TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Religion sucks!
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Religion sucks!

Religion has a way of just fucking the world up good! Look around, most of the big issue have something to do with one religion not liking another, it makes me want to puke. In the famous words of Rodney King...."Why can't we all just get along?"

I think religion is ok as something to be inspirational about, as a set of guidelines to live ones life, but when people start using religion as an excuse to murder rape and pillage, that is when it goes wrong.

I think a few things that i personally think would help.

- I don't think anything should be done in the name of a god.

- Religious books shouldn't be taken so literally.

- Holy war is an oxymoron. Why would a creator want its disciples to kill each other?

- People switch religions like they switch old tennis shoes. People should realize that all religion is worshipping the same thing, the creator of everything, whatever that is.

- Killers need to stop thinking that god let them kill people, eg. "god willing we will stop the infidels". With free will comes the responsibility of living with the consequences of being free.

Religion is problematic in my view because it fundamentally indicates a failure to use good decision-making skills on certain issues. When this is accepted as normal, or even positive, it is natural that those same irrational decision-making methods will be used to make decisions about all matter of things: including whether or not you should blow yourself up and kill a bunch of innocent people.

The problem, as I see it, is thus. In order to believe in any religion you must either:

1. Actually believe that facts and reason dictate that your religion is the best possible guidebook to living a good life, and/or is the most plausible explanation of the origins of the universe as we perceive it.

or

2. Choose arbitarily to have "faith" in the religion based on irrational means of decision-making, such as emotions.

The former indicates a dangerous level of intellectual incompetence, and the latter indicates a dangerous level of intellectual laziness. In both cases, there are serious flaws in the series of decisions which led up to the individual choosing to believe in a given faith. This should not be looked upon as acceptable. Rather, society should seek to eradicate this type of poor decision-making in favor of basing decisions on informed factual analysis using valid deductive and inductive reasoning skills. Under such conditions, religion could not survive.

I think that, basically, the problem behind religion is its organizational aspect. If religion were allowed to be a "free-flowing" though process, there would be less problems. However, as Arbiter pointed out, religion is flawed because it does not leave room for decision-making skills. I think if religion were less institutionalized, people would like it better. No one likes to be told what to do, and this is part of the problem with religion.

My view: Multiple religions in the world are fine, and the problem is that one religion sometimes tries to push its beliefs onto another. My rabbi tonight said something tonight that I thought fit this perfectly, and he said something like people should not have to feel they need to convert someone thinking they are not worshipping God the correct way. Various cultures pray/chant/worship/etc. in different ways, so as long as God allowed those people to be created there is no need to "save" them.

Brainwashing at it's finest

religion has both positive and negative aspects, but when it turns to fanatism, it's REALLY bad as with most everything that goes overboard

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Religion is problematic in my view because it fundamentally indicates a failure to use good decision-making skills on certain issues. When this is accepted as normal, or even positive, it is natural that those same irrational decision-making methods will be used to make decisions about all matter of things: including whether or not you should blow yourself up and kill a bunch of innocent people. The problem, as I see it, is thus. In order to believe in any religion you must either: 1. Actually believe that facts and reason dictate that your religion is the best possible guidebook to living a good life, and/or is the most plausible explanation of the origins of the universe as we perceive it. or 2. Choose arbitarily to have "faith" in the religion based on irrational means of decision-making, such as emotions. The former indicates a dangerous level of intellectual incompetence, and the latter indicates a dangerous level of intellectual laziness. In both cases, there are serious flaws in the series of decisions which led up to the individual choosing to believe in a given faith. This should not be looked upon as acceptable. Rather, society should seek to eradicate this type of poor decision-making in favor of basing decisions on informed factual analysis using valid deductive and inductive reasoning skills. Under such conditions, religion could not survive.

I agree for the most part, but I think you've overlooked another possiblilty. It could be rational for someone to believe in god/religion if all the evidence they've been exposed to supports that conclusion. Not everyone has the priviledge of education, the internet, or other sources of information outside their family or social circle. Although I feel sorry for these people, there probably exists a substantial amount outside of developed/developing countries.

quote:

Originally posted by .montecarlo. I agree for the most part, but I think you've overlooked another possiblilty. It could be rational for someone to believe in god/religion if all the evidence they've been exposed to supports that conclusion. Not everyone has the priviledge of education, the internet, or other sources of information outside their family or social circle. Although I feel sorry for these people, there probably exists a substantial amount outside of developed/developing countries.

