religion seems to be the atom-splitting of human thought. because it is a form, example, or product of thought, i defend it (because i defend my right to think.) that doesn't mean i'm right, it means i reserve the right to be wrong, so long as it does no harm.

a lot of evil has been done in the name of religion, leading many to believe that religion is evil. some examples of religion definitely are. like marx, i compare religion to drugs. most drugs (except the ones you need) are bad for you. this doesn't prove that any religions are good, nor that any drugs can't be bad for you.

still, i don't want to ban all drugs, and i don't think it's a good idea. for some people, marijauna does more good than harm, at least they think so. people suffering chronic pain may choose marijuana over something legal, like prescribed vicodin.

religion has many parallels here. most religion probably leads to problems, and is pretty powerful, dangerous stuff. but when people start talking about banning it just because it's not rational, i wonder when we decided that we'd only be allowed to take prescribed drugs or think rational thoughts. if i have an irrational thought, will it turn into a religion or start a crusade?

but if i'm going to defend any religious ideas, not as "truth" (i wouldn't bother trying) but as things that are safe for the average person to play with, i ought to at least point to where the lethal combination comes from. i believe it's fear. when people are afraid of hell, or of being excommunicated from their "extended family" (church, social group, etc) or of the wrath or revenge of church authorities, then religion *is* dangerous. but you can have most of those things (except perhaps hell, which is overrated) without religion, and you can also have religion without most or any of those things. when these things accompany (mix with) religion, as they often do, then it's easily bad.

if we're going to preach logic, then it's hypocritical to classify exceptions to our generazlizations unfairly. it's also based on fear of religion. without religious bigotry, there would still be bigotry. without fear of hell, there would still be fears that drove people mad. insanity wouldn't disappear. instead of unfair gods, we could still have imaginary authorities.

i don't believe in strong religions. i don't believe in religious authorities. i don't believe in vengeful gods. all these things make religion more dangerous. but if you're trying to make the world safer, you don't when you cast your net too wide, it ends up catching innocents. and while you may feel there are "no innocent religions," there certainly are innocent religious. drum up too much fear of harmless things, because they merely bear a resemblance to things that are dangerous, and you're committing one of the world's most dangerous fallacies. i do not think logic is the only thing thought is good for.

i value the imagination, and when you imagine enough, it takes you places that may not be as real as the present. like with drugs, you may occasionally lose your full perception of reality when the imagination is engaged. you may occasionally forget that "it's just your imagination." but under certain circumstances, that is not all bad. i am against the war on drugs, and for the same reasons, i'm against a war on religion. but i am not against sanity, or against trying to help people out of harmful addictions, including religious ones. **i simply do not cease to distinguish.** that would not be good, in my experience. if we truly believe in being rational and embracing reality, we will likely conclude that sometimes being irrational is harmless, and that at least some religion is safe. a crusade against crusades-that-aren't will only increase the number of crusades, and that can't be good, even if it's "rational."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2011 05:14AM by joesmyth.

You compare religion to drugs which is a pretty fair comparison except that all religion is bad for you and some drugs can be good for you. Religion is based on lies, deceit, money and control.
Sure there are religious folks who are wonderful people. That does not mean their religion is wonderful. I'd bet almost all of them do not practice their faith as prescribed either. If they did they wouldn't be such wonderful people.

I just do not believe that encouraging adults to believe in imaginary things is beneficial to emotional stability or well being at the very least and at the worst lots of ill treatment of women, gays, anyone different than they are, wars, bloodshed.....

It runs the whole spectrum but none of it is Good.

Of course we are all entitled to our opinions. With all my experiences with so so many different faiths and non denom- happy as clams orgs, I stand by my belief that reality is the healthier choice.

To each his own.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2011 05:31AM by rosyjenn.

"You compare religion to drugs which is a pretty fair comparison except that all religion is bad for you and some drugs can be good for you. Religion is based on lies, deceit, money and control."

obviously we disagree on the first point. not all religion is based on money (though it usually is) and not all religion is really capable of controlling (though much of it is) but that's still money and control that are the problems, which makes religion a problem when tied to those things. so we can say that if there is any such thing as a good religion, it's probably not tied to money or control. that discounts most religion (fine by me.)

as for lies and deceit, i'd lump those together for the sake of argument. you can tell someone else's lies without being deceitful, if you believe them, still that's **someone's** deceit, after all. whether they are lies depends on what the truth is, so i see it as an extension of your first point and something i already decided would be pointless for me to debate.

"Of course we are all entitled to our opinions."

but, that's the most important thing i'm saying. not that religion is good, but that we're entitled to our opinions. so on the most important point (imo,) we agree.

joesmyth wrote:

"Not all religion is based on money (though it usually is) and not all religion is really capable of controlling (though much of it is) but that's still money and control that are the problems, which makes religion a problem when tied to those things."

