tradition, so I'm going to call you wicked and evil..."

"You might have maybe potentially possibly harmed a cracker (Host Desecration) so I'm gonna kill every Jew in this village to ensure Jesus (The Cracker) doesn't get hurt."

Again, the was most commonly a nebulous pretext for a war that was already planned, such as when the conquistadores would give a Bible or a piece of Eucharist to an Inca or Aztec and were ready to pounce when he tossed it aside as worthless. Are you saying the conquistadores were motivated by God, not greed? If you want me to make my list according to these rules, you need to follow them yourself.

Even non-religious in nature atrocities are still because of the blind following of unproved and unprovable propaganda.

And non-theists never use unprovable propaganda? Are you saying that anyone who believes something without proof is a theist? If these are your definitions, then it really sounds like your are trying to paint me into a corner with your definitions.

I think Aesop said it best: "Any excuse will serve a tyrant." I agree to your conditions, but only if you hold to them yourself.

 

[lew0049]

Coming from a Christian perspective, you have to make an effort of faith to find God. If there was evidence that is greater/less than what there is today, then why would we be given free will to make a choice about him. If there was ABSOLUTE proof instead of clues, then we could no more deny God than we could the Sun (which we have absolute proof of).
It reminds me of what it says in the Bible "Seek and ye shall find." Meaning, not everyone will find Him because they did not look hard enough. It is a matter of faith going beyond your intellectual questions and doubts.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Atrocities are not restricted to "convert by the sword". Religious wars may simply be an attempt to gain advantage over, or to destroy, competing religon.

How is that not "convert by the sword"?

We presently have such a situation in the Middle East wherein a Christian nation, "led" by one who "was told by god to strike Muslim countries"

You are kidding right? Are you saying that Bush claims he was told by God to strike Muslim countries? Why do you believe this?

Would that include Hitler, the Christian?

Not true. Hitler attempted to appeal to Christians on occasion as a politician, but it is pretty clear that Hitler was not a religious man. I am not saying he was a resolute atheist, but his world view closest resembled nihilism.

Anyway, here is what Einstein had to say about the supposed murderous institution of the Church during Nazi Germany:

Being a lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks... Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.

As we can see, when deep religious convictions are centered on "love thy neighbor" instead of "kill the infidels", it can be a very good thing. However, because of today's pop-culture delusion, you would never know that the vast majority of Christians are actually trying to be good people.

EDIT: After further research, it does appear that Hitler felt he was doing God's work by wiping out the Jews. So I stand corrected. This is definitely an example of religion gone bad, a very dangerous thing.

However, to say Hitler was Christian is a stretch. Rather, it seems he re-invented Christianity to fit his goals and twisted views (the nazi "Positive Christianity").

 

[Aasimar]

You are kidding right? Are you saying that Bush claims he was told by God to strike Muslim countries? Why do you believe this?

And there's no doubt in my mind, when the United States acts abroad and home, we do so based upon values -- particularly the value that we hold dear to our hearts, and that is, everybody ought to be free. I want to repeat what I said during my State of the Union to you. Liberty is not America's gift to the world. What we believe strongly, and what we hold dear, is liberty is God's gift to mankind. And we hold that value precious. And we believe it is true.
-So, when we go into war, it is to enforce God's law, not America's interests? I see. I'm sure that Muslims won't interpret that as a call for a crusade. White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, Feb. 9, 2003

My president, who I didn't vote for, spoke for me. Apparantly I think Liberty is God's gift to man, and that value that I hold in my heart, is why America acts abroad to eliminate the evil terrorists. Of course I'm agnostic, but who am I to question the president.

But everyone knows Bush is a crazy quack, and our presidency is a joke, only men with money and power and interest in being corrupt could obtain it. Peace be with you.

 

[LeMaverick]

Replies in blue:

How is that not "convert by the sword"?

When a religion kills competing religionists and destroys their civilization the proper term is not "convert" it is "kill" or "destroy".

You are kidding right? Are you saying that Bush claims he was told by God to strike Muslim countries? Why do you believe this?

Bush made a statement to the effect, "God told me to strike Afghanistan and Iraq". How should one interpret that statement when the resulting wars are directed against Muslim countries?

As we can see, when deep religious convictions are centered on "love thy neighbor" instead of "kill the infidels", it can be a very good thing. However, because of today's pop-culture delusion, you would never know that the vast majority of Christians are actually trying to be good people.

IF "deep religous convictions are centered on 'love thy neighbor' instead of 'kill the infiedls' it can be a very good thing. However, there is no such centering. Religions compete with one another -- their followers do not love one another -- as evidenced by the religious battles in Iraq between factions of the same religion.

Christians have done exactly the same thing, making war on different cults or factions or denominations, for exactly the same reason -- religious differences.

IMO religious conflicts are the greatest stupidity of mankind -- because the fighting is about imaginary "beings".

If religions promoted peace and harmony I would be a supporter, though not a believer.

EDIT: After further research, it does appear that Hitler felt he was doing God's work by wiping out the Jews. So I stand corrected. This is definitely an example of religion gone bad, a very dangerous thing.

However, to say Hitler was Christian is a stretch. Rather, it seems he re-invented Christianity to fit his goals and twisted views (the nazi "Positive hristianity").

How does one determine if someone else is a Christian or not? By what criteria does one JUDGE? Who can claim to be authorized by god to criticize another person's faith?

 

[zenzero]

Friend Aasimar,
Wherever tyou are and whatever you feel is perfect. It has to be this way.
Each one has to start somewhere taking some point of view and that too is perfect.
Do carry on and you will find pointers and milestones along the way. Whichever way you read it it is fine as there is no place to go. No heaven, no hell. No god, no satan. this life too is doubted by some as nothing is permanent. Study any material object under some analytical instruments they are not solid but all moving particles atoms, neutrons, protons etc in a way all fast moving electricity or energy.
Our own body is also moving energy.
Scientifically all matters are neither created nor destroyed they only change forms. The body too does not destroyes it changes form which is evolution.
Love & rgds

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Bush made a statement to the effect, "God told me to strike Afghanistan and Iraq". How should one interpret that statement when the resulting wars are directed against Muslim countries?

Source?

IF "deep religous convictions are centered on 'love thy neighbor' instead of 'kill the infiedls' it can be a very good thing. However, there is no such centering. Religions compete with one another -- their followers do not love one another -- as evidenced by the religious battles in Iraq between factions of the same religion.

Christians have done exactly the same thing, making war on different cults or factions or denominations, for exactly the same reason -- religious differences.

IMO religious conflicts are the greatest stupidity of mankind -- because the fighting is about imaginary "beings".

If religions promoted peace and harmony I would be a supporter, though not a believer.

I have to admit that I am stunned by the crude generalizations here.

I hope that you will someday have more experiences with the church and people of faith that show you the tremendous amount of charity, solace, and support that often comes from religion.

How does one determine if someone else is a Christian or not? By what criteria does one JUDGE? Who can claim to be authorized by god to criticize another person's faith?

I cannot judge whether he is condemned or not, but I can classify his religion.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

My president, who I didn't vote for, spoke for me. Apparantly I think Liberty is God's gift to man, and that value that I hold in my heart, is why America acts abroad to eliminate the evil terrorists. Of course I'm agnostic, but who am I to question the president.

I am not interested in defending Bush, but that quote seems to be a far cry from "God told me to invade Afgahan and Iraq".

Suppose my boss says that it is company policy to be at work by 8:00 am, so then I punch someone for showing up late. Can I then claim that my boss told me to punch him? Of course not.