You make a good point, but lack of educational opportunity isn't a good thing, either. So it would still hold that wherever religion is found, there is a serious problem underlying it.

Re: Politics sucks!

quote:

Originally posted by hooknife Politics has a way of just fucking the world up good! Look around, most of the big issue have something to do with one political world view not liking another, it makes me want to puke. In the famous words of Rodney King...."Why can't we all just get along?"

Ya I agree.




edit: bah notice I changed his words above

quote:

Originally posted by sisterbliss religion has both positive and negative aspects, but when it turns to fanatism, it's REALLY bad as with most everything that goes overboard

That's true. It's true for every religion. I like to assume that anything that has both a negative and positve aspect was created by the human mind and not by some outer powerful divinity, assuming there is one. Thinking that way eliminates any type of respect for every religion. But the followers are still respected.

*shrug*

If you take away religion people will just find new ways to be stupid ...

My distate for religion is not derived from antithapy towards the concept of religion itself, rather it comes from the realisation that religion is where the majority of the idiots congregate.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider *shrug* If you take away religion people will just find new ways to be stupid ...

And consider that religion is intended to bring mankind a sense of guidance and purpose to our lives on Earth. The human being is himself a contradiction, with man the brain is a wonderful yet dangerous instrument.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan And consider that religion is intended to bring mankind a sense of guidance and purpose to our lives on Earth. The human being is himself a contradiction, with man the brain is a wonderful yet dangerous instrument.

i agree...i do not see any religion that asks you to push ur views on everyone else and fight anyone that is not of ur own religion..people use religion as an excuse to gather support or volunreers for a certain cause...we as humans fuck the world over and in some cases we use religion as an excuse...

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Religion is problematic in my view because it fundamentally indicates a failure to use good decision-making skills on certain issues.

Religions didn't come out at random, and I'd say that in its origin (i.e. fundamentally) it's one of the most important things to society as a whole.

Unlike you said, it doesn't indictade the failure to use decision-making skills, but rather passing on the knowledge from previous generations, which was essential for their survival. Take the 10 laws (?) from Catholicism: they're basically a moral guidance that looks after the maintance of order and society.

1) Don't love other gods, just one
2) Don't say God's name in vain
3) Remember to Santify the 7th day

- This is Machiavel's (sp?) thoughts applied to Christianism (means justify ends). The existence of a God, in which all followers believe, would be a common characteristic between them, and the fear of being punished by this god would only strengthen this bond (reason why he's "almighty"). Notice that, unlike other labels like ethnicity or nationality, foreigners can follow that same religion you do and, by doing this, they're assimilated by that society as he's bound to accept their rules and behave according to them. Obviously, people do have the mental capacity of making choices, but since we all see the world differently, chances are that there'll be too many different opinions, which may lead to internal conflicts that may weaken that society.

4) Honour your parents

- Once again, something used to value society.

5) Don't kill
6) Don't steal
7) Don't wish other people's things
8) Don't lie

- Some more other laws created on behalf of order. Self-explanatory.

9) Don't commit adultery
10) Don't wish someone else's wife

- Monogamy is an important foundation of our society, as it's been interesting to our survival as well. Obviously, poligamic societies exist, but when they do, they usually accept it because of a specific reasons (e.g. societies in which wars are common, are bound to accept the fact that a man can have more than one wife, as there are fewer men). In fact, even in some societies where poligamy is accepted, it's often not recommended (such as Islamic societies).

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter When this is accepted as normal, or even positive, it is natural that those same irrational decision-making methods will be used to make decisions about all matter of things: including whether or not you should blow yourself up and kill a bunch of innocent people.

Keeping in mind that, as occrider said, "if you take away religion people will find new ways to be stupid", corruption of relgion, which leads to its failure, is to blame. Distortions and fallacies can be used by sly leaders in order to have their commands/dictatorship easily accepted. All those actions you've mentioned are based in the basic instict of self-defense, but done in a desperate way. Instinct themselves are not rational in most occasions.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The problem, as I see it, is thus. In order to believe in any religion you must either: 1. Actually believe that facts and reason dictate that your religion is the best possible guidebook to living a good life, and/or is the most plausible explanation of the origins of the universe as we perceive it. or 2. Choose arbitarily to have "faith" in the religion based on irrational means of decision-making, such as emotions.