Hokay, so most religions are tied to money and control and are therefore problematic. Could you please identify the mere handfull that are not?

Timothy

i tried, but when i point out exceptions you seem to think they don't count.

people do turn every religion into a business. in many cases you can blame the sect or religion itself, no disputing that. in others, i firmly believe they didn't start as businesses or "scams" (as in: give us money.) taoism was one, buddhism another. neither one of us are religious historians though, are we going to pretend we are?

i don't think your claim is correct or factual.

you seem to think mine isn't. that's about all we've got there, unless we're going to do some serious research. then again, the claim that all religions are designed to fleece people of money was yours. i was responding to it. my claim was about isolating what makes religion destructive, which would include fleecing people of money. but most of the religion (the great bulk of it) i've explored hasn't fleeced me of anything at all. my own experience clearly doesn't count, but it counts to me.

joesmyth wrote:

"[B]ecause it is a form, example, or product of thought, [I] defend it."

Against what?

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2011 01:30PM by Timothy.

and no, i didn't narrow it down to two. i gave two examples. you're better than that.

All you've presented are eastern philosophies that most folks don't consider religions.

Timothy

"... except that all religion is bad for you"

You mean like "Thou shalt not kill", "Thou shalt not steal", "Do unto others ...", "Love thy neighbor as thyself", etc.? I know those teachings aren't unique to Christianity/Judaism or even religion in general and I know that morality/ethics is not dependent on religion, but it's also true that a lot of people's morals/ethics do stem from their religion. And it's not all bad. I know a lot of people who, while their religion may be ridiculous, are more moral and ethical, more caring about others, because of the religious teachings they are trying to live up to. Mormons included.

Are you seriously suggesting that these folks you know would have fewer or even no morals if religion was suddenly removed from their equation??

You have nothing to measure that against.

Timothy

Of course not! That's why I specifically said "I know that morality/ethics is not dependent on religion". I'm fully aware that an irreligious person can have morals and ethical standards. I'm suggesting that many people's definition of religion includes all of their own ethics and morals.

Stated another way I'm arguing that people like Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi and countless others throughout history (and still right now) were, and are, motivated (at least in part) BY THEIR RELIGION to do the good things that they did/do, and that the blanket statement "all religion is bad" is therefore demonstrably false. Not all religions are simply about making people believe stupid shit so they can take your money. Some are about treating your fellow man better (though there may still be some stupid and or silly shit thrown into the mix).

You wrote:

"I know a lot of people who, while their religion may be ridiculous, are more moral and ethical, more caring about others, because of the religious teachings they are trying to live up to. Mormons included."

As compared to what? ... Such statements imply that these folks you supposedly know would have fewer or no morals/ethics without religion. I don't buy that for a second.

You also wrote:

"Stated another way I'm arguing that people like Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi and countless others throughout history (and still right now) were, and are, motivated (at least in part) BY THEIR RELIGION to do the good things that they did/do, and that the blanket statement "all religion is bad" is therefore demonstrably false."

Funny that Mother Theresa admitted to being a non-believer, so you can toss her name out the window, while King and Ghandi were motivated by oppression which, by its very nature, breeds rebellion. Not very good examples.

And finally:

"Not all religions are simply about making people believe stupid shit so they can take your money."

As I axed the OP, could you please provide the identities of those religions that aren't? ... All he could come up with were eastern philosophies that are generally not considered religions.

Find me a faith based religion that isn't about money and control and I'll retract my position. Until that time comes, I'll maintain that no good can be derived from organizations that are built on fear inducing lies aimed at picking people's pockets.

In that regard, "all religion is bad" is quite demonstrable.

Timothy



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2011 09:00AM by Timothy.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2011 01:32PM by Timothy.

against idiots and unfair blame.

the thing is, atheism is fine. i was an atheist (strong atheist, firm belief in no god, rather than simple lack of belief in god) most of my life before joining the church in my teens. atheism never hurt me at all.

to me, atheism isn't arrogant, it isn't stupid, it makes good sense. when you add arrogance and zeal, atheism turns into the very thing i hate in christians. like christians, they act like morons because they "know the truth." in this case, they are far more likely to have the truth, but they use that to excuse the same stupid things: arrogance, zeal, self-righteousness. makes me sick.

so if i'm fair, i will separate atheism from those things, and since they exist without religion to create them, i will be fair and not blame them on religion.

but i get pretty tired of being called a "coward" or having my intelligence or sanity insulted just because i lean more towards agnosticism than strong atheism. and yes, some atheists are that obnoxious.

beliefs don't make you more intelligent. being right about something obvious doesn't make you more intelligent.

but i hate christians who act smug because they've accepted their version of reality and i haven't. that's no good reason for taking a crap on me or what i think, and neither is atheism. thankfully, most atheists (and theists) understand this just fine. but some are jerks, and they annoy me to no end with their insistance on superiority and "moral right."

that's what i'm against, as it's unjust and unfair. let's attack unjustness, unfairness, and arrogance and "moral superiority." if we blame them squarely on religion, we'll punish a scapegoat. whether the scapegoat is itself innocent or not doesn't change the fact that blaming the wrong things is logically flawed. it doesn't address the problems themselves, only one of many potential sources.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2011 01:33PM by joesmyth.

