Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ghstofmaxwll

Are We Wrong To Hate Religions?

Recommended Posts

We have had religious influences in our past, and that influence has effected the behavior of a great number of people. Additionally, the religious moralities which have been taught are specific to the religions, and geatly rooted in the founders and stewards of those religions who spread them. We seem to agree here.

 

My only point is that morality in itself is not solely a religious concept, nor is religion the root or source of morality. Morality is instead a societal code with several manifestations and expressions, and is specific to the concept of society itself.

 

YT2095 also touched on this being beyond just a human phenomenon in his reference to wolves. I whole heartedly agree with that expansion of the scope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. Even so, I don´t know if this world would be a better one or not with no religion.

 

 

Define "better". One person's paradise is another person's hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask this question: How can you hate Religion?

 

Despite the very narrow view of a dictionary religion is just what you believe whether you can put a name to you beliefs is totally different. By saying your a christian you are putting a word to a catagory of people who share similiar beliefs. This is a called a religion. An athiest meaning "No God" means you put yourself into a catagory of those who BElIEVE there isn't a God. Therefore Atheism is also a religion, so basically everyone has a religion of their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An athiest meaning "No God" means you put yourself into a catagory of those who BElIEVE there isn't a God. Therefore Atheism is also a religion, so basically everyone has a religion of their own.

 

Stop with the equivocation already! It gets really annoying! Your post is like saying all Christians are Mormons. Atheism is no more a religion than A-astrology is a science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a system of beliefs, whether you like it or not, making it a religion. I know a lot of theology majors. Consequently, Atheism believe in a higher being, themeselves.

 

And how is it like saying all christians are Mormons? All Mormons are christian, well sort of not exactly.

 

Oh, I'd like to say something:

 

It's good to be back, guys. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a system of beliefs, whether you like it or not, making it a religion.
No. It's a LACK of a certain belief system. Maybe you should read this thread.

 

Consequently, Atheism believe in a higher being, themeselves.
Define "higher being" and prove that atheists believe this "higher being" is themselves.

 

And how is it like saying all christians are Mormons? All Mormons are christian, well sort of not exactly.

 

Because you are taking ONE TYPE of atheist and declaring that all are that one type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

athiest translated means that they don't believe in God or a god. A person may also have more defining factors, but by not believing in God that puts a definition on them as being an athiest.

 

Not believing is a belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not believing is a belief.

Oh?

 

I Zephram Cochrane statue in my closet. Before I typed that previous sentence, you had no concept of the Zephram Chochrane statue in my closet. Did you believe it existed? No? Does that mean you believed it didn't exist? Of course not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No but if I say I'm a non-believer of Yourdadonapogos having a Zephram Cochrane Statue in his closet. Then that puts me a catagory of religion those who believe as I do. Your using something that I never heard of. So therefore I didn't believe or not believe that it existed. You assumed that I didn't believe it existed, at least if "No?" was suppose to be "No.". I found a medium a state of unawareness. If you are confronted with this question. Do you believe in_____? You can not answer, because you don't know what ____ is?

There you don't believe or not believe in it. Ah, so here is something: if somebody doesn't know anything he can not have a religion. That is the only way I see that you cannot have a religion.

____=the action of not saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not believing is a belief.

 

A lack of belief is not a belief....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not believing is a belief.

 

I don't think you're trying to use it here as such, but this is a common argument used by anti-atheists in order to muddy the waters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

---------------------------

 

What would the world be like without religion?

 

Less War?

 

Stem cell research, cloning, genetic research in general would not be stymied so much?

 

A lot of people with nothing to look forward to after they die?

 

More war?

 

I think there would be both good and bad changes. The thing is, it's happening as we speak. Religion is dying. Oh it's still very much alive at the moment, but as we get smarter and figure more stuff out, the church is losing ground. I have no facts or figures to offer, but I'll bet there are more non-religious people on the planet now than EVER before (both numerically and per-capita)... maybe I'm wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Define "better". One person's paradise is another person's hell.

 

That´s true, despite I have my moral convinctions, I don´t believe in a single morality system so I am a moral relativist in this way. So, I can´t define better since it has a different meaning for each one, but I said that "I think" it would be better, and this is cause we don´t need religion no more, it was a very usefull tool in the past (to explain natural events, to base the social system, to build a morality...), nowadays we have other tools that work much better than religion, and by my experience it only produces friction in the society and make people blind of the real world.

 

It's a system of beliefs, whether you like it or not, making it a religion. I know a lot of theology majors. Consequently, Atheism believe in a higher being, themeselves.QUOTE]

 

What? Look, I am an atheist, and:

First: do not generalize saying that "atheist believe in a higher being, themselves", do you think is this a good hypotheys?

Second: I don´t believe me or the human kind is any higher being, and I don´t think atheist are either.

Third: I believe there´s a stone in my backyard, so, should I have a religion for that too? Everybody believe in things, what a new! But those are not religions. Your mistake is that you understood that "to believe in something" is the only thing you need to call something a religion.

 

A lack of belief is not a belief....

 

I agree with you, what a fake paradox!

Not being does not mean being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belief = God = No. This person believes there is no god; they believe in the lack of a god. Requires faith.

 

Belief = God = Yes. This person believes there is a god; they obviously do not believe in the lack of a god. Also requires faith.

 

Belief = God = I don't know. This person does not believe in god; they are not in a present state of belief that god = Yes. They also do not believe in the lack of a god; they are not in a present state of belief that god = No.

 

Fact is, some people don't want to admit the 3rd, non-religio scenario and continue to push the "not belief = belief" bit.