Hypothesis #1 doesn't indicate a "dangerous level of intellectual incopetence" but simple herd instict, which is not necessarily linked to ignorance. In fact, herd instinct does have its advantages, such as unity and community strength. Besides, every cultures tends to have an ethnocentric/egocentric behaviour (e.g. a Nepalese may claim Nepal is the best country in the world even if he's never been abroad), so it doesn't disappear.

As for the second hypothesis, even if one accepts the belief in God as an irrational decision, it doesn't necessarily means it's fruit of intellectual laziness. My own father is a very logical person, yet he believes in God according to many things that do make sense - although I don't agree with him, I can't say he's lazy. As a matter of fact, superstitions are better examples of "intellectual laziness" then religion.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Rather, society should seek to eradicate this type of poor decision-making in favor of basing decisions on informed factual analysis using valid deductive and inductive reasoning skills. Under such conditions, religion could not survive.

Yes, it could. Not only there are religions that support research and doubts (such as Buddhism), these debates would, at most, correct any flaws, but since they're not made only of disadvantages, they would have their foundations re-formulated, but not extinguished. A complete de-construction of religious beliefs would lead to an incomplete nihilism (as we all belong to a culture) that would bring different issues and that would probably soon fall. Neither a completely emotional behaviour, nor a strictly intellectual view would lead to a better society, as they're both extreme attitudes.

QQ

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Religions didn't come out at random, and I'd say that in its origin (i.e. fundamentally) it's one of the most important things to society as a whole. Unlike you said, it doesn't indictade the failure to use decision-making skills, but rather passing on the knowledge from previous generations, which was essential for their survival. Take the 10 laws (?) from Catholicism: they're basically a moral guidance that looks after the maintance of order and society.

I'd say religion passes along more ignorance from one generation to another than it does knowledge. Consider the continued existence of creationism - in that case, it isn't knowledge which is being passed down, it's incorrect facts. While myths and fables may have one day been useful in society, I think that time has passed.

quote:

1) Don't love other gods, just one 2) Don't say God's name in vain 3) Remember to Santify the 7th day - This is Machiavel's (sp?) thoughts applied to Christianism (means justify ends). The existence of a God, in which all followers believe, would be a common characteristic between them, and the fear of being punished by this god would only strengthen this bond (reason why he's "almighty"). Notice that, unlike other labels like ethnicity or nationality, foreigners can follow that same religion you do and, by doing this, they're assimilated by that society as he's bound to accept their rules and behave according to them. Obviously, people do have the mental capacity of making choices, but since we all see the world differently, chances are that there'll be too many different opinions, which may lead to internal conflicts that may weaken that society.

Although this might appear to be a benefit, I don't agree. From a theological standpoint - everyone who doesn't think the same way is wrong, and people who behave differently should be punished into conformity. Contrastingly, from a secular point of view, while you may disagree with someone's beliefs or actions, you ought to tolerate them unless they bring harm to others.

In other words, instead of trying to batter society's deviants into submission with threats and punishments in an ultimately futile attempt to make everyone the same, we could put forth only loose guidelines of conduct - increasing the chance that someone who is different can find a harmless or even useful niche in society instead of wasting our efforts trying to change them.

quote:

4) Honour your parents - Once again, something used to value society.

There's nothing wrong with honoring your parents, but there are plenty of sound, logical reasons to do it as opposed to basing your decision on contrived rules handed out without justification or evidence of their supposed divine origins.

quote:

5) Don't kill 6) Don't steal 7) Don't wish other people's things 8) Don't lie - Some more other laws created on behalf of order. Self-explanatory.

Again, equivalent or greater order can be created simply by following a few utilitarian principles. Religion is a superfluous institution in this endeavor.

quote:

9) Don't commit adultery 10) Don't wish someone else's wife - Monogamy is an important foundation of our society, as it's been interesting to our survival as well. Obviously, poligamic societies exist, but when they do, they usually accept it because of a specific reasons (e.g. societies in which wars are common, are bound to accept the fact that a man can have more than one wife, as there are fewer men). In fact, even in some societies where poligamy is accepted, it's often not recommended (such as Islamic societies).

While there is no doubt about the prevalence of monogomy, I'm not sure it is either important to our society or our survival. In fact, from an evolutionist's standpoint, it certainly doesn't help our survival. If one is to believe evolution, then the best way to ensure the continuation of the species is to maximize the genetic diversity of your species. As a result, it's usually better to have children with different parents instead of several children with the same parent - as more combinations of genetic characteristics are created.