And who called you a coward?

I'd also like to know what you consider unfair blame.

BTW, only "idiots" defend the prophets and priests who invented the gods so that they might prey upon the fears of men.

Timothy

> And who called you a coward?
>
> I'd also like to know what you consider unfair
> blame.

no one here called me a coward, i've been called one before because i didn't "accept atheism" back into my life. you'd think atheists would shy away from shaming people into sharing their ideals.

"BTW, only "idiots" defend the prophets and priests who invented the gods so that they might prey upon the fears of men."

is that what i'm doing? are you calling me an idiot?

you've been more reasonable than others, so i'll wait longer to decide it's pointless trying to have a reasonable argument with you.

and yes, i am saying that "religion really isn't all bad" is a *reasonable,* *logical* argument. that is not of course, the same as saying religion is logical. (i don't think that would have a leg to stand on, but most people confuse the two.)

You said you were tired of being called a coward. Don't know who that was directed at, so let me show you how to leave no doubt.

Indeed, I am calling you an idiot and here's why:

When I asked what you were defending religion against, you wrote, "... against idiots and unfair blame."

Again, I submit that only "idiots" defend the prophets and priests who invented the gods so that they (prophets and priests) might prey upon the fears of men.

And, yes, that's what you're doing.

Just so you know, joesmyth, this ain't a real safe place to defend religion of any stripe. If you think religion isn't "all that bad" you might want to talk to the little girl who got lashed to death.

Or maybe the Fancher party.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2011 02:07PM by Timothy.

actually, i'm going to assume that your (sarcastic) position is the same as dave's, and apologize (in advance, now) if i'm wrong.

i will say this, based on that assumption: when you grow up, read this thread and ask yourself if what you were saying is better described as "reasonable," or better described as "giving someone crap because you already know you're right." it's not just right vs. wrong. it's what you do with that certainty that you are right. i'm not interested in being trolled by small people who know they're right. i don't know i'm right, but i have better things to do than be insulted for disagreeing.

because you know so much more than i do.

goodbye.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2011 02:01PM by joesmyth.

... its devilish hard to have an "adult" conversation with someone who defends the veracity of fairy tales just because people want to believe they're true.

When folks defend mormons by suggesting not all are bad, I wonder if they are referring to the same "goodly" mormons who pull the "yes" lever on ballot measures aimed at denying certain people basic rights.

Homophobia, for example, is a learned behavior. Religion teaches homophobia.

All in god's name, of course.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2011 07:50AM by Timothy.

as not being religions. They both have some more religious sects within them. But both are originally philosophies with only a very lose definition of "gods" within them.

I don't think of them as religions anyway.

If you are saying that belief in a god isn't inherently bad then I'll agree with you. A belief in a god doesn't equal religion though. Religions, to me, are the men who ascribe characteristics to this god to put fear, or comfort, in peoples minds. These characteristics are often really harmful to the people who are led to believe them.

That is why I feel completely comfortable in saying that all religions are bad.

Interesting discussion, and you are much calmer and more pleasant to talk to than most.

Neil Stephenson, in his cyberpunk science fiction novel Snowcrash, equates religion to a drug and a virus. Its an interesting, and at times satirical, read, and I highly recommend it if one wants to further explore this analogy.

Hmmm... I had to stew on this a bit.

Isn't sayin "religions destroy" like saying "guns kill"? Without human intervetion, neither is functional.

Just a thought.

Ron

Rather, True Believer-ism is the problem. True Believer-ism can be directed a myriad of ways, it's just that the supernatural claims made by religion are just more ripe for abuse than some other institutions. But True Believers in their particular political agenda can also be dangerous.

I think the problem comes, particularly with religion where it is more likely to happen, when the individual subverts their natural sense of right and wrong to the will of the group. If you can cross that barrier, and do something even though it violates your own conscience, then there is a serious problem.

Why is religion so susceptible to this kind of subversion, though? Particularly in Western Civilization. Is it because western Monotheism, almost without exception, demands obedience and subversion of the individual to the group?

Because it deals with the supernatural that any cockamamy claim can be made, left unverifiable, but still be accepted as "true"? This is a serious problem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2011 04:17PM by elee.