 

My answer is I don't freaking know if god exists or not, so like everything I can't verify it goes in the "I don't know" bin. There has to be a word for this, that everyone can agree on, rather than getting stuck in these semantics loops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don`t Quite see it like that, the question:"Would the world be a worst place without religions?"

 

I think the answer to that is yes and no. A world without religion would be free of the abuses of religious dogma. It would also be free of the moral foundation for much of the world. We would be without the positive and the negative effects of religious belief. I do believe that many of those that commit violence in the name of God would just find other reasons to justify their violence so freedom from religion wouldn't help us much there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Belief in God = No. This person believes there is no god; they believe in the lack of a god. Requires faith.

I challenge your first point. This person does not believe in god. That does necessitate a belief in no god (or lack thereof).

 

I don't believe in unicorns. This does not mean I believe in the lack of unicorns. Unicorns exist if only in concept, therefore, I don't believe in their "lack," but I also don't believe in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that Strong Atheism and Strong Agnosticism are religions (because they believe unproved things about God/gods), but not Weak Atheism or Weak Agnosticism. Also, if you spend time trying to "preach" it, it may be a religion. For SOME people, atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps but spending time mocking those that do collect stamps is a hobby. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I challenge your first point. This person does not believe in god. That does necessitate a belief in no god (or lack thereof).

 

I don't believe in unicorns. This does not mean I believe in the lack of unicorns. Unicorns exist if only in concept. I still don't believe in them.

 

Well, I meant to put it more like Belief = God = No. Meaning, belief that god = no. Nothing revolutionary here, just trying to avoid using any terminology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say that Strong Atheism and Strong Agnosticism are religions (because they believe unproved things about God/gods), but not Weak Atheism or Weak Agnosticism. Also, if you spend time trying to "preach" it, it may be a religion. For SOME people, atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps but spending time mocking those that do collect stamps is a hobby. :)

 

 

And... here we go... difffering opinions about what is and what is not a religion. Hence, closure of P&R forum, and enter Admins for similar action here before we spiral into the great disagreement.

 

 

Btw... no, it's not wrong to hate religions. Wrong is a subjective measure, and you can do whatever you want based on your own personal code of conduct. Hating religions does no harm to others unless you act on that hate in some way.

 

 

 

 

Well, I meant to put it more like Belief = God = No. Meaning, belief that god = no. Nothing revolutionary here, just trying to avoid using any terminology.

 

I appreciate your approach completely. I also agree that it's a lot of semantics, but that's really the root of these issues. What I ascribe the beauty of nature others ascribe to the omnipotence of god.

 

My take: Atheist = not theist. Theism supposes belief in god, so atheism supposes no belief in god. Simple enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say that Strong Atheism and Strong Agnosticism are religions (because they believe unproved things about God/gods)

 

A belief in something does not make it a religion. Would you call a belief in gravity a religion? A child's belief in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy? A skydiver's belief that their chute will open? I happen to affirmatively believe that there is not a chair in orbit around Neptune but I can't prove it. Would you call that a religion?

 

Religion is a belief system, not just a belief in something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Belief in God = No. This person believes there is no god; they believe in the lack of a god. Requires faith.

 

Belief in God = Yes. This person believes there is a god; they obviously do not believe in the lack of a god. Also requires faith.

 

Belief in God = I don't know. This person does not believe in god; they are not in a present state of belief that god = Yes. They also do not believe in the lack of a god; they are not in a present state of belief that god = No.

 

Fact is, some people don't want to admit the 3rd, non-religio scenario and continue to push the "not belief = belief" bit.

 

My answer is I don't freaking know if god exists or not, so like everything I can't verify it goes in the "I don't know" bin. There has to be a word for this, that everyone can agree on, rather than getting stuck in these semantics loops.

 

Hm, In a logic course I took, the teacher taught me that to negate a sentence in English, you can tack the phrase "It is not the case that ..." in front of it. This is because in English, it is not clear what is a negation and a correct negation could be interpreted differently, resulting in something not quite a negation.

 

For example, compare the phrases:

1. Jim believes in God.

2. Jim does not believe in God.

3. Jim believes there is no God.

4. It is not the case that Jim believes in God.

 

Statement 2 could be interpreted as statement 3 because of how the concept of "not believing" something is frequently used, even though it would be the most obvious negation. A more elegant negation might be, "Jim lacks a belief in God.", but that is not immediately obvious. The negation in statement 4 is crude, but effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My take: Atheist = not theist. Theism supposes belief in god, so atheism supposes no belief in god. Simple enough.

 

Sounds right to me. The first analogy that comes to mind is amoral = not moral, as opposed to anti-moral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't believe in unicorns.

I'd say my chartreuse-striped purple unicorn won't be very happy to hear that!

 

What would any of you say, do you s'pose, to God if you met him? Would you recognise who (or what) was in front of you?

 

Hate is a pretty strange beast. It's a feeling all humans can experience, but we tend to project it at something or someone, rather than see it for what it really is: something caused by an emotional (over-)reaction, and which should be controllable by an 'adult' person. Children will not learn this if adults don't do it (much)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A belief in something does not make it a religion. Would you call a belief in gravity a religion? A child's belief in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy? A skydiver's belief that their chute will open? I happen to affirmatively believe that there is not a chair in orbit around Neptune but I can't prove it. Would you call that a religion?

 

No, that is why I added that it would be an unprovable belief about God that made it a religion. That is, of course, neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to call something a religion, but I believe it applies to Strong Atheism, since they affirm that there is no god and are not willing to look at evidence to the contrary.

 

Religion is a belief system, not just a belief in something.

 

That is also not a good definition. Science is also a belief system; is science a religion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.