While I've said before I don't believe that evolution any longer applies to humanity, it did until fairly recently, and still may in parts of the world. In any case, I fail to see any objective benefits from polygamy or monogamy, so I don't see that as an important societal goal. It should be the concern of the individuals involved, and no one else.

quote:

Keeping in mind that, as occrider said, "if you take away religion people will find new ways to be stupid", corruption of relgion, which leads to its failure, is to blame. Distortions and fallacies can be used by sly leaders in order to have their commands/dictatorship easily accepted. All those actions you've mentioned are based in the basic instict of self-defense, but done in a desperate way. Instinct themselves are not rational in most occasions.

I don't necessarily disagree that people will find new ways to be stupid, but I think they could be less harmful than religion. Given that the origin of religion was to ensure the authority and power of a few, and to maintain order in society so as to preserve that authority, it is not only likely, but certain that religion always will be distorted by its leaders to manipulate the followers into doing what the leaders want. That's just the nature of the beast: if you don't like that, then you don't like religion.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there's no such thing as an instict of self-defense which tells you to blow yourself up. Blowing yourself is the ultimate failure of self-defense because you die. The reason that people choose to blow themselves up is because they've learned from their religion that trivial matters like logic and reason shouldn't interfere with blind belief in silly ideas like martyrdom.

quote:

Hypothesis #1 doesn't indicate a "dangerous level of intellectual incopetence" but simple herd instict, which is not necessarily linked to ignorance. In fact, herd instinct does have its advantages, such as unity and community strength. Besides, every cultures tends to have an ethnocentric/egocentric behaviour (e.g. a Nepalese may claim Nepal is the best country in the world even if he's never been abroad), so it doesn't disappear.

Herd instinct is a prime example of intellectual incompetence. If you aren't capable of deciding for yourself, then why not just follow what a bunch of other people think? If you were intellectually competent, and you had access to just a little of the modern knowledge about the world, you wouldn't decide to follow blindly, you would decide to examine the evidence yourself and come to your own conclusions. Unless, of course, you were just lazy...

quote:

As for the second hypothesis, even if one accepts the belief in God as an irrational decision, it doesn't necessarily means it's fruit of intellectual laziness. My own father is a very logical person, yet he believes in God according to many things that do make sense - although I don't agree with him, I can't say he's lazy. As a matter of fact, superstitions are better examples of "intellectual laziness" then religion.

I suppose there are a few other explanations. It's possible that he's insane, or that he doesn't realize that his basis for belief is irrational. I'm interested in what you think distinguishes superstitions from religion, however. To me, religion is just a complicated set of superstitions.

quote:

Yes, it could. Not only there are religions that support research and doubts (such as Buddhism), these debates would, at most, correct any flaws, but since they're not made only of disadvantages, they would have their foundations re-formulated, but not extinguished. A complete de-construction of religious beliefs would lead to an incomplete nihilism (as we all belong to a culture) that would bring different issues and that would probably soon fall. Neither a completely emotional behaviour, nor a strictly intellectual view would lead to a better society, as they're both extreme attitudes.

I don't agree because I think you give emotions credit for being more than they really are. Emotions are a tool for measuring whether or not some thing threatens, is neutral to, or reinforces our already existing prejudices. If something threatens our prejudices, we feel "bad" emotions in response to it, whereas if something reinforces our prejudices we feel "good" emotions in response to it. The intellect can examine emotions and decide whether or not they are worthy of consideration - but emotions cannot examine intellectual information, other than to tell you whether or not it is in tune with what you already believe. These beleifs, however, weren't established by emotion to begin with, but rather were the products of intellectual development (either rational or irrational). So whether we like it or not, we are always strictly intellectual - that is the only place beliefs can come from.

Well this is promising ...

quote:

New Survey Shows Sharp Increase in the Number of Americans with No Religious Identity Study also finds that many raised with multiple religions have no religion as adults. SAN FRANCISCO, CA, September 21, 2004 When asked to name their religion, sixteen percent (16%) of American adults, or 34 million people, now decline to choose a church or denomination, up from less than ten percent (10%) in the early 1990s. That is, nearly one in every six Americans now answers �none� or �no religion,� or describe themselves as secular, humanist, ethical-culturalist, agnostic, or atheist. Furthermore, at 16%, non-identifiers make up the third largest religion-defined group in the country, trailing only Catholics (24%) and all varieties of Baptists (17%), according to a new report, �The Decline of Religious Identity in the United States,� released by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research. Dr. Gary A. Tobin, the president of the Institute and author of the study, along with Sid Groeneman, explained the significance of the survey: �Although it is too soon to know if this evidence will mark the start of a long-term trend�or exactly what the decline implies�if it persists, these numbers clearly contradict the notion that all Americans are becoming more religious. While some Americans are becoming more religious, a significant number are moving in the other direction.� Tobin speculated that there may be long-term political implications of the move away from religion, since �other research shows that less religious individuals tend to be more liberal and moderate politically.� The trend seems especially strong among the young. Fully one-quarter of 18-24 year-olds fail to identify with some religion, compared to only 5% of those 65 and older. This pattern persists steadily across the age spectrum. Commented Tobin: �Some of these young people may identify with a religion when they are older and some may not, especially those raised in households where more than one religion is present.� Consistent with the popular belief that children of mixed-marriage parents raised in multiple religious traditions are less likely to maintain any religious orientation as adults, the survey indicates that fully 26% of those with multiple religious origins are current non-identifiers. Among those raised in a single religious tradition as children, in contrast, only 11% have become non-identifiers as adults. Gender and geography are also associated with the tendency to identify with a religion. Women are less likely to be non-identifiers (13%) than men (20%). Regionally, persons living in the West are more likely than those in other areas to be non-identifiers: 24% of Westerners vs. 14% of those in other parts of the country identify with no church or denomination. Only residents of the six New England states come close to Westerners in their rate of non-identification (21%). Those who do not affiliate psychologically with a religion are far from being purely �secular.� More than one-third of them (36%) reported attending a religious service in the past year. About one-quarter (26%) said they probably or definitely expect to take up a religion sometime in the future. Fewer than half of this group (45%) are current service non-attenders and also do not plan to adopt a religion in the future. Commented Tobin: �Many in the group we�ve labeled �non-identifiers� could also be characterized as �unsettled� in their religious identity − some of them searching or experimenting with religious practices and belief systems. How many of them will find a suitable fit and how many will continue to seek and sample is impossible to guess.� The findings cited in this release come from a national survey conducted for the Institute for Jewish & Community Research, a San Francisco-based independent research organization devoted to ethnicity and religion and to the study of contemporary Jewish life. The Institute provides social science and policy research to Jewish groups, philanthropic organizations, and to the general community. The survey consists of 10,204 telephone interviews using randomly generated phone numbers in the Continental U.S. The survey was conducted in the second half of 2001 and the first half of 2002. Percentage estimates based on the full sample are accurate within 1%. Estimates based on a subset of the full sample (e.g., males, persons living in the West, etc.) carry a wider margin of error and depends mainly on the segment size. As in all surveys, other factors besides the sample size and design can affect the accuracy of the results. http://www.jewishresearch.org/v2/20.../9_21_04PR.html

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well this is promising ...

Promising? PROMISING?!? It only further demonstrates the coming of Armageddon, you foolish heathen!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Promising? PROMISING?!? It only further demonstrates the coming of Armageddon, you foolish heathen!

I've long thought of that day. What would the world be like with all the fundies gone? I hope there's a cure for most sexually transmitted diseases by then because I have a funny feeling that casual sex is going to be on the up and up.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Promising? PROMISING?!? It only further demonstrates the coming of Armageddon, you foolish heathen!

Oh my.

quote:

Originally posted by hooknife Oh my.

Don't "Oh my" me you infidel! Only in the depths of hell incarnate will you understand the power of thy Maker. The time is short. Repent, or face eternal damnation!!!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Don't "Oh my" me you infidel! Only in the depths of hell incarnate will you understand the power of thy Maker. The time is short. Repent, or face eternal damnation!!!

You are exactly the problem I speak about in my opening post. I have an idea for you....why don�t you go and hide and some cave somewhere and kill everybody who doesn�t believe in what you believe. You are a fundamentalist freak! Oh my.

quote:

Originally posted by hooknife You are exactly the problem I speak about in my opening post. I have an idea for you....why don�t you go and hide and some cave somewhere and kill everybody who doesn�t believe in what you believe. You are a fundamentalist freak! Oh my.

I will pray for you. I will pray very, very, hard. I hope someday you will repent before Judgement Day.








































*****yank, yank*****

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I will pray for you. I will pray very, very, hard. I hope someday you will repent before Judgement Day. *****yank, yank*****

Thanks for your thoughts and prayers.

FAQ's about God